USFWS Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee Synthesis Workgroup, or Drafting Subcommittee – 6th Draft

Thanks to Art and Pam Dodds for alerting us to the availability of the 6th Draft of the USFWS Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (which follows the text), and for providing us their introductory comments.  The Dodds are highly regarded for their contribution to a better understanding of the impact of industrial wind on the environment.

Comment begins:

We have provided public comment to the committee and we have provided additional written comments for several committee meetings, emphasizing that their basis is incorrect. We have researched the history of each member and have determined that all the members, except possibly one, promote wind energy. Some of the members are aware of the environmental problems which result from wind energy, but they are receiving research money from wind companies.

Additionally, in the first meeting, Dr. Paul Cryan of the USGS provided evidence that male bats have a mating behavior in which they fly to the highest tree. (His PowerPoint presentation is linked here for your convenience.)The male bats evidently regard the wind turbines as the highest tree and they fly upward, being slaughtered by the blades.  Please see, especially, page 67 of Dr. Cryan’s presentation and please note that the narrative is in the upper left corner if you point your “mouse” arrow on the icon on the slide.

Arthur and Pamela Dodds

Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D., is a Registered Professional Geologist who has worked as a geologist/hydrogeologist for the Virginia DOT, Virginia DEQ, and an environmental firm near Bristol, Tennessee.  She has concentrated on groundwater contamination investigations and is currently conducting hydrological investigations in watersheds which will be impacted by industrial-scale wind turbine projects and by extensive high voltage transmission lines.  Dr. Dodds is also certified by the West Virginia DNR as a Master Naturalist.  Mrs. Dodds serves as Treasurer of the Laurel Mountain Preservation Association.

Arthur W. Dodds, Jr., is a professional cartographer who worked for NOAA as a supervisor managing the instrument approach procedures charts for airports throughout the U.S.  His credentials include training and management concerning the heights of objects which could impact flight patterns; electromagnetic field impacts on RADAR; and viewshed analysis.  Mr. Dodds is also certified by the West Virginia DNR as a Master Naturalist.  Mr. Dodds serves as President of the Laurel Mountain Preservation Association.

Note to readers:  Please write to the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee to let them know their work is being monitored by people who understand that their basic premise is incorrect.

Send comments to the attention of:

Rachel London
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 840
Arlington, VA  22203

Phone:  703-358-2161
rachel_london@fws.gov

6th Draft follows:

View this document on Scribd

OPEN LETTER TO THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY Re: CAPE WIND

OPEN LETTER TO THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

December 22, 2009

RE: ‘National Audubon Society Shows Support for Wind Power’

http://www.enxco.com/article_audubonsociety.php

An open letter response to the National Audubon Society:

National Audubon’s shameful pandering to the wind industry is punctuated by President John Flicker’s remarks in ‘National Audubon Society Shows Support for Wind Power’: “When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them,” he said.”

Contradicting John Flicker is the federal regulator participating in the offshore Cape Wind NEPA environmental review; and in the ESA Section 7 permit review process of Cape Wind, US Fish and Wildlife Service. New England FWS comments to lead federal Minerals Management Service MMS on the project draft EIS state the Adaptive management effective monitoring techniques ”simply do not exist” to count Cape Wind produced avian carcasses.

Yet, the condition of MA Audubon’s “support“ for Cape Wind is the permitting agencies’ acceptance of AM Adaptive Management monitoring and mitigation-handled by contract.

NEPA analysis should avoid taking on a project advocacy position.  Accordingly, the condition of MA Audubon’s “support” for Cape Wind signals the corruption of the NEPA environmental review process in which MA Audubon is involved.  Even more troubling is that MA Audubon’s Cape Wind support condition is “doomed to failure” according to the federal regulator with purview over the endangered species.

“In his column, Flicker noted how Mass Audubon, an independent state Audubon organization in Massachusetts, recently completed an extensive review of the Cape Wind project, a study that “set a new standard for analyzing the potential effects of wind turbines on birds.”

National Audubon President John Flicker lauds MA Audubon for setting “…a new standard for analyzing the potential effects of wind turbines on birds.” Yet, MA Audubon’s approximate $8 million dollar, future contract condition of “support” for Cape Wind, calls for the implementation of effective techniques that “simply do not exist” according U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that has purview over the endangered and migrating species present in Nantucket Sound.

Taber Allison and Jack Clarke of MA Audubon state in their “Challenge” press release: “Monitoring and mitigation should be funded by Cape Wind with contributions from independent institutions and government agencies as appropriate“.

Indeed.

While Mr. Flicker emphasizes the importance of prudent siting, the Cape Wind project is imprudently sited in an Important Bird Area, and migratory flyway with endangered species present.  MA Audubon sets the table for immitigable harm to endangered and migratory wildlife by offering their “support” of Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound, and with the unfortunate blessing of National Audubon.  The new standard set by MA Audubon ignores Best Science that states to avoid siting wind turbines in IBAs, migratory flyways, and in areas where endangered species are present, perfectly describes Nantucket Sound.

MA Audubon’s Dr. Taber Allison has flatly denied MA Audubon’s testimony to federal regulators on bird kill by Cape Wind by his 8/30/06 published statement, “Mass Audubon scientists have never concluded that up to 6,600 birds, or any number of birds, would be killed if this project is permitted…”

As the President of Mass Audubon, Laura A. Johnson, submitted Mass Audubon’s comments on the Cape Wind DEIS on February 23, 2005:  “By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year.”

I wonder how many National or MA Audubon members understand that their dollars support the practice of killing then allegedly counting dead birds in an Important Bird Area and migratory flyway, with endangered species present.

Implementing techniques that ”simply do not exist” to count Cape Wind produced avian carcasses for profit strikes me as an easy but repugnant way to earn a living; while courting extinction and the wind industry, Mr. Flicker.

It begs the question, “Who Is supporting bird life?”

Sincerely,

Barbara Durkin

Northboro, MA  01532

Supporting Evidence:

‘Alameda County approves new bird-monitoring contract for Altamont Pass wind Turbines’

http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_9962700

Upper Cape Codder: 4/20/06 (MA Audubon’s “Challenge” press releases)

Allison & Clarke: Challenge to Cape Wind: Get it right
By Taber Allison and Jack Clarke

“Mass. Audubon challenges the developer of Cape Wind and its PERMITTING AGENCIES TO ACCEPT comprehensive and rigorous MONITORING AND MITIGATION CONDITIONS that will reduce the risk to birds and other wildlife. IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE ADOPTED and remaining significant data gaps are addressed, MASS AUDUBON WILL SUPPORT CAPE WIND, the largest, clean, renewable-energy project in the Northeast.

We also propose adoption of an Adaptive Management Plan that includes a rigorous monitoring program beginning at the construction phase and continuing for at least three years post-construction, mitigation measures in the event that the project results in significant adverse environmental impacts, compensation for the use of public lands and waters and enforceable procedures for decommissioning any abandoned turbines.

An independent panel should be responsible for collecting and analyzing data collected during monitoring and preparing reports for peer review and dissemination to relevant agencies, Cape Wind and the public.

Finally, an independently administered mitigation fund should be established for conservation of bird habitat around Nantucket Sound. MONITORING AND MITIGATION SHOULD BE FUNDED BY CAPE WIND with contributions from independent institutions and government agencies as appropriate…” [cut]

Mass Audubon’s testimony on Cape Wind to the USACE:

The President of Mass Audubon, Laura A. Johnson, submitted Mass Audubon’s comments on the Cape Wind DEIS on February 23, 2005; to Ms. Karen Kirk Adams, the Cape Wind Energy Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District — Reference File No. NAE-2004-338-1, EOEA No. 12643:

“By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year.”

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf

Mass Audubon’s testimony on avian mortalities by Cape Wind to the USACE is denied by Dr. Taber Allison of MA Audubon:

SouthCoastToday: 8/03/06 LTE-Letter writer gets bird facts wrong by Taber Allison of Mass Audubon: ‘Letter writer gets bird facts wrong’

“Barbara Durkin repeatedly misquotes our public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Study for the proposed Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound as she does most recently in her July 26 Letter to the Editor. Mass Audubon scientists have never concluded that up to 6,600 birds, or any number of birds, would be killed if this project is permitted…”

The consequence of lacking transparency in the Cape Wind review process is potential extinction:

Cape Cod Times 4/22/08

Roseate terns: ‘On the brink of extinction’

“The roseate tern is listed as endangered, but we believe it is on the brink of extinction,” said Jack Clarke, public policy director for the Massachusetts Audubon Society.” Cape Cod Times 4/22/08.

Mass Audubon comment to the USACE on the Cape Wind DEIS:

“This area of Nantucket Sound is within the eastern U.S. migratory bird flyway and hosts high concentrations of wintering waterfowl, and is in close proximity to nesting, foraging and staging areas for federally endangered roseate terns and threatened piping plovers. Substantial numbers of federally endangered sea turtles and protected marine mammal species frequent the proposed project site. In addition, the proposed site provides habitat for federally regulated finfish and shellfish populations.”

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf

Mass Audubon:

“First, for some avian species, such as the Roseate Tern or Piping Plover, a single death as a result of the project could be regarded as an unacceptable level of impact under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.”

Mass Audubon on the Roseate Tern:

“In 2001, 1,826 pairs of Roseate Tern, representing half of the entire North American Population of this species, nested in Buzzard’s Bay. During the breeding season the adults of this species are known to forage heavily between Wood’s Hole and Nantucket. From July to September even a higher percentage, perhaps as much as 75% of the entire North American population stages at the following beaches in Nantucket Sound—South Beach, Chatham; Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, Chatham; Great Point, Nantucket, Cape Pogue, on Martha’s Vineyard, and a variety of smaller beaches between Hyannis and Mashpee.”

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/
advocacy/editorial/MEPA_windfarm.pdf

April 21, 2008 USFWS provided to Dr. Cluck, Cape Wind Project Manager of MMS, this comments on the Cape Wind MMS DEIS:

“The current framework that MMS is proposing would forgo refinement of pre-construction study protocols and set in motion an adaptive management process that would be doomed to failure because effective techniques to perform post-construction monitoring simply do not exist.”

Best Scientist Donald Michael Fry, PhD Director, Pesticides and Birds Program
American Bird Conservancy:

“We may never know what the magnitude of the problem will be at Cape Wind, because the monitoring planned for the project is inadequate.  The radar studies conducted by Cape Wind were inadequate.  The Fish and Wildlife Service review of the project and of MMS PEIS was quite critical.”

Cape Wind draft EIS NE USFWS comments continue:

“With respect to natural resources for which Fish & Wildlife Service is responsible, we find that there is considerable need to correct inaccuracies, explain inconsistencies, clarify ambiguities, fully articulate the limitations of the available science, and reach logical conclusions about the extent of impacts or the inability to predict them in the absence of information,” said Michael Bartlett, supervisor of Fish & Wildlife’s New England field office in Concord, N.H.”

“The Draft Environmental Impact Statement repeatedly and inappropriately draws conclusions regarding anticipated environmental impacts, or lack thereof, in the absence of important site-specific information on natural resources in…Nantucket Sound.” Chief among these are migratory birds and the benthic and pelagic resources the birds depend on.”

CAlifornians for Renewable Energy President-Michael Boyd:

“The Cape Wind project is sited over water so there is no way to quantify the impact of wind turbines on avian species because we have no way to count bird and bat carcases like we do in the Altamont Pass California where the turbines are over land. This also means that adaptive management will not work since we have no way to gage the impact of mitigation measures for these wind turbines.”

By Chris Metinko, Inside Bay Area 4/24/07 (answering, Who is Michael Boyd?)

“A lawsuit filed against the county in October by the Golden Gate Audubon Society, Californians for Renewable Energy and four other local Audubon chapters challenged the county’s decision o renew permits for Altamont Pass wind turbines. A subsequent settlement forces the wind industry to commit to a 50 percent reduction in raptor deaths by November 2009, and remove the deadliest turbines and continuing winter shutdowns of the wind machines.” [cut]

Minerals Management Service FY 2006 Cooperative Conservation Project’

“Project Title:

Cape Wind Energy Project

Examples of Key Partners

Cape Wind LLC, State of Massachusetts, Cape Cod Commission, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, and the U.S. Minerals Management Service.”

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/PDFs/CooperativeConservationReport2006.pdf

————————————————————————————————————————–

US Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Environmental Assessment Branch (MS 4042)

381 Elden Street

Herndon, VA 20170

Re:  Comments on the Cape Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement, January 2008

Dear Minerals Management Service:

“Mass Audubon thanks the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Minerals Management Service (MMS) for the opportunity to comment on the Cape Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), January 2008.

Mass Audubon has previously and formally commented to the federal government on an earlier DEIS for this project and issued a Challenge Proposal to permitting agencies and the applicant on the same (citations below).”

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/advocacy/MMS_DEIS_MAS_Comment.pdf

editor BJD note: this document provides a chronology of MA Audubon’s involvement in the review of Cape Wind and in the creation of wind energy regulations.

———————————————————————————————————————————

Position Statement on Wind Energy Development

John J. Clarke, Director of Advocacy May 12, 2003.

“Mass Audubon Involvement”

“Mass Audubon has submitted comments to federal, state, and local agencies and project proponents in response to several wind energy projects including the Cape Wind project, and we will continue participate in the environmental review and permitting processes.”

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/advocacy/Windpower2.pdf

————————————————————————————————————

Boston Globe

‘Get balance right with Cape Wind’

By Laura Johnson  | April 9, 2006

“THE FEDERAL review of the proposed Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound will set the standard for future offshore wind projects in the United States, so it is important that we ”get it right.” Renewable energy will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and combat global warming, which, if unchecked, will lead to rising sea levels, and may one day wash away coastal habitat and popular beaches.”

“While the Massachusetts Audubon Society recognizes the need for ”green” energy, no purpose is served if the project causes greater harm than good. Mass Audubon has taken a leadership role in analyzing the potential environmental impact, with particular attention to the birds that live in the sound’s Horseshoe Shoal or fly through this area.”

“After five years of project review, including three years of ornithological fieldwork, we released Mass Audubon’s Challenge, a detailed set of standards that will guide our final review of this important project…”

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/09/get_balance_right_with_cape_wind/?p1=email_to_a_friend

———————————————————————————————————————————

“Mass Audubon is one of many who have and will continue to comment on one of the most important, precedent-setting renewable energy projects in the nation.  As one of the largest conservation NGO’s in the Northeast, MA Audubon will continue to be involved in the public environmental review of this project, especially its avian aspects.”

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/capewind/MAS-TheChallenge-3-06.pdf

————————————————————————————————————

Best Science:

The Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for siting wind towers in 2003:

“–Avoid placing turbines in documented locations of any species of wildlife, fish, or plant protected under the ESA.

– Avoid locating turbines in known local bird-migration pathways or in areas where birds are highly concentrated, unless mortality risk is low (e.g., birds rarely enter the rotor-swept area). Examples of high-concentration areas for birds are wetlands, state or federal refuges, private duck clubs, staging areas, rookeries, roosts, riparian areas along streams, and landfills.

– Avoid known daily-movement flyways (e.g., between roosting and feeding areas) and areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, low cloud ceilings, and low visibility.”

(Avoid siting wind turbines in Nantucket Sound in other words)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Feds comment on Ocean Plan : Martha’s Vineyard Times : December 17, 2009

MA Audubon’s Jack Clarke is appointed by Governor Patrick as Advisor on the environment.  Mr Clarke is helping to create the state Ocean Plan that Fish and Wildlife Service said lacks details on protected species.

Feds comment on Ocean Plan

Plan lacks details on protected species

“…Thomas R. Chapman, FWS New England Field Office supervisor, included the criticism in a seven-page letter, dated Nov. 23, to Deering Babb-Brott, assistant secretary for oceans and coastal zone management in the state Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA).

“Overall, we find the concept of the Plan to be valuable and timely,” FWS said. “The Plan is essentially a zoning map for the offshore waters under the state’s jurisdiction.”

But FWS found the plan lacking in detail, particularly with respect to laws and federal requirements in place to protect migratory birds…”

MA Audubon should be disqualified an MMS identified “Key Partner” and participant in the Cape Wind NEPA environmental review process.  As they have undermined the NEPA review by offering their “support” of the Cape Wind project as they are involved in the project permit review process.

(COURTESY OF JON BOONE)

“Firewood”

An oldie but still a goodie:

It’s late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold  or mild.

Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn’t tell what the winter was going to be like.

Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared.

But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, ‘Is the coming winter going to be cold?’

‘It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,’ the meteorologist at the weather service responded.

So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.

A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. ‘Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?’

‘Yes,’ the man at National Weather Service again replied, ‘it’s going to be a very cold winter.’

The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.

Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. ‘Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?’

‘Absolutely,’ the man replied.  ‘It’s looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we’ve ever seen.’

‘How can you be so sure?’ the chief asked.

The weatherman replied, ‘The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy.’

Camp Allegheny – Preparation for December 22 Hearing – Update

From Brightside Acres:

Update on December 22 Hearing

Monday December 21, 2009

A whole lot besides really bad weather has happened since December 14.

Today, Virginia State Corporation Commission Hearing Examiner, Alexander Skirpan held a “telephonic pre-hearing conference” pursuant to a Ruling he issued December 17.

Read the Ruling.As a result of today’s conference, SCC sources indicate that tomorrow’s hearing will be an extremely brief establishment of the facts of the case between the Department of Historic Resources and Highland New Wind Development, whereupon the Hearing Examiner will request both parties to submit written briefs in lieu of making oral arguments. The hearing will be webcast at 10:00 am EST via http://www.scc.virginia.gov/case/webcast.aspx

Serious winter weather has made it physically impossible for Brightside to attend the hearing—perhaps just as well, under these new, ever-surprising circumstances.

Let’s attempt to decipher what’s occurred…

The Hearing Examiner’s December 17 Ruling was made in response to Highland New Wind’s “Answer to the Motion for Hearing” Read The Motion for Hearing
and “Motion for Summary Judgment” Read The Motion for Summary Judgment,
both filed on December 14. As well as the Defendant’s “Motion to Certify Issues to the Commission and for an Ore Tenus Hearing” filed on December 16. An Ore Tenus Hearing is an oral hearing. Read The Motion for an Ore Tenus Hearing.

Several aspects of HNWD’s recent filings are instructive.

The dismissive and disrespectful tone of each of these missives speaks for itself.

In summary, HNWD contends that “the Director of the DHR has exceeded her jurisdiction by seeking monetary compensation from HNWD for the alleged visual impact of the project.”

HNWD contends that, because “Camp Allegheny lies entirely in Pocahontas County, West Virginia…DHR does not have the jurisdiction nor the authority to seek mitigation of an alleged impact to this site, because it is not one of the Commonwealth’s significant historic, archaeological, and cultural resources. Further, the Commission lacks authority or jurisdiction to impose conditions pertaining to sites outside the Commonwealth.”

Furthermore, HNWD asserts that “The powers expressly conferred upon DHR do not include the ability to require monetary payments. In fact, the powers expressly conferred upon DHR do not include the ability to consult or coordinate with a developer regarding a project, or to require any type of mitigation related to that project’s alleged impact on historic resources.”

HNWD insists not only that the entire matter of “viewshed” was settled law when Highland County issued a Conditional Use Permit, and cannot, therefore be legally addressed by the SCC, but that no law related to the preservation of historic properties applies to their project.

HNWD is not denying that they will adversely impact a historic property. They fully know that they will. They are simply insisting that no law requiring historic preservation prohibits such destruction.

And, perhaps, given the narrowest interpretation of current laws designed to protect sites on the National Register of Historic Places, HNWD is correct.

But just because it’s technically legal, doesn’t make it right.

This is why Americans consider the Law as a living body, a living organism that adjusts, and often expands, to address society’s interests.

To this end, DHR’s “Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” submitted via the Attorney General’s office on December 17, is quite encouraging.

Read DHR’s Response.DHR contends that the agency’s interests in preservation of historic resources are in no way limited to those resources located within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Since officials in West Virginia have no authority to dictate how HNWD operates in Virginia, it devolves to Virginia officials to insure that a national historic resource, located in West Virginia yet within the “viewshed” of HNWD, is properly considered and protected.

DHR further states that HNWD has “consistently, and, one must again assume, deliberately misrepresented DHR’s request for mitigation as a demand for payment of money to DHR. At best, this must be considered a gross misrepresentation of the facts. DHR has never demanded that any sum be paid to it directly for any mitigation measures nor has it ever suggested that such an action would constitute appropriate mitigation.”

The final paragraph in DHR’s response deserves a careful, deeply appreciative reading: “In fact, HNWD has gone so far as to say that any amount of money spent on mitigation measures that was not diverted from a previously committed amount would be unacceptable to the project’s finances. This statement must necessarily call into question the financial viability of the project as a whole. In this regard, of course, it must be noted that HNWD has expended substantial resources to resist meeting its consultation obligations under the Final Order. If resources are available to resist DHR, one wonders why those assets could not have been devoted to working with DHR towards a viable solution.”

One is tempted to believe that the Hearing Examiner wonders the same thing.

Perhaps we’ll find out tomorrow.

Camp Allegheny – Defining The Public Interest

From Brightside Acres:

Defining The Public Interest

Monday December 21, 2009

On March 1, 2007, the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) Hearing Examiner submitted a Report to the Commissioners wherein he made the following finding: “Construction and operation of the proposed facility (Highland New Wind Development) will not be contrary to the public interest.” In their December 20, 2007 Final Order, the Commissioners concurred.

Commonly accepted definitions of “the public interest” include “the common well-being,” “the general welfare,” “the common good,” and “the interests of the community as a whole.”

Seeking clarity regarding not only the legal definition of “the public interest,” but also its practical meaning when applied to real-world circumstances, should be of utmost importance to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) in their up-coming deliberations regarding Highland New Wind Development’s compliance with their Final Order.

One could argue that nothing more nor less than “the public interest” is essentially what’s on trial.

Very Important Questions

Will the SCC consider “the public interest” as somewhat more multi-dimensional than “the goal of advancement of competition and economic development in the Commonwealth”?

Will the SCC recognize that this broader view of “the public interest” has never been fully considered, much less fully protected in this particular compliance process?

Will the SCC acknowledge the fact that, perhaps unique to their experience in dealing with electric utilities, Highland New Wind has simply refused to abide by the conditions set forth in their Final Order?

Will the SCC do the right thing and withdraw their approval until such time as Highland New Wind proves compliance with those conditions? (Proof of compliance being defined as mitigatory action satisfactory to the consulting regulatory agencies named in their Final Order, such as the Department of Historic Resources, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of the Interior, etc.)

Or, will the SCC define “the public interest” and their role in safeguarding it as narrowly as the law allows?

A Disfunctional Process

The SCC is not, essentially, an investigative or enforcement body. The SCC relies upon the quality of information presented by the utility seeking approval and the quality of evaluation provided by the consulting regulatory agencies charged with reviewing them. It would seem that the SCC is predisposed, both by influence of Virginia Code and past experience, to presume that all parties are acting in good faith.

For example, the December 2007 Final Order accepts the “validity” of the Conditional Use Permit issued by the Highland County Board of Supervisors in regards to “property values, tourism, viewshed, height restrictions, setbacks, lighting, color of structures, fencing, security measures, erosion and sediment control, signage, access roads, and decommissioning” eventhough such permit was issued without benefit of a site plan.

The Final Order lists six specific Department of Environmental Quality recommendations as “a requirement of our approval herein,” yet includes no provision for verifying that Highland New Wind has met them.

Read the Final OrderThe first recommendation, “Submit Final Site Plan to Reviewing Agencies” (page wasn’t met until August, 2009.

The second recommendation, “Coordinate with DHR for guidance…” is the matter currently at trial.

And three of the four remaining recommendations (page 9) are under intense public scrutiny pending direct agency action (by the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Interior, or the US Fish and Wildlife Service) to insure Highland New Wind’s compliance.

If the agencies named do not take action to insure compliance with their own recommendations and thus the protection of “the public interest,” then the people are left no recourse but to take action to preserve our common inheritance.

In the case of Highland New Wind, the SCC approval process has been based on a presumption of good faith that has thus far been proven erroneous.

The SCC doesn’t seem particularly designed to handle such unpleasantness.

Thus the most important question of all: Will the SCC interpret the Virginia Code in such a way that it denies or confirms a multi-dimensional commitment to “the public interest?”

Will the SCC dare to address a problem like Highland New Wind? Or will the Commission deny such problems exist?

A legal definition of “the public interest” rests on their decision.

********

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

“Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” – Executive Summary

Thanks to our friends at the excellent resource, Wind Concerns Ontario, for linking us to the Executive Summary of the new book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment“, published by Dr. Nina Pierpont, MD, PHD.

Wind Concerns Ontario states they will “be distributed to medical professionals throughout Ontario.“  Let’s support them by doing the same in the States.

View this document on Scribd

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of 41 Citizen’s Groups from across 27 Counties/Districts in Ontario.  Drop by and visit!

Please note:  The book is available at the Author’s web site: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/

Quantity discounts apply

• 1-7 books, $18 per book + shipping
• 8-15 books, $17 per book + shipping
• 16-23 books, $16 per book + shipping
• 24 and above, $15 per book + shipping

Are Renewable Energy Credits a modern day snake oil?

Letter to Editor at Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News awaiting publication – “Renewable Energy Credits” – Jon Boone

Letter begins:

Submitted December 14, 2009

An organization known as Clean Currents, run by Washington DC wind salesman Gary Skulnik, is selling snake oil to Marylanders in the form of Renewable Energy Credits—hoping that electricity consumers will purchase them in the expectation they will be saving the planet by allowing wind generation to reduce their consumption of carbon dioxide, a surfeit of which some think is precipitously warming the globe. The logic is that if a wind turbine spins in skittering ways that ultimately produces 1000 kWh of electricity (Maryland households use about 13,000 kWh of electricity annually), an REC is created, allowing those who purchase it, in this case the duped consumer, to believe he or she is offsetting “1350 pounds of CO2″ that ostensibly is emitted by a coal unit not operating because it is displaced by the wind energy.

There is, however, no actual measurement that validates such a proposition.

Simply because a wind turbine spins does not mean it is saving any CO2. Or that it is even displacing fossil fuel. It could be displacing hydro–or even nuclear–which emit no carbon dioxide. More likely, it’s displacing natural gas units that produce half the CO2 coal does. Even if it does displace natural gas–or coal– the volatile wind energy must be followed and balanced by fossil-fired units that are themselves emitting CO2 in a highly inefficient manner; the consequent heat rate penalties produce a lot of CO2. The REC does not account for these emissions.

Clean Currents also states: “The more clean renewable energy from sources like wind power or solar, the less power generated from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) represent the environmental attributes from 1000 kilowatt hours of clean energy!”

Unless Skulnik’s organization provides realtime chronological load dispatch analyses at 15-minute intervals showing how all the thermal variables perform in any wind integration scheme, it cannot substantiate its claims about how wind is offsetting carbon emissions in electricity production. The burden of proof is also on Clean Currents to demonstrate that less power is generated by fossil fuels specifically because of the presence of wind energy. Such proof does not exist. Skulnik’s RECs are the contemporary equivalent of the church indulgences once sold to hasten the exit of souls from Purgatory.

When salesmen, using tax laws and interstate commerce, cannot substantiate their claims for service, law enforcement should be compelled to prosecute for fraud.

Jon Boone, Oakland Maryland

Letter ends.

Jon Boone is an Environmentalist, Artist, Author, Documentary Producer, Former University Administrator and Formal Intervenor in Wind Installation Hearings.

“Wind farms vs. property values” – join the discussion.

An interesting interchange about the impact of industrial wind on property values courtesy of the Missouri Ruralist . Join in the discussion at the link!

Blog post begins:

Wind Farms vs. Property Values
Posted on December 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM
While pictures of windmills make great bumper stickers, the prospect of having a horizon full of actual wind turbines pop up in front of your picture window might have you worried about property values. A new study says “Don’t be!” The Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory just released a study showing proximity to wind energy facilities does not have a “pervasive or widespread adverse effect” on the property values of nearby homes. The study, which LBNL says is the most comprehensive and data-rich analyses to date on the potential impact of U.S. wind projects on residential property values, looked at 7,500 home sales near wind farms. Researchers studied homes located within 10 miles of 24 existing wind farms in nine states; the closest home was 800 feet from a turbine. Each home was visited to collect on-site material (as in, “Are wind turbines visible?”) Sales from 1996 to 2007 were analyzed over a period from the wind project’s announcement to well after its completion and full-scale operation. Consultant Ben Hoen, who worked with LBNL on the project, said: “Neither the view of wind energy facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities was found to have any consistent, measurable, and significant effect on the selling prices of nearby homes. “No matter how we looked at the data, the same result kept coming back — no evidence of widespread impacts.” That said, we’d like to hear from any of you who have had negative or positive effects from new wind installations in your area. Send your comments to: dcrummett@farmprogress.com.

Comments
Posted by d. crummett on December 17 at 9:06 AM Dear Dan: Thank you for your piece on the LBNL study that evaluates the impact of wind turbines on property values. My organization was one of the 20 or so reviewers of the study. You might be interested in the time line for the Hoen report. In 2006, Ben Hoen completed a master thesis that looked at the impact of the Fenner NY wind turbines on surrounding properties values. His thesis can be found here: http://www.windaction.org/documents/3236 . Within months of obtaining his masters, Hoen and Wiser teamed up, and since June 2007 Hoen has been broadcasting the results of this latest study even though no data or information on the study was available for others to read and challenge. In the two years leading up to the December 2 release, Hoen distributed his findings to largely friendly crowds and those more interested in the outcome of his study than the legitimacy of his methodology. Our comments as submitted to Hoen can be read here: http://www.windaction.org/documents/24178 . We worked closely with an appraiser experienced in regression analysis and hedonics in developing our comments. Given the flaws in Hoen’s approach, we are confident that a qualified appraiser with experience in regression techniques and the problems of hedonic analysis will effectively counter Hoen’s conclusion. You may be interested to know that neither Hoen or the others who were part of his research team have any experience in real estate appraisals or the correct application of regression techniques for determining house value. Lisa Linowes executive director www.windaction.org
Posted by d. crummett on December 16 at 3:41 PM This from a Chicago-based real estate appraiser who has dealt with wind-energy installations and property values: Dear Dan:. I have pretty extensive experience in evaluating wind farms from a real estate value and land use (zoning standards) compatibility perspective, and am fairly well versed on many other issues. However, I do not claim to be an acoustic engineer, medical expert, bird expert, etc. On other real estate valuation cases, I have qualified as an expert witness and testified in court and zoning hearings in 20 states, about 200 times, in both state and federal courts over the last 20 years. With wind farm matters, I have worked on behalf of neighboring home owners and some (non-participating) land owners on 8 projects thus far, and have consulted with concerned residents of perhaps a dozen other projects.  I have also testified at the zoning hearings on these (8) matters, and have reported my findings to the various County Board and ZBA representatives:  25% property value reductions in the “footprint” of the projects and up to about 1 mile out, in some cases. Dr. Nina Pierpont is an M.D. who is heavily involved and experienced in evaluating medical issues.  Her recommendation is that turbines should be sited at least 2 miles (or is it 1.5 miles + ?) from the nearest dwelling.  This recommendation comports pretty well with property value impact avoidance as well.  Rick James is an acoustic engineer based in Michigan I have worked with, who is very well versed on noise issues and standards. The LBNL study (see Figure ES-1) shows a 5% reduction in values within 1 mile of the projects, and that is based upon the LBNL report author’s statistical analysis of 128 sales in that particular distance zone. The author’s claim that is “statistically insignificant”, but admit to me that they believe there are some impacts…just not significant from a statistical analysis perspective (under the parameters they selected).  The report, however, leads the reader to a different conclusion.  My review takes exception with that disproportionate relevance, and I will forward that document to you shortly. I can assure you, the impacts that the nearest people claim are real, and not just “NIMBY” extremists opposed to everything. I have spoken with residents who are experiencing the sleep deprivation and agitation from the vibro-acoustic effect of living near the turbines.  Industry, of course, minimizes all such complaints and claims there is no scientific proof.  Click the link at the top of the “primer” I emailed to you, and you will see reams of information and study results that pretty well confirm how disingenuous developer claims and dismissal of neighbors’ complaints really are. I am not anti-wind energy, mind you.  I just firmly believe the rush to meet renewable energy goals is resulting in numerous mistakes, the price for which is being and will continue to be paid by existing residents who do not have the financial resources to fully investigate the issues, and have their rights and interests represented on a “level field” with the deep-pocket developers.  I am in business to make money too, but I pro-bono cut my normal rate in half for the citizens groups, in order to help level that very field.  My review of the LBNL report is not on behalf of any client, and the work was completed for no compensation.  For whatever its relevance, the LBNL study cost $500,000, per media reports. Sincerely, Michael S. McCann McCann Appraisal, LLC Chicago, Illinois

Blog post ends.

Industrial windplants in Western Maryland? Jon Boone says Garrett Countians “deserve far better.”

With Mr. Boone’s permission, we post his letter to the Editor, which is currently awaiting publication at the Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News.

Letter begins:

Garrett’s commissioners were the LAST agency to oppose massive wind projects on public lands, well after Senator Edwards, the Chamber of Commerce, the county Board of Realtors, and both the Democratic and Republican committees. They did so begrudgingly. From the beginning, the commissioners sought to become business partners with a limited liability wind company, browbeating the Sanitary Commission to change its mind about permitting wind projects on county land (a move helped at the time by Denny Glotfelty, who served on the Commission). Indeed, when the original agreement with the Sanitary Commission was about to expire a few years ago, Ernie Gregg signed a longer-term extension. The public record shows that Fred Holliday chaired an economic development committee (that included developer Karen Myers) on wind and public lands. This committee stridently urged that wind projects be built on state lands.

The county commissioners unanimously supported all three limited liability wind projects targeting the county, including the new Synergics project along Roth Rock a few months ago, a project headed by a fundraiser for the state Democratic Party who worked, with wind lobbyist Cas Taylor, to pass a law “deregulating” the wind industry in the mountains of Maryland–but not along the Chesapeake Bay, the state’s richest wind area. This law predictably now subverts another law requiring the state through its Department of Natural Resources to protect endangered wildlife species, an issue rightly identified by the Republican.

Last year, the commissioners insisted that the county development plan include language about the importance of wind technology in the county, despite not having a clue about its performance as a source of energy. Not once in eight years of cheerleading for wind have they held a public inquiry about the impact of massive wind projects on health, safety, property values, viewshed protection, revenue potential, vulnerable wildlife, hunting, or energy effectiveness.

Their trollish support for this daffy, environmentally treacherous technology is a shameful commentary about how poorly led this beautiful county is. Both their pretentious words and harmful actions join with the Obama Administration as it attempts to make people believe, across many issues, that pigs can fly.

Garrett Countians know better—and deserve far better.

Jon Boone, Oakland, MD

Letter ends.

Jon Boone is an Environmentalist, Artist, Author, Documentary Producer, Former University Administrator and Formal Intervenor in Wind Installation Hearings.

Related posts:  “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Industrial Wind and the Environment” … “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Toward a Better Understanding of Industrial Wind Technology“

“The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington – a review

Thanks to Mr. Glenn Schleede for allowing us to post his review of “The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington, for the benefit of our readers.

We provide the text of Mr. Schleede’s review for your convenience below, but recommend you proceed to MasterResource, a comprehensive and informative blog dedicated to analysis and commentary about energy markets and public policy, as they also published Mr. Schleede’s review but with additional information about the book.  Please make your way to MasterResource via this link:  “”The Wind Farm Scam” by John Etherington (the UK environmental civil war builds)“

Review begins:

Ladies & Gentlemen:

It may be a bit too late to obtain copies of the new 198-page book by British ecologist, Dr. John Etherington, “The Wind Farm Scam,” as Christmas gifts for your friends, but it’s well worth getting (and giving) copies of the book as soon as you can secure them.

Stacey (UK) is the publisher.  It’s available in the US via the Internet from Amazon for $14.00, Books-A-Million for $16.15 and Borders for $17.95.  (Barnes & Noble apparently haven’t awakened yet.)  The ISBN is 9781905299836.  It took about 10 days to get the book from Amazon but that time probably will shorten as knowledge of the book gets around and orders flow in.

The book should be required reading for every high school, college, and university student — especially in those institutions offering energy and environmental programs.

While written in the UK, most of the facts about “wind farms” are applicable worldwide.  It explains wind energy and its limitations and environmental insults in easily understood terms  It explains why wind will never provide a significant, reliable source of electricity.

As in the US, “wind farms” are being built in the UK primarily because of government fiat and huge government-forced subsidies, not because of their true environmental, economic or energy benefits.  Apparently the tax breaks and subsidies in the US are even more attractive than those in the UK since two major oil companies, BP and Shell, have pulled out of UK “renewable” energy programs with the intent of focusing their attention (and renewable rent seeking) on the US and Canada.

Personally, I found Dr. Etherington’s well research and clear-headed discussion of wind energy a very welcome relief from the wind energy madness now underway in the US.  For example:

a.  Decisions by the wizards of the US Department of Treasury and Department of Energy to give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to firms (mostly foreign) for ”wind farms,” allegedly to promote job creation and economic activity — even though many of the “wind farms” had already been built!!!  (These wizards also continue to ignore the fact that a huge share of “wind farm” capital investment dollars for turbines, towers and blades — flow to other countries.)

b.  Continued promotion by the US DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE) and the National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) of a fundamentally flawed economic model that allegedly identifies the Job and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) of “wind farms” – thus misleading local government officials and citizens who are called on to accept the massive, low energy producing, environmentally disruptive facilities.

c.  Extraordinary expansion of tax breaks (PTC, ITC, 5-Yr.-200% DB accelerated depreciation, bonus depreciation)  and subsidies (direct cash grants in lieu of PTC; more money for DOE-EERE and NREL wind energy “R&D” and propaganda) for “wind farms” as a part of “stimulus” bills enacted during the past year — all at the expense of US taxpayers and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will be saddled with the massive, rapidly growing national debt resulting from irresponsible actions by Congress and the last and current Administrations.

d.  The DOE sponsored “study” that purports to show that 20% of US electricity requirements could be supplied by wind energy by 2030 – a clear demonstration that most any outrageous, preconceived notion can be “proven” if one makes the ”right” assumptions and ignores reality.

e.  The recent release of a fundamentally flawed DOE-Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) ”study” that defies common sense and real life experience by using large amounts of poorly selected, inapplicable, and inadequate data — hidden behind seemingly sophisticated statistical techniques — in an attempt to support a preposterous claim that ”wind farms” do not adversely affect the property values of the people who find themselves living in the shadows of the massive, noisy structures.  (The LBNL report has numerous “sound bites” that will undoubtedly be used by aggressive “wind farm” developers to confuse local government officials and ordinary citizens who will never have the time to find their way through the report.)

End review.