West Virginia PSC rules in favor of wind developer. What’s next for citizen group?

When local citizens formed the Allegheny Front Alliance to fight the proposed industrial wind installation on Green Mountain above Keyser, WV, I suspect they knew it would be a difficult task.  After all, the primary source of information about wind energy provided to the community was, and remains the heavily funded wind industry lobby.  Promises of jobs and tax revenue certainly attracted interest among local folks.

Politicians, with little interest in the science of energy production, swallowed the hype and found themselves compelled to encourage and fund development while, in many cases, local press outlets simply replicated, without challenge, the wind industry’s boilerplate claims.  Some local politicians couldn’t seem to control their enthusiasm and felt it necessary to speak  out as private citizen and implying the power of the office they held was behind them.  Others simply gave up!

The decision to deny the AFA appeal reached … well, at least published yesterday by the WV PSC, effectively ending their role in this matter, comes as no surprise to this writer.  With the push coming from the legislature and Governor Manchin’s office to meet the artificial political goals they themselves set for renewables, these quickly assembled wind contraptions are an obvious choice.  They go up fast with a highly rated MW capacity providing the advocates with a “pat on the greenback” Kodak moment.

Unfortunately, the same crowd doesn’t gather later to question the actual output v nameplate capacity results which, by any measure, is dismal.  The US wind industry finds protection in the haze of a complicated grid reporting scheme and the proprietary claims made by the developers, supported by state and federal legislators, many of whom receive rather attractive campaign contributions from the wind lobby.  Plus, it’s much better to claim that “we installed 57.5 MW of capacity” than try to explain that “it was necessary to install 23 turbines to achieve the output of 6.”  Someone might ask you to explain why you needed to cover all that ground and air space to get so little.

And the Commissioners?  What I wrote about the original ruling seems to stand today: “the WV PSC decision was, in my view, merely a punch on the free ride ticket to approval wind developers might come to expect from the current political structure in the State of West Virginia.  Perhaps that is why I felt no surprise when the ruling was announced.  So, at least to me, to focus now on the WV PSC would be a waste of energy (no pun intended).  As with all good soldiers, the marching order is determined elsewhere.”  No need to dwell on these folks, there off to other work.  Sampling some of their commentary in the latest ruling is interesting, however.  So we may visit that later in another post.

The real focus must be on our legislators.  It seems of little significance to these folks that the renewable goals they established will be achieved only by stringing hundreds or thousands of the 747 size rotating beasts along the ridges of the Appalachians resulting is a devastatingly negative cumulative impact to the migratory flyway and the habitat for wildlife.  The impact resulting from this misguided effort will only be known once the carcasses are counted and the numbers are noticeably diminished.  Is it really possible we’ve elected a group to represent us that cannot comprehend this serious concept?

I suspect the goals of the AHA have not changed.  Having grown from small beginnings they now partner with a large and growing consortium of like minded citizens groups willing to insure the wind business is ended.  I’ve learned in my journey from advocate to opponent over the last year that wind is a foolish venture.  It is a high cost – little reward scam enriching investors and developers and providing little of value to the consumer.  As Jon Boone, a frequent contributor to AT so aptly states, “This wind business is simply an Enron legacy, posing as an energy source to mask its true function as a corporate tax shelter generator.”

And what will the Allegheny Front Alliance do from here?  I suspect, as this project develops, there will be much more to discuss.  There are still events to witness and questions to answer before the 23 Green Mountain eagle choppers are ready for the first erratic breeze.  And one thing I’ve learned growing up in this area, “getting to Pinnacle Knob is no easy climb!”

AT Note:  This blog does not speak for the Allegheny Front Alliance.  We do welcome their commentary as we encourage all readers to participate.  These are my thoughts and mine alone.  It’s always good to get that out of the way.

We do encourage the AFA and any interested group wishing to provide their thoughts on what I write here to do so in the comment section.  We’re happy to accommodate.

Posted in Allegheny Front Alliance, Appalachian Mountains, Archives | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

WV Public Service Commission denies petition to reconsider, authorizing Pinnacle Wind Force LLC to proceed with Mineral County, WV facility.

“The Commission denies a petition to reconsider its Order authorizing Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC to construct and operate a $13 1 million wholesale electric generating facility, including about 23 wind turbines (the Project), on Green Mountain in Mineral County, West Virginia.”

We provide, for your convenience, the full text of the ruling just received:

Posted in Allegheny Front Alliance, Archives, Pinnacle Wind Force LLC | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Perhaps Secretary Salazar should name the Cape Wind project in honor of Andrew Jackson.

Two days ago, before Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved the Cape Wind project, I posted this:  New York Times resolves Cape Wind dispute with Native Americans – for $24 and a box of beads.

Obviously, this title line is an inaccurate portrayal of what the “Gray Lady” editorial actually said.  Their actual statement was, “Mr. Salazar could ease the blow for the Indian tribes with financial compensation.”  In reality, it doesn’t appear the Native Americans are going to get anything this time around, except the shaft … literally!  The turbine shafts of 130 massive turbines plopped onto their “ancestral burial grounds on lands that were above water thousands of years ago.

So, here’s how Secretary Salazar announced his decision, “After careful consideration of all the concerns expressed during the lengthy review and consultation process and thorough analyses of the many factors involved, I find that the public benefits weigh in favor of approving the Cape Wind project at the Horseshoe Shoal location,” Salazar said in an announcement at the State House in Boston. “With this decision we are beginning a new direction in our Nation’s energy future, ushering in America’s first offshore wind energy facility and opening a new chapter in the history of this region.

Salazar emphasized that the Department has taken extraordinary steps to fully evaluate Cape Wind’s potential impacts on traditional cultural resources and historic properties, including government-to-government consultations with the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and that he was “mindful of our unique relationship with the Tribes and carefully considered their views and concerns.”

Further, Salazar said he understood and respected the views of the Tribes and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, but noted that as Secretary of the Interior, he must balance broad, national public interest priorities in his decisions. “The need to preserve the environmental resources and rich cultural heritage of Nantucket Sound must be weighed in the balance with the importance of developing new renewable energy sources and strengthening our Nation’s energy security while battling climate change and creating jobs,” Salazar said.

It seems the Tribes are not pleased with the outcome of Secretary Salazar’s decision and plan to fight.  Brighter Energy reports that the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) said: “We are disheartened and disappointed with Secretary Salazar’s decision to proceed with the Cape Wind project. The Tribe has no choice but to explore all of its options for relief from this decision, including injunctive relief.

“Under the advice of counsel, no further comment will be made at this time,” added the group in its statement.

Ironically, the Department of Interior has responsibility to insure Native Americans are treated in accordance to the treaties, regulations and all the other promises we made in order to make us feel better about kicking them off their lands decades ago.  I found it interesting that Secretary Salazar’s own National Park Service believes the tribes have a case!

The good news is, this time around the “counsel” representing the Tribes bring some real legal clout.  Back in the days of President Andrew Jackson, the Native American’s “council” consisted of tribal leaders helplessly facing reality, and moving from their ancestral homes at the point of a gun.

And speaking of Andrew Jackson, he gave a rather interesting speech to Congress back in 1830.  The title was, “On Indian Removal.”  Take a peek at a few phrases from that speech and see if you come away with a feeling of Déjà vu:

  • It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation.
  • The removal would “perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.”
  • What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute …?
  • Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection.
  • Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.”
  • And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous.

There you have it … “Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous,”  Unless it gets in the way of our progress, of course.  How little things have changed!

Sure, Secretary Salazar insists that he will require the “additional and detailed marine archaeological surveys and other protective measures in the project area. A full suite of remote sensing tools will be used to ensure seafloor coverage out to 1000 feet beyond the Area of Potential Effect. More predictive modeling and settlement pattern analyses also will be conducted as well as geotechnical coring and analyses to aid in the identification of intact landforms that could contain archaeological materials. Moreover, the Chance Finds Clause in the lease will not only halt operations if cultural resources or indicators suggesting the possibility of cultural habitation are found but also allow the Tribes to participate in reviewing and analyzing such potential finds.”  Somehow, this doesn’t seem to calm the fears of the Tribes.

There will be plenty of sincere and aggressive groups fighting this decision with court actions.  I admit I’m very skeptical of industrial wind being placed anywhere.  This blog is full of factual information I’ve found to settle my mind that industrial wind is worthless.  There will be time to fight the fight against this unreliable, expensive and inadequate form of energy production another day.

But today, at least for me, I keep thinking of Andrew Jackson, Ken Salazar and “the removal of Indians” … for after all, while we speak in a more politically correct tone than in Jackson’s time, the results for our Native American friends seem to remain the same.

I’ve included for your convenience the following related documents, some of which I refer to in this post:

USDOI Press Release – Cape Wind Approval:

Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress On Indian Removal:

USDOI Cape Wind Record of Decision:

USDOI Cape Wind Final Environmental Assessment:

USDOI Cape Wind Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:

USDOI Cape Wind Fact Sheet:

USDOI CApe Wind Finding of no significant impact

USDOI Cape Wind Map:

Posted in Cape Wind, Native Americans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

US approves offshore windmills … China to build two nuclear reactors for Pakistan. Am I missing something?

This, from the Boston.com:  Interior secretary approves Cape Wind plan, nation’s first offshore wind farm

This, from the Financial Times:  China to build reactors in Pakistan

This is beyond incredible!

Posted in Cape Wind, green lunacy, Nuclear Energy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

New York Times resolves Cape Wind dispute with Native Americans – for $24 and a box of beads.

I don’t know why Ken Salazar is having such difficulty deciding the Cape Wind issue, except for the fact that it is a horrible investment in our energy’s future, will cost taxpayers and customers a fortune and will not meet any of the goals forecast.  A simple no seems reasonable to us!

We do know that resolving the issue of constructing massive wind turbines in the middle of land Native Americans hold dear has been a real dilemma for the Secretary.  Well, it was until the descendants of the Manhattan Dutch working at the NY Times came up with this little gem in their editorial of April 25 – Cape Wind and Mr. Salazar:

“In addition, and more problematically for Mr. Salazar, two Indian tribes have said that Nantucket Sound is of great cultural and spiritual significance to them and that building the turbines could disturb ancestral burial grounds on lands that were above water thousands of years ago.

Mr. Salazar’s own department is divided on the matter. The National Park Service believes the tribes have a case; the Minerals Management Service says the project should proceed.

Mr. Salazar could ease the blow for the Indian tribes with financial compensation.”

Seemingly stuck in the class system of the 1600’s, these editors seem to be saying, Give ’em a few bucks and they’ll go away  They can’t be serious about that “heritage” stuff anyway!  It’s not like they go down there to visit or anything! Oh, you gotta love the Gray Lady.

Now, I don’t know about you … but if I were a Native American fighting to save hundreds of years of heritage, I might think twice before I renew my subscription to the “newspaper of record.”

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Citing stormwater issues as a major factor, developer of Vermont Community wind farm backing away.

Gee, storm water problems at industrial wind sites … This sounds familiar!

The folks in Ira must be ecstatic … and good for them.  Here’s the article:  “Vermont Company Backs Off Wind Farm Plan In Town Of Ira

Posted in Environment, Friends and Citizens Groups | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Weak winds” cause nations “largest wind power generator” earnings to fall.

Darn, I guess it doesn’t matter how many turbines you plop across the landscape … if the wind doesn’t blow.

And, oh yeah … FPL – NextEra “said it would pare back its planned addition of 1,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity to between 600 and 850 MW because of lower power prices, the weak economy and uncertainty about U.S. climate legislation.”

Read it here:  UPDATE 2-FPL profit tops Wall St view, pares wind plans

Posted in industrial wind failure, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Industrial wind’s rubber stamp? “Rather than being effective regulatory agencies, the state authorities have simply opted to be the permitting agencies.”

In the following commentary, Pamela and Arthur Dodds question the effectiveness of state agencies responsible to oversee the permitting process for industrial wind plants:

As presented in April 23, 2010 “Wind Action” editorial, in 2009, residents in Sheffield, Vermont, appealed the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) stormwater permit issued by Vermont to First Wind, LLC for their industrial-scale wind turbine construction project.  “The appellants argued that First Wind failed to identify the full extent of the area of disturbance, impacts to streams and stream biota, and violated the VT Water Quality Standards.” These concerns resonate with residents in Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania where state agencies have approved deficient NPDES applications for industrial-scale wind turbine construction projects.  Specifically, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has allowed a deficient NPDES stormwater management plan, approved by the Highland County Board of Supervisors, for the Highland New Wind Development project in Highland County, Virginia.  The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) approved a deficient NPDES stormwater management plan for AES Laurel Mountain in Randolph and Barbour Counties, West Virginia and also for Pinnacle Knob Wind Force in Mineral County, West Virginia.  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is considering approval of the deficient NPDES permit application for an industrial-scale wind turbine construction project in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.

In 2009, residents in Randolph and Barbour Counties strongly commented and requested a public hearing concerning the deficient NPDES application submitted to the WVDEP by AES Laurel Mountain, LLC.  The WVDEP approved the NPDES permit; then, residents appealed the case to the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board.  Deficiencies include failure to delineate the sub-watersheds that will be impacted by the project, failure to protect headwater areas and streams that will be impacted by construction, and failure to use representative runoff coefficients in the stormwater discharge calculations.

The construction of industrial-scale wind turbines on forested mountain ridges will result in cumulative negative impacts to our regional water resources.  The forested mountain ridges are the areas which receive the greatest amounts of precipitation and therefore serve as the most important areas for groundwater recharge and for maintenance of aquatic habitats in the headwaters of streams that are at the base of the aquatic food chain.  The reduction of groundwater recharge in the forested mountain ridges will ultimately result in drought conditions throughout the watershed.  Forested ridges are our greatest defense against drought.  The overhead trees on the mountain ridges intercept rainfall so that it gently penetrates the ground as groundwater rather than flowing overland as runoff.  This means that 1) the rain will gently fall to the ground and recharge groundwater and 2) the surface flow of rainwater on the ground will be slower than in cleared areas, thereby reducing the velocity and quantity of stormwater drainage.  Conversely, where development occurs on forested ridges or where there are numerous roads constructed on forested ridges, the protective tree canopy is lost, the stormwater flow is greater in the cleared areas, groundwater is intercepted by road construction, and increased stormwater drainage results in habitat destruction within streams and the consequent death of aquatic organisms.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which authorizes government agencies within most states to be the state authority to approve or disapprove NPDES permits, is mandated by the Government and Performance Results Act to document successes of the NPDES program.  The EPA strategic plan to accomplish this specifies implementation of the watershed approach to managing NPDES permits.  However, the state authorities have been granting NPDES permits based on deficient, misrepresentative information.  State Watershed Assessment programs have also been totally dismissed in the granting of the NPDES permit to industrial-scale wind turbine construction projects.  The approval of deficient, misrepresentative NPDES permits indicates that rather than being effective regulatory agencies, the state authorities have simply opted to be the permitting agencies.

Pamela and Arthur 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.

Posted in Appalachian Mountains, Art & Pam Dodds, Environmental Protection Agency | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

If an industrial development is considered “green,” how many people’s well-being can be sacrificed for a “public good?”

Article published Apr 25, 2010 at Times Argus.
A sound policy for wind power in Vt.?
By SANDY WILBUR
Whether they’re called wind farms or industrial wind generating plants, these industrial developments have caused divisiveness and controversy in every community in Vermont where they have been proposed.

Because electricity generation has special legal status for land use regulations, industrial wind projects are being sited in areas where other industrial developments would never be allowed.

And because they’re lucrative investments that are supported by new federal tax benefits, we can expect a gold rush by wind developers into Vermont.

The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee has held multiple hearings on a bill, H.781, that addresses wind developers’ complaints.

Another bill, H.677, would put in place standards and regulations to protect Vermont citizens from adverse impacts (such as noise) that developers deny are problems. That bill has not had a single hearing.

Yet according to “The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power” (Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2010), “complaints about sleep disruption — as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines — are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.”

Hundreds of complaints from wind facility neighbors around the world are being dismissed as baseless or just NIMBY, according to Lawrence Mott of Renewable Energy Vermont.

In Vermont, where industrial wind plants need to be sited on mountain ridgelines, the impacts are significantly greater than on flat land. The linear formation of the turbines combined with the contour of the mountains can magnify sound in unpredictable ways.

In rural areas where background noise is negligible, repetitive sounds can be especially troubling. Environmental impacts to headwaters, wetlands, erosion, wildlife corridors, forest fragmentation and bats, to name a few, are also far greater on ridges.

Vermont, ranked number one in the United States for ecotourism by National Geographic, and U.S. leader in efficiency, has dropped 6 percent in electric use since 2005. Hydro-Quebec provides reasonably priced, renewable, baseload power, as does biomass.

Industrial wind in Vermont won’t replace any fossil fuel plants, nor meaningfully reduce carbon dioxide emissions (the lowest in the country), nor provide significant long-term jobs. So why the push for industrial wind?

Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, wants to fast-track industrial wind, move the review of environmental permits from the Environmental Court to the Public Service Board and limit citizen input.

Mott says, “Developers need certainty that their projects will happen.” Yet communities need certainty that noise and other impacts will not prevent citizens from peacefully enjoying their own homes and properties.

According to Mott, developers don’t want to be restricted by regulations such as setbacks that could reduce such problems. The banking industry doesn’t want to be regulated either. But without some protections, citizens have no recourse and developers have no accountability.

If an industrial development is considered “green,” how many people’s well-being can be sacrificed for a “public good”? Since developers can pay a town’s local taxes, shouldn’t they also fairly compensate those in close proximity who bear the brunt of adverse impacts?

In a world of changing climates, disappearing forests and scarce water, Vermont currently has abundant clean water for healthy ecosystems and abundant forests that absorb carbon dioxide. Shouldn’t we be protecting these natural resources — the envy of the rest of the world — for future generations?

Sandy Wilbur of Londonderry is co-founder of Vermont Energy Conservancy.

Posted in Environment, Friends and Citizens Groups, Industrial Wind Health Issues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Robert Bryce: “Five myths about green energy”

Robert Bryce begins his Washington Post piece with this: Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we’ll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, “green” energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes — and subsidies — in it, let’s take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what “green” means.

  1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
  2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
  3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.
  4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
  5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.

The full article is found at this link:  “Five myths about green energy

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Mr. Jon Boone has written a review of Mr. Bryce’s fourth book, “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” which will be out Tuesday, April 27.

Posted in Robert Bryce | Tagged , , | Leave a comment