“Endangered bat should preclude Garrett (County Maryland) wind farms.”

Posted on February 2, 2010 by morgan

Letter to the Editor of the Keyser, WV Mineral Daily News-Tribune:

Mon Feb 01, 2010, 05:48 PM EST

Mt. Lake Park, Md. – Endangered bat should preclude Garrett wind farms

(Editor’s note: The following letter was written to the Garrett County Commissioners, and submitted to the News Tribune for publication.)

As a result of expert testimony showing that a federally endangered species, the Indiana Bat, was in the vicinity of existing and proposed industrial wind projects in nearby West Virginia, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Titus halted their operation.

At a Maryland Public Service Commission evidentiary wind hearing a few years ago, expert testimony from the nation’s leading bat researcher, Thomas Kunz, revealed the presence of the Indiana Bat near a proposed wind project atop Roth Rock.  A number of other wildlife experts, including those from Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources, have also given public testimony about the presence of rare, threatened and endangered state species along southern Garrett County’s Backbone Mountain Ridgeline.

The County Office of Planning and Land Development is specifically prohibited by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance from issuing a building permit that could adversely affect an official habitat for Federally Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species.  Further, landowners and developers are directed in Section Six of the Ordinance to “work cooperatively with the State and Federal environmental agencies to minimize harm to habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species.

In light of the U.S. District Court’s decision and acknowledged existence of an endangered species in the area, as well as in the spirit of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, it is respectfully requested that any and all permits pending or granted for Garrett County wind development either be rescinded or not be granted until the appropriate federal agency provides an incidental takings permit.

Please consider meeting with appropriate officials within the state’s Department of Natural Resources.  A proactive joint county/state inquiry directed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency asking for a formal review of the site in question would be a progressive act of statesmanship.  Taking such an enlightened course of action may also prevent future claims related to willful negligence.

Kimberly A. Connaughton & Stephan M. Moylan
Oakland
Eric L. Tribbey
Mountain Lake Park

Related post:  Maryland Delegates request AG provide opinion on industrial wind impact on endangered species.

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Bat/Bird Kills, US Fish &Wildlife | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

From TECHPULSE360: “Headquarters For GE Wind Business Has Solar Energy But No Wind Turbines”

Posted on February 2, 2010 by morgan

Excellent observation from the folks at TECHPULSE360:

“It makes sense that a company serving the alternative energy business should have a headquarters that reflects the values of the green movement: energy conservation, resource efficiency and renewable fuels.” But as they note: “Renewable Energy Global headquarters in Schenectady, NY, has low-flow faucets, improved insulation, an efficient hot water heater and air conditioning system, larger windows, bike racks and preferred parking for hybrid vehicles. It also has a 48 KW solar system providing power to the facility. But no wind turbines.”

Link:  Headquarters For GE Wind Business Has Solar Energy But No Wind Turbines

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

Maryland Delegates request AG provide opinion on industrial wind impact on endangered species.

Posted on February 2, 2010 by morgan

After US District Court Justice Roger W. Titus ruled in favor of protection for the endangered Indiana Bat at the proposed Beech Ridge industrial wind project in West Virginia, former Maryland State Senator John Bambacus began the call for Maryland state agencies to clearly state their position on the matter of industrial wind and the Endangered Species Act.

What follows is a brief history of the excellent work of Mr. Bambacus, a resident of Frostburg, which ultimately lead to a formal request by Maryland State Delegates that the Maryland Attorney General provide an opinion on the matter of state agencies, industrial wind and endangered species.

On the day of Judge Titus’ ruling against the wind developer, Mr Bambacus emailed the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Secretary to advise of the ruling, and its possible impact in the state of Maryland:

In mid-December, Mr. Bambacus again wrote to the Secretary John Griffin, posted here, suggesting that “In light of the fact that work on a nearby WV wind project has been halted by U.S. District Court Judge Roger W. Titus, it is respectfully requested that any and all permits pending or granted for Garrett County wind development projects not be granted or be rescinded until consideration be given to threatened and endangered species as required by the court ruling and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Incidental Takings Permit).”

Maryland DNR Secretary Griffin provided this response to Mr. Bambacus’ two inquiries:

Following Secretary Griffin’s response, Mr. Bambacus sent this email to wide distribution in Maryland government:

The result of the efforts by Mr. Bambacus is this important request from Maryland Senator George C. Edwards, and Delegates Wendell Beitzel, Kevin Kelly and LeRoy Myers, Jr. to the Maryland Attorney General, Douglas F. Gansler:

We at Allegheny Treasures applaud Mr. Bambacus for his untiring efforts to protect the Allegheny Mountains.  We also commend Senator Edwards, Delegate Beitzel, Delegate Kelly and Delegate Myers for their efforts.

Related post:  Baltimore Sun: “WV wind farm bows to bats, as issue arises in MD”

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Bat/Bird Kills, John Bambacus | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Watertown (NY) Daily Times | State: turbines exempt from sales tax

Posted on February 2, 2010 by morgan

State: turbines exempt from sales tax

SALE-LEASEBACK QUESTION: Value of proposed deal with JCIDA will be reduced if tax bill is lowered

By NANCY MADSEN

TIMES STAFF WRITER

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2010

Wind turbines are exempt from sales taxes, a recent opinion by the state Department of Taxation and Finance states.

It’s unclear exactly how that will affect the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm, because the developer wouldn’t say how much of the estimated $253 million originally said to be eligible for sales taxes includes turbine parts.

But the ruling could lower sales tax collections from the project, and reduce the value of a tax abatement sought by the developer, Upstate NY Power Corp., through an agreement with the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency. Sale-leaseback agreements eliminate sales and mortgage taxes on a project.

Some opponents of a proposed payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement, which would give lesser payments for property taxes, argue that the developer should pay more in property and sales taxes. The Jefferson County Board of Legislators will weigh in on the PILOT tonight, but the sale-leaseback agreement is made separately by JCIDA’s board of directors.

The proposed PILOT would run 20 years and begin with payments of $2.14 million, divided among the county, town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor Central School District. Those annual payments would increase by 2.5 percent each year, with supplemental payments if higher electricity costs prevail.

In an advisory opinion, which tells a particular entity how the department will handle its case, the department told BP Wind Energy North America on Dec. 29 that assembly and installation of wind generation equipment used directly in electricity generated for sale in its project will qualify for sales tax exemption.

This sets the precedent for other wind projects, such as Galloo Island, to be handled in a similar way.

The purchase of property, machinery and equipment not used “directly and predominantly” to produce electricity is subject to sales tax. Those items include the electrical distribution system, cement and other foundation materials, meteorological towers, control and maintenance building and road materials.

Before this and a similar opinion were released by the department, wind farm developer Upstate NY Power Corp. estimated $253 million of the $500 million in expected investment on Galloo Island would be subject to sales tax. Now, that number could fall significantly. But the developer declined to give a new figure to the Times on Friday.

The U.S. Department of Energy reported in its “2008 Wind Technologies Market Report” that for wind farms between 100 and 300 megawatts, prices for turbines ranged from about $900,000 per megawatt to about $1.5 million per megawatt. Based on a planned 252 megawatts and $500 million investment planned for Galloo Island Wind Farm, the investment on the island eligible for sales tax could range from $122 million to $283.2 million under the Department of Energy’s estimates.

On the $253 million it said would be taxable, the developer would have paid $19.6 million in sales taxes, with about $9.5 million going to local governments, according to the developer’s application to JCIDA on Oct. 6. If the state ruling lowers the portion of the project subject to sales tax, it could mean less money for local governments.

Unlike the PILOT, a sale-leaseback agreement is granted solely by a vote of the JCIDA board of directors. Generally, developers that receive a PILOT agreement also receive a sale-leaseback agreement. JCIDA has taken no action on the sale-leaseback request yet.

“Incentives are not necessarily uniformly granted,” JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said. “Typically, these projects are assumed to have a value to the community and are granted a PILOT and the same value extends to a sale-leaseback.”

via Watertown Daily Times | State: turbines exempt from sales tax.

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans, Wind tax rebates | Leave a comment

LA Times: “Despite record growth in generating capacity, the (wind) industry is creating few employment opportunities overall.”

Posted on February 2, 2010 by morgan

Allegheny Treasures’ notes:

  • Why the use of the term “generating capacity” instead of actual energy output?  Perhaps because of the dismal performance expected of these installations.
  • Note that few jobs were created even though “America’s wind energy industry enjoyed a banner year in 2009, thanks largely to tax credits and other incentives packed into the $787-billion economic stimulus bill.”  Has your local Congressional Representative questioned the technology and the increasing use of your tax dollars to fund the wind scam?
  • Mr. Tankersley of the LA Times is not an enemy of green technology.  Read his work on Copenhagen, global warming and carbon issues and you’ll find that he is not someone to portray this issue in a negative light were the facts not there to back up his article.
  • Is it possible that even the proponents of the industrial wind boondoggle are starting to realize what many critics have been saying is true?
  • We’ll see!  But for now, take a look at the following article.  If you happen to be in a community promised tax revenues and jobs, you might want to check it out again before you allow your lands to be consumed by the poor performing, taxpayer subsidized turbines, likely manufactured oversees thus creating the most jobs there.

From the LA Times, via The National Wind Action Group:

February  1, 2010 by Jim Tankersley in Los Angeles Times

Despite record growth in generating capacity, the industry is creating few employment opportunities overall.

Washington – America’s wind energy industry enjoyed a banner year in 2009, thanks largely to tax credits and other incentives packed into the $787-billion economic stimulus bill.

But even though a record 10,000 megawatts of new generating capacity came on line, few jobs were created overall and wind power manufacturing employment, in particular, fell — a setback for President Obama’s pledge to create millions of green jobs.

Obama has long pitched green jobs, especially in the energy, transportation and manufacturing fields, as a prescription for long-term, stable employment and a prosperous middle class.

But those jobs have been slow to materialize, especially skilled, good-paying, blue-collar jobs such as assembling wind turbines, retrofitting homes to use less energy and working on solar panels in the desert.

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to create some 5 million green jobs over a decade. The stimulus bill approved last year allocated billions of dollars to the clean-energy sector. And the president continued to set high expectations for green-job creation in last week’s State of the Union speech.

Administration officials admit that they are nowhere near that pace. Last month, government economists released their first tally of clean-energy jobs created or saved by the stimulus: 52,000.

Several factors accounted for the slow start, some of them linked to weakness in the overall economy. Electric power demand fell nationwide last year. Electricity from coal and natural gas is still by and large cheaper than wind or solar power. Renewable energy companies, faced with limited demand, often used parts and equipment in stock or imported renewable technology instead of building turbines or solar cells domestically.

Industry analysts and energy company executives said job growth is also hampered by lingering uncertainties in federal energy policy. Those include questions about when or whether existing tax breaks will expire and whether the Senate will pass a climate bill that would make fossil fuels more expensive — and renewable energy more competitive.

The federal stimulus bill spared the wind and solar industries steep job losses last year, executives said.

In the wind industry, the bill saved about 40,000 factory, installation and maintenance jobs, according to the American Wind Energy Assn. The industry had gained as many as 2,000 installation and maintenance jobs in producing the record megawatts of new capacity, but wind power manufacturing lost just as many jobs, the trade group said.

Clean-energy leaders and many outside analysts added that green companies won’t begin hiring in large numbers until the federal government mandates renewable power consumption nationwide and dramatically upgrades the nation’s electric grid.

Wind turbine manufacturers “need more certainty” to add shifts and factories in the United States, said Elizabeth Salerno, director of data and analysis for the wind industry trade group.

“Demand is the trigger,” she said. “But it has to be long-term, stable demand.”

Obama’s advisors said the biggest clean-energy benefits of the stimulus are still to come, and that they have planted the seeds for a green-job proliferation by financing worker training and leveraging tens of billions of dollars in private investment in green technology. The Energy Department projects that U.S. renewable power generation will grow four times faster from 2008 to 2012 than it would have without the stimulus.

“A lot more has to be done if we’re going to realize the president’s vision for a truly transformative clean-energy economy,” said Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economist. “Our administration will pick up where [the stimulus] leaves off and finish the job. The president is completely committed to that.”

Others said the administration’s efforts, including stimulus grants and tax credits that fund some applicants but not others, may have pushed clean-energy investment dollars overseas, particularly to China. Since 2008, China has approved more solar-power capacity than the United States has installed in its history.

“The inconvenient truth for America’s economic recovery is that China’s Communist Party has cultivated a more favorable, predictable and hospitable market for private investments in clean-energy technology and energy infrastructure than the federal government of the United States,” said Alexander “Andy” Karsner, a fellow at the Council on Competitiveness.

Energy Department officials said that instead of focusing on one or two technologies, they have funded a “portfolio of technologies” that will battle for a share of a growing domestic and global market.

“We are not in the business of picking winners,” said Matt Rogers, a senior advisor at the Energy Department who oversees stimulus spending. “We’re creating competition among innovative approaches in the marketplace.”

Global clean-energy competition worries many of the staunchest champions of green jobs in Washington, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chaired a hearing on solar jobs in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week.

Among the executives testifying was Robert Rogan, senior vice president for ESolar Inc. in Pasadena. Rogan’s young company secured contracts last year for 3,500 megawatts of solar power. One of its projects is set for California; another, in New Mexico, will create hundreds of construction jobs this year.

But the bulk of ESolar’s power installations will come in China, which also provides some components of its solar plants.

In an interview, Rogan credited the stimulus for helping clean-energy companies through a “very bad” year in the American private finance market.

He insisted U.S. solar companies are poised for “explosive” growth, but that to maximize it, they need longer-term incentives and better transmission lines to link solar hot spots, such as the Southwest, and demand centers, such as the East Coast.

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Shocker! Ohio County Official: “I don’t think Champaign County can realistically rely on tax revenue from turbines.”

Posted on February 1, 2010 by morgan

From the Urbana Daily Citizen:

Adams, Faber and local officials contest Strickland’s plans to “erase” turbine taxes

BREANNE PARCELS
Staff Writer

While Ohio Governor Ted Strickland touted elimination of tangible personal property taxes for wind and solar companies Tuesday, that prospect didn’t sit well with representatives of the entities that stand to lose up to $1.4 million in first-year tax revenue if the Buckeye Wind project gains approval to construct 70 turbines in Champaign County from the Ohio Power Siting Board this year.

Everpower, the New York-based developer of Buckeye Wind, and other alternative energy developers have been actively lobbying the state government to reduce taxes applied to utilities, claiming that Ohio’s rates are a barrier to competition compared to neighboring states.

“Ohio’s tax structure discourages wind and solar companies from coming to Ohio to generate renewable energy,” Strickland said during his State of the State speech Jan. 26, according to the Associated Press. “We should give those companies every reason to choose Ohio. That’s why I am asking the legislature to erase Ohio’s tangible personal property tax on generation for wind and solar facilities that break ground this year, create Ohio jobs and begin producing energy by 2012.”

State Rep. John Adams of the 78th Ohio House District and State Sen. Keith Faber of the 12th Ohio Senate District agreed that the governor’s proposal will face challenges.

“In discussion after the State of the State address, some in the (House) leadership believe it would be unconstitutional for him to do that for wind and alternative energy only,” Adams said. “I would be opposed to it.”

Adams said he’s against further subsidies or tax reductions for Buckeye Wind, which has already been promised a $5 million grant through the Ohio Department of Development, along with the possibility of federal stimulus dollars in the form of tax credits if construction begins in 2010.

“Those are determinations I have no say in,” he said of the ODOD grant and federal dollars. “I can’t stop it, is the bottom line. But I don’t believe the state is qualified to pick winners and losers when it comes to business. That’s why I opposed Third Frontier dollars as well.”

“It was long on rhetoric and short on details,” Faber said of Strickland’s proposal. “I’ve since heard he’s talking about eliminating the generation tax and keeping the transmission tax. I haven’t seen the numbers, but when you consider that 70 percent of those taxes go to the schools and 30 percent to the other local jurisdictions – until I see the details, it’s very difficult for me to have an opinion.”

Faber said he understands the logic of equal footing used to support Strickland’s position.

“Eliminating the tangible personal property tax is something the state has done for other businesses,” Faber said. “However, I’m very concerned that local communities get enough revenue to justify taking on the extra burden of a turbine project. I’ll be looking forward to the input of local stakeholders as this goes forward.”

Faber noted that Buckeye Wind has faced concerns about factors such as setbacks, infrastructure and decommissioning. Champaign County Commissioner Bob Corbett said Strickland’s proposal would potentially make the negative aspects of the Buckeye Wind project outweigh the benefits.

“It’s been one of my big fears all along, that if (TPP) is gone, we lose all of the tax revenue the company is claiming we’d get,” Corbett said. “I think that’s treating local governments very unfairly. That’s the only tax revenue we were looking forward to. When our budget is hurting as bad as it is, we need all the help we can get.”

Company response

In an e-mail Friday, Everpower Director of Development Michael Speerschneider said that Buckeye Wind would benefit from Strickland’s idea, but added that, from the company’s perspective, the economic impacts of the project would still be positive overall.

Everpower is working to understand how this proposal would take shape and determine what it means to wind power in Champaign County and Ohio,” Speerschneider said. “Everpower invites an open dialogue about this issue, as we have done in the past on other issues related to wind generation in Ohio. It is important to realize that the governor’s proposal is meant to promote the timely construction of projects like the Buckeye Wind Project, which will result in significant economic benefits that will stimulate the entire region. As Everpower approaches the final stages of development for the Buckeye Wind Project, we want to assure you that our commitment to being a productive and long term member of the community is as strong as ever.”

By the numbers

Champaign County Auditor Karen Bailey said she wasn’t surprised at all by Strickland’s statements.

“I knew it,” she said. “I said back in October that while (Buckeye Wind) was advertising that this project would bring a lot of tax money into our community, I knew that they were lobbying to end tangible personal property taxes. It looks like the governor now agrees with them. That’s a huge loss. If they were to put up a $1.5 million turbine, for example say in the West Liberty(-Salem) district, the first year that would generate in the neighborhood of $19,000 in county taxes, about $12,000 of which would go to the schools. So they will be the ones really losing out.”

According to Speerschneider, if all 70 proposed turbine sites are approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board, Triad would get 27 turbine sites, followed by Urbana with 16, WL-S with 14 and Mechanicsburg with 13.

Urbana Treasurer Mandy Hildebrand said while it would have helped local school districts to receive extra tax revenue from turbines, it wasn’t factored into planning such as five-year forecasts.

“To be honest, it was not money we had placed in our budget because it was such an unknown quantity,” she said, noting that until the publication of the proposed turbine site maps in the Daily Citizen, she and other school officials believed Urbana would have just a few turbines in the district.

“It will be unfortunate if (Strickland’s) plan does go through,” Hildebrand said. “Everpower representatives came in almost a year ago and met with the superintendent and myself but at that time we had no idea how many turbines would be in our district. We still don’t. It wasn’t money we were counting on for that reason.”

West Liberty-Salem Treasurer Steve Godwin said he also declined to use tax revenue touted by Everpower representatives when planning the district budget and five-year forecast.

“Who knows when and if we’ll get turbines,” he said. “As far as what the governor said in his speech, that’s all speculation. How do you promote energy services? You decrease what they have to pay. I don’t put a lot of stock in something until I know for sure it’s going to happen. It doesn’t pay to speculate.”

Mechanicsburg Treasurer Pat Sheffield echoed Hildebrand and Godwin regarding the futility of trying to plan for revenue from a wind facility.

“We don’t even know how many turbines we’re supposed to get,” she said. “We have not had any discussion with (Buckeye Wind) – good, bad, or indifferent.”

Sheffield brought up another taxation issue that wasn’t addressed by other school officials – abatement, rather than elimination of turbine taxes.

“If they’re talking about an abatement, they are supposed to come talk to the district first,” she said. “This process has not been transparent to the parties involved. We don’t know what’s going on.”

Alternative tax?

“I have not received any information regarding the final position on the taxation for the proposed wind turbines,” said Triad Superintendent Craig Meredith, noting that the OPSB could still deny the project as a whole or excise proposed turbines sites from an approved layout. “At this time there are just too many variables left to be determined… we are certainly not planning on new revenue at this point.”

Meredith said he was under the impression that “Buckeye Wind Project representatives have testified under oath that they will guarantee new revenue to school districts and other government entities at a predetermined level.”

Speerschneider said such a commitment was made in the application as an “alternative tax,” even though the OPSB has not imposed any conditions requiring such payment in lieu of taxes in order for the application to proceed.

“In the socioeconomic study that was submitted as part of the OPSB Application, Alternative Tax revenues to local municipalities were discussed,” Speerschneider said, noting that the calculations by Saratoga Associates were “meant to approximate the expected tax for this project … not necessarily a direct reflection of current Ohio tax code.”

“In that sense, we still fully expect a contribution to the community at the same level as that described in the application,” Speerschneider said. “A payment in lieu of taxes is certainly a possible mechanism to achieve this level of support, but it really depends on what form Gov. Strickland’s proposal takes and what ultimate tax payment will result. Contrary to initial interpretations, it is not clear at all that the proposal would erase all tangible personal property tax associated with the project. If and when the Governor’s proposal takes shape, we will be able to give more clarity on this issue.”

Meanwhile, the adjudicatory process continues, with Monday as the filing deadline for reply briefs from all parties involved in the Buckeye Wind application.

Champaign County Prosecutor Nick Selvaggio said while he can’t speak to Strickland’s comments in the next filing from the county and townships due to procedural rules, taxation of turbines is an issue that must be resolved.

“We’re not going to address it in our reply brief because it was not among the evidence introduced at the (adjudicatory) hearing, but I was not surprised at the inclusion of wind in Strickland’s speech for several reasons,” Selvaggio said, noting that Strickland recently accompanied President Barack Obama on a tour of a wind turbine technology lab at a community college in Lorain. “Gov. Strickland has the responsibility for moving Ohio toward compliance with renewable energy standards … and wind provides an expansion of manufacturing opportunities related to the cottage industry. Because of the continued debate in the legislature, I’m not comfortable relying on particular figures to determine the benefit to Champaign County, when it could be as high as the current valuation or as low as what Strickland has proposed. At this point, I don’t think Champaign County can realistically rely on tax revenue from turbines. There are too many variables at work here.”

Breanne Parcels can be reached at bparcels@urbanacitizen.com

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

American Thinker: It’s Not Blowing In The Wind

Posted on February 1, 2010 by morgan

Courtesy of American Thinker
February 01, 2010

It’s Not Blowing In The Wind

By Brian Sussman

A push in the U.S. Senate for an alternative to proposed “cap and trade” legislation began in earnest on the day of the Massachusetts special election when Senator Byron Dorgan, (D-North Dakota) said that a kinder, gentler energy bill had better prospects of passing, especially in light of the controversial battle on health care.
“In the aftermath of a very, very heavy lift on health care, I think it is unlikely that the Senate will turn next to a very complicated and very controversial subject of cap-and-trade, climate legislation,” Dorgan told reporters during a conference call. “I think it is more compelling to turn to an energy bill that is bipartisan”
Dorgan, who read the tea leaves at the bottom of his own cup and has announced that he will not run for re-election this year, made his comments in reference to a study procured by Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), a non-partisan organization “that works to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.” SAFE’s study supports opening up the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling 45 miles from shore.  A 2006 law put those waters off limits.
The bipartisan compromise that Dorgan envisions involves allowing offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf, while at the same time mandating that as much as 20% of the country’s energy derive from renewable sources.
Dorgan’s plan is the typical politician two-step; give the right-wingers a little drill-baby-drill, and give the libbies lots of green power.  Interestingly, his plan conveniently coincided with a press release issued the same week from the Department of Energy proposing that wind generate 20% of the electricity in the eastern U.S.
SAFE is spot on; for our government to deny us the opportunity to drill for oil and natural gas within 45 miles of our own coast is insanity.  Anti-capitalist eco-activists contend that setting up rigs inside of that range threaten the coast due to oil leaks, but they’re wrong.  In 2005, monster hurricanes Katrina and Rita whipped up the waters of the Gulf of Mexico with wind gusts over 125 miles per hour, accompanied by chaotic 40 foot waves.  The storm battered oil production platforms, actually tore a few drilling rigs from their moorings, and displaced below surface pipelines.  The oil industry was put through a rigorous, real-time, once in a generation test.  Over 800 manned platforms and about 140 rigs are in the Gulf of Mexico and even with the full wrath of nature unleashed during that hurricane season, they came through with an excellent grade.  A mere 13,000 barrels of crude were leaked into the open water, with the environmental impact minor.
America should be drilling within 45 miles of shore — that’s a no brainer.  However, mandating that 20% of our energy come from renewable resources — particularly wind?  That’s brainless.
The Department of Energy press release touted research claiming that generating 20% of the eastern US’s energy from wind is as easy as printing $90 billion. According to Reuters:
Wind energy could generate 20 percent of the electricity needed by households and businesses in the eastern half of the United States by 2024, but it would require up to $90 billion in investment, according to a government report released on Wednesday.
For the 20 percent wind scenario to work, billions must be spent on installing wind towers on land and sea and about 22,000 miles of new high-tech power lines to carry the electricity to cities, according to the study from the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
“Twenty percent wind is an ambitious goal,” said David Corbus, the project manager for the study. “A big chunk would have to come from the federal government through programs such as loan guarantees.”
Just what most American’s oppose: more massive spending by the bank of Uncle Sam.  But no worries — this plan will never fly with devoted environmentalists either.
According to the study, wind farms constructed off the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina and on land from North Dakota to Kansas could whip up 225,000 megawatts of electricity. While the plan sounds ultra-green, it will certainly cause eco-freaks to see blood red.
In my forthcoming book, Climategate, I compare the amount of land required by a nuclear power plant producing 2,300 megawatts to a wind farm capable of generating a similar amount of electricity.  Granted, this is a mere fraction of what the Energy Department’s study proposes, but the comparison will serve us well in illustrating why this plan is wholly unpractical.
The Comanche Peak nuclear power plant outside Dallas, Texas is a significant facility, which produces about 2,300 megawatts of power-more than enough to serve the electricity needs of 1.3 million average-sized homes.  The plant fits neatly into 8,000 acres and includes a large reservoir used for cooling the facility.  Compare that landmass to the one required for the highly publicized Pampa Wind Project, promoted by Dallas hedge fund manager, T. Boone Pickens. “Pickens Plan” envisioned supplying power to an equal number of homes, but, according to the Associated Press, would require 400,000 acres of Texas real estate. Besides erecting thousands of massive masts upon which the turbines are fixed, Pickens’ plan necessitates the construction of transmission towers and lines and associated service roads; infrastructure which is despised by environmentalists.
The amount of land dedicated to the Energy Department’s wind wish is beyond comprehension.  Hard-core greenies shudder at the thought of the development of thousands of square miles; plus the turbines will drive animal rights activists bonkers.
Those of us who live in the San Francisco Bay Area know a little something about this.
In the 1970s, just east of the San Francisco Bay, the world’s largest concentration of wind turbines was constructed.  Some 4,500 windmills are ensconced atop 50,000 acres of grassy hills, presently generating a modest 576 megawatts of power.  Officially known as the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, one would suppose the wind farm is an icon of greenness.  But instead, Altamont Pass is the poster girl of eco-infighting.

As soon as the multitude of three-bladed rotors were installed, animal rights advocates began counting the carcasses of thousands of dead birds.  Since then, numerous lawsuits have been filed and millions of dollars spent procuring studies to track the bird body count in an effort to determine how to address the problem.  The result has been a sorely undermaintained, underutilized, negative cost effective alternative energy source that many activists would like to completely shutter.

For the environmentalists, the answer is not really blowing in the wind.  I believe their real desire is to see America use less energy — period.
If America’s first and largest wind farm remains in the crosshairs of eco-activists, it’s foolhardy to think that future plans to harness the wind will ever get off the ground.  Besides, wind energy generation needs a fulltime backup delivery system powered by fossil fuels for days when the winds not blowing.  In the meantime, there are billions of undeveloped barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico just waiting to be tapped.  Of course, along with the oil there will also be jobs, an improved economy, additional tax revenue and plentiful energy.
Blow off the turbine plan.  $90 billion dollar “bipartisan” compromises are absurd.
Instead, let’s drill, baby, drill.
Brian Sussman, is a radio talk show host on KSFO-AM, San Francisco.  His book, Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes The Global Warming Scam, will be released March 31st.

via American Thinker: It’s Not Blowing In The Wind.

Posted in Environment, Wind Power Reliability Factor, Windpower Industry False Claims | Tagged | 1 Comment

Baltimore Sun: “WV wind farm bows to bats, as issue arises in MD” UPDATE: Commentary from Jon Boone

Posted on February 1, 2010 by morgan

From the Baltimore Sun Environmental Blog, B’MoreGreen, as posted by Tim Wheeler

FEBRUARY 1, 2010

WV wind farm bows to bats, as issue arises in MD

A West Virginia wind farm developer has agreed to scale back its project and other conditions to settle a lawsuit alleging the rotating blades pose a threat to endangered bats. The same issue now appears to be emerging – or re-emerging – over a wind farm proposed in western Maryland.

In a deal announced Wednesday, Beech Ridge Energy LLC of Rockville said it is now free to resume construction on its wind farm in Greenbrier County, W.Va., though the total number of turbines would be reduced from 124 to around 100. There already are 40 built along the ridge.

In December, U.S. District Judge Roger Titus in Greenbelt had halted construction on the project, saying it posed risks to federally endangered Indiana bats.

Beech Ridge, an affiliate of Invenergy Wind LLC in Chicago, said it will seek “incidental take permits” from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as ordered by Judge Titus, to mitigate any harm its turbines may do to the rare bats. In the meantime, the company agreed to operate the turbines round-the-clock only during the bats’ hibernation period in winter, and to run them just in daylight the rest of the year.

The Animal Welfare Institute and other groups that had filed a lawsuit over the project’s impact on the bats agreed not to oppose the take permits.  The company dropped its plan to appeal Judge Titus’ rulling.  To read the settlement, go here.  (Photo above is of another West Virginia wind farm, for illustration purposes only.)

Meanwhile, opponents of wind farms in western Maryland have raised the same issue, though they have yet to go to court over it.

In an “open letter” to Garrett County’s commissioners, Oakland lawyer Kimberly Connaughton and two other residents say a national expert on bats presented testimony several years ago that Indiana bats were present near a wind farm proposed on Backbone Mountain near the West Virginia border. Other wildlife experts have testified about the presence there of other species deemed rare, threatened or endangered in Maryland, she points out.

That testimony came out several years ago when the Public Service Commission was reviewing a wind farm proposed by Synergics Wind Energy of Annapolis. The legislature subsequently stripped the commission of its authority to review the environmental impacts of wind facilities of 70 megawatts’ capacity or smaller. The commission approved the project in November, though opponents complained the panel had been handcuffed at the behest of the politically connected head of the wind firm, Wayne Rogers, who is former chairman of the state Democratic party.

Though state law now limits the state’s oversight of the project, the Oakland lawyer writes that the county is barred by one of its own ordinances from issuing a building permit if the project would harm any federally protected species. Local law also requires landowners and developers to work with state and federal agencies to minimize harm to rare, threatened and endangered species, she adds.

She calls on the county not to grant any permits for the wind farm until the developer gets a “taking” permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and to ask the agency for a formal review of the project.

Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Synergics, said the company already had shifted the location of some of its 20 planned turbines to preserve habitat for species considered rare in Maryland.  He contended that there wasn’t any habitat used by federally protected Indiana bats near the proposed wind farm.  And he asserted that the wind farm enjoys broad support among government and business leaders in the area.

Connaughton said by telephone that she and her husband, Stephan Moylan, live within a short drive of Backbone Mountain.  They and Eric Trippy, the third letter signer, formed a group opposing wind farms there several years ago.  She said that “we are discussing our legal options” should the county reject their request.

John Bambacus, a former state senator and mayor from Frostburg opposed to the ridgetop wind farms, made a similar request earlier.  He said last week that county officials have yet to respond.   In the meantime, he is pressing western Maryland legislators for an attorney general’s opinion on whether the state Department of Natural Resources still has authority to intervene in wind projects to protect state-listed rare plants and animals from potential harm.

(2006 Baltimore Sun photo by John Makeley)

UPDATE:  COMMENTARY FROM JON BOONE:

This story only scratches the surface of this incredible environmental boondoggle. That the reporter would quote Frank Maisano–a wind industry PR flak who formerly made a living touting coal and whose expertise about energy and the environment is limited to how to inflate a press release–as a credible source for how safe his employer’s project would be for wildlife, should give readers some indication of the under-reporting involved.

As an intervenor in the PSC Synergics hearing, as someone who is paid by no one in this case, and as an individual who has carefully studied the state endangered species involved, it is clear that the wind company HAS NOT made the area safe for the rare, threatened, and endangered species endemic to the area.

There seems to be no penalty for lying in the energy marketplace, at least not in Maryland. Why not ask the wildlife experts directly, particularly Dr. Gwen Brewer of DNR’s Power Plant Research Program, who testified under oath that the Synergics project should not proceed because of too many unanswered questions about its impact on vulnerable wildlife? She was not alone.

This is why Wayne Rogers, a fundraiser for the Democratic Party and Synergics” CEO, went to his friends Mike Miller, the Senate President, and Cas Taylor, former Speaker of the House and prominent wind lobbyist, asking for their help in passing a bill exempting his project from any environmental review.

The Sun had full knowledge of this sleaze–and refused to do any reporting about it. Two years ago, The Washington Post at least had some coverage. Letters  to the Sun’s editor are often censored by a gatekeeper who continually refuses to publish comments critical of the wind industry, which is easily shown to be one of the dumbest modern energy initiatives imaginable.

That this wind project couldn’t dent a grape in the scheme of things makes it even more of an environmental outrage.

The MDDNR today uses Rogers’ bill, the notorious SB566, to justify its stance that it can no longer proactively protect rare, threatened, or endangered species–or even sensitive habitat where wind projects are concerned.

John Boone

Oakland, MD

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Bat/Bird Kills | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

SOS – URGENT – Maine Wind Warriors Need Your Help Today

Posted on January 31, 2010 by morgan

Allegheny Treasures is pleased to post this important email received from our friends at Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power – Maine!

We fully support the call for each state to establish a “code of conduct” for the industrial wind business, as was done in New York and suggested by our friends in Maine.

EMAIL BEGINS:

The wind scam story is receiving progressively more sunlight and last week the Vinalhaven, Me story made its debut in the national press on national talk radio. There’s a good chance it is going to start getting some real traction in the national press. There are simply too many irrefutable facts for this not to develop into a national story.

In the meantime, let’s hope that the Maine media starts investigating some of the facts about wind power. How about starting with the fact that it doesn’t work.

Where there’s smoke there’s fire. The story today will likely interest many Mainers who heretofore were not following this story very closely. So this is a golden opportunity to blast the reader comments with the facts about wind power. Please keep in mind, the average person likely knows very little of what we take for granted. So please don’t overlook the basics.

Maine Sunday Telegram:

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=312310&ac=PHnws

or
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/7407362.html

Wind power backers decry claims of conflict

EXCERPTS:

As Maine rushes to embrace wind power, unnamed critics posting on Internet sites and reader comment pages contend that money and political connections – reaching all the way to the governor’s office – are greasing the skids.

A repeated theme, for instance, focuses on Gov. John Baldacci and Kurt Adams, former chairman of the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

Adams served as Baldacci’s chief counsel. The governor appointed him chairman of the PUC in 2005. Adams left in 2008 to be a top executive at First Wind, the state’s most active wind-power developer. Posters allege that Adams has since benefited from his connections with Baldacci to gain permits and generous taxpayer subsidies for big wind projects.

The charge has become more persistent over the past year, as the pace of energy development has picked up in Maine, fueled by federal stimulus money, efforts to cut reliance on oil and strong support for renewable energy by both Baldacci and President Obama.

Some posters draw the First Wind genealogy more broadly, connecting Rep. Jon Hinck, D-Portland, who co-chairs the Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee, and his wife, Juliet Browne, a Portland lawyer who helps First Wind and other developers through the maze of the state’s permitting process.

In interviews, Hinck and Browne defended their conduct and said their actions present no conflict of interest.

Even Lawrence Summers, a former treasury secretary who worked at an investor group that supports First Wind and now is President Obama’s economic adviser, is linked to what some see as the wind industry’s inside track in Maine.

Internet posters, he said, string together relationships to draw conclusions that aren’t supported by fact.

For instance: First Wind’s 57-megawatt project on Stetson Mountain in Washington County won $40 million in federal stimulus funds in September. Commenters call it a bailout for a project that’s not economically viable without taxpayer subsidies.

They assume the project benefited through a relationship with Summers, director of Obama’s National Economic Council. Summers previously was a managing director at D.E. Shaw & Co., a global hedge fund that has a big financial stake in First Wind.

But Adams said the stimulus money was available to any wind project that came on line during a certain time period. First Wind has said the $40 million will be reinvested in new projects.

“That’s the way the stimulus act is supposed to work,” Adams said.

Browne was appointed by Baldacci to a 2007 wind-power task force. The panel recommended rules that anti-wind activists say were rushed into law by Baldacci and the Legislature to make it easier for wind projects to be approved in certain areas. Hinck, as co-chair of the Utilities and Energy Committee, helped advance the agenda of his wife’s clients, they say.

Hinck said he voted to support the bill but didn’t do any extraordinary lobbying on its behalf. Asked if he should have recused himself from voting, Hinck said that would have been appropriate only if his wife were going to benefit directly.

“I don’t think it came anywhere close to being a conflict issue,” he said.

Kidder wasn’t aware of the wind-power cronyism charges. But in general, he said, accomplished people who are busy doing what they think is right in their jobs tend to have a blind spot to potential conflicts.

“The last person to see it’s a conflict of interest is often the actor himself,” he said.

END OF PPH EXCERPTS

Note: Geez, perhaps then Maine’s Attorney General, Janet Mills should establish a CODE OF CONDUCT for these wind companies, as NYS’s Attorney General Andrew Cuomo did. See:http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2008/jul/july15a_08.html

and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/nyregion/31wind.html

Unfortunately, despite repeated requests, Attorney General has not established such a code. Related, Janet Mill’s sister, Dora Mills, the head of Maine’s CDC steadfastly refuses to acknowledege the existence of peer reviewed literature with respect to the health effects of these massive towers on people.

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

Virginia hearing examiner recommends SCC dismiss DHR’s case against wind developer.

Posted on January 30, 2010 by morgan

From our friends at Brightside Acres:

Hearing Examiner Recommends SCC Dismiss DHR’s Case

Saturday January 30, 2010

On January 25, Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan issued a ten-page report concluding with the recommendation that the Commission deny the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) complaint against Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) originally filed on August 19, 2009, and dismiss the case from the Commission’s docket.

Read the Report:

Although the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation doesn’t come as a surprise, it is shocking nonetheless.

One cannot help but think that if the evidentiary hearing originally scheduled for September 23, 2009, had been allowed to go forward, the outcome might be different.

Back then, public interest and outcry were at their height, and many members of the national historic preservation community and the press planned to attend the hearing. The People were poised to take a stand to defend a National Historic site against a wind utility in a legal proceeding.

Step by step, that opportunity was withdrawn and then absolutely denied on January 25.

Over four months of legal maneuverings by both sides, everything changed.

Everything, that is, except the factual impact of 19, 400-foot wind turbines on Camp Allegheny Battlefield.

Substantiating data about that impact poured-in to the DHR and the SCC, not just from the local community, not just from nationally-recognized historians and archaeologists, but also from the American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service.

Yet, somehow over these past four months, the rationale for avoiding a public hearing, wherein such data would be presented to the public and the press, outweighed the value and meaning of the data itself.

And not just for HNWD (whose desire to avoid public exposure of their desecration of a National Register site any red-blooded libertarian capitalist can surely understand), but also for DHR.

And there’s the rub.

In this entire process, DHR has been unaccountably interested in making things more convenient for HNWD.

Don’t take it from Brightside (although the whole sad tale is recorded in these pages)–just read the brief chronology in the Hearing Examiner’s Report (linked above).

DHR repeatedly went out of it’s way to extend a benefit of the doubt not justified by any prior evidence in the long-standing record of behavior by HNWD.

Three times when DHR could have simply let a public hearing go forward, the agency acted to stop such a proceeding. The basis of these actions has been their oft-stated belief that HNWD was all of a sudden “cooperating,” rendering a hearing “unnecessary.”

Brightside begs to differ.

Until proof is in hand that historic, cultural or environmental resources are not being destroyed by a development of any type, hearings ARE necessary. And should be warmly welcomed by an agency such as DHR, charged with safeguarding the public’s past–and future. It’s not DHR’s job to be credulous in the face of industry, but to be critical of it. And to present their criticisms and reservations in the public sphere.

If, in fact, DHR is operating under some other pressure, wherein the avoidance of hearings is valued ahead of the honest-to-god protection of resources…then, Richmond, we have a problem.

Indeed, Brightside thinks we do.

Rumor has it that HNWD attorneys are up in arms, chomping at the bit to force a political replacement of the DHR Director for all the difficulty her very mere, and ultimately inconsequential adherence to her Agency’s mission statement has caused them.

Their position: Her obstructionist stance must be quashed.

Wow.

Just imagine, if the current Director of DHR is effectively labeled and replaced with someone even more industry-supportive, to whom shall The People turn?

The reason state agencies such as DHR or DCR or DEQ or DEP exist is to provide a societal safety, a bottom-line insurance that the capitalist endeavors of state can’t get so out of line that The People’s basic resources are compromised.

When these agencies fail us, we’re in trouble.

When these agencies fail to understand why they exist, we’re in deeper trouble.

Posted in Camp Allegheny, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment