New York political and media leaders are grossly overestimating the favorable local and state economic benefit that would result from Iberdrola’s proposed investment of $2 billion in “wind farms” in New York.

Public comments from NY political leaders, news stories, and editorials on the impending NYS Public Service Commission’s Iberdrola decision emphasizes that Iberdrola would invest $2 billion in “wind farms” in New York if the Spanish company is permitted by the PSC to acquire Energy East and its electric and gas distribution companies in New York, Maine, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Emphasis on the proposed $2 billion investment suggests that NY leaders do not yet understand that a $2 billion investment in “wind farms” in NY would have very little favorable economic benefit in the areas where the “wind farms” would be built or in the state. The economic impacts may even be negative.

This brief paper explains that there would be little, if any, net favorable local or NY state economic impact from a potential $2 billion Iberdrola investment in NY “wind farms because:

• Potentially favorable economic impacts are typically overstated by the wind industry and its advocates within governments, and

• Other factors, often ignored, tend to offset most or all of the favorable impacts.

Overstated Economic Benefits of “Wind Farms”

1. Very little of the $2 billion “investment” would be spent locally or have local economic benefit. This fact becomes clear when the make-up of a $2 billion investment in “wind farms” is analyzed.

The share of total “wind farm” capital costs accounted for by the various elements of cost (i.e., turbines, blades, towers, assembly and installation, etc.) varies widely among “wind farms” depending on such factors as their size, location, terrain, distance from a transmission line, and when turbines were purchased. (“Wind farm” capital costs have increased dramatically since 2000-2002. [i])

Detailed information on project costs generally is not revealed by “wind farm” owners. However, a 2006 report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [ii] provides rough estimates of the breakdown of total project costs based on 2000-2003 data. Undoubtedly, costs have changed but the NREL estimates permit calculating the following rough estimates of the shares of a $2 billion capital investment that would be expended for various elements of the total cost:

This breakdown is helpful in identifying the share of costs that might have some favorable local or state economic benefits (but note that other factors, described below, will offset potential favorable benefits). Specifically:

1. As the above table shows, the overwhelming share of the capital cost of a “wind farm” is for turbines, blades, towers, electronics, cables, etc. that are manufactured elsewhere. A majority of wind turbines being installed in the U.S. apparently are imported from other countries. Little, if any, of the money spent for the turbines, blades, towers and related components — making up nearly 3/4ths of the capital investment — would be spent in NY.
2. Foundation costs include cement and aggregate for concrete, steel rebar, and earth moving. Aggregate, some concrete workers, and operators for earth moving equipment may come from the local area or region. However, cement, rebar and earth moving equipment would originate elsewhere and may be imported.
3. Turbines, towers, and blades would be transported from ports or from manufacturing locations outside NY. Transporters for this equipment probably would be located near manufacturers, not near “wind farm” sites.
4. Roads and civil works probably would require workers and equipment from the local area or region but a significant share of the cost probably would be for the repair of existing roads that are destroyed when moving the heavy turbine and tower components over them.
5. Assembly and installation of turbines, blades, towers and related equipment generally is performed by specialists who travel to “wind farm” sites and, therefore, typically involve few local workers.
6. Electrical interface and connection costs would include cabling to collect electricity from turbines and move it to a substation, the substation itself, and transmission lines to the nearest existing transmission line that could handle the full rated output of the “wind farm.” Transmission line costs will vary widely with distance. The required equipment would not be purchased locally.
7. Permitting and licensing costs would involve owner’s project developers, as well as lawyers, consultants, government fees, and other personal service costs that would likely involve few local workers.

2. Few local jobs result from “wind farm” construction or operation. The wind industry and its advocates within governments often exaggerate the number of jobs during construction (which may take only 6 to 9 months) – as well as the number of permanent jobs — that are likely to be filled with local workers.

In fact, as indicated earlier, few of the jobs during “wind farm” construction are filled by local workers. Instead, most jobs (as many as 80%) are filled by specialized workers brought in from other areas. Jobs that are filled locally during the construction period may include transit-mix drivers, laborers, and some heavy equipment operators. Few permanent jobs are created and many of these will be filled by technicians brought in temporarily for maintenance work.

Wind industry lobbyists also typically overstate the number and economic benefit of “indirect” jobs (e.g., those in restaurants and hotels because of construction activity) because the construction activity is short lived and project workers brought in from other areas are likely to go home on many weekends. Most of their wages are likely to be spent (and income taxes paid) in their home towns.

3. Few supplies and services are procured locally and the favorable economic impact is small. Wind energy advocates often overstate the favorable local economic benefit of “wind farms” in still another way. They pretend that the full cost of anything procured locally provides a favorable local economic benefit. In fact, very little money is spent locally for supplies and services and only the local value added portion of the cost (not the whole cost) may provide some local economic benefit. [iii]

4. Rental income paid to land owners may have little or no local economic benefit. “Wind farm” developers claim that rental or lease payments to landowners who permit construction of wind turbines on their property provide a significant local economic benefit. In fact, payments received by landowners have local economic benefit only if that money is spent or saved locally. Money received by absentee landowners or money spent or invested elsewhere doesn’t help the local economy.

Adverse Economic Impacts that Offset Favorable Impacts.

In addition to adverse environmental and ecosystem impacts that are increasingly being documented (e.g., noise, impact on birds, bats, wildlife habitat, scenic impairment), “wind farms” have significant adverse economic impacts that are often ignored by the wind industry and overlooked by government officials.

1. NY and other states are likely to lose significant corporate income tax revenue. As explained in a separate paper, [iv] Energy East companies that would be acquired by Iberdrola paid about $114 million in federal and state corporate income taxes in 2007. However, because of extraordinarily large federal and state tax breaks and subsidies, companies owning “wind farms” are able to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state corporate income tax. Therefore, if Iberdrola is permitted to own “wind farms,” the company would almost certainly be able to avoid, for years, paying corporate income tax on profits from the electricity and gas distribution companies obtained through its Energy East acquisition. (Note that tax burden avoided by “wind farm” owners is shifted to ordinary taxpayers who do not enjoy such tax shelters.)

2. Local governments may also lose tax revenue if Iberdrola was exempt from paying property tax on “wind farms.” New York law permits exemption from property taxes for “wind farm” equipment, subject to agreement with local governments and school districts. This exemption authority has been exercised in some cases and has resulted in PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreements that result in some payments by “wind farm” owners to local governments, school districts, and non-profit groups. Such agreements – which may be attractive to local officials now in office – are not necessarily in the best long term interest of local governments, or taxpayers who must pick up property tax burden escaped by wind farm owners.

3. Profits from the Energy East’s NY electricity and natural gas distribution companies acquired by Iberdrola probably would flow out of New York and out of the US. These profits are derived from electric and gas customers in the states where Energy East companies now operate.

4. Electric customers would almost certainly experience higher monthly electric bills. Electric customers in New York are likely to be affected adversely in three ways by the addition of more “wind farms”:

1. The full, true economic cost of electricity from wind is higher than electricity produced from traditional energy sources. Also, the value of electricity produced from wind is lower because it is produced only when wind speeds are within a certain range. The electricity is intermittent, volatile, and unreliable. Further, it is most likely to be produced at night in colder weather rather than on hot summer late afternoons in July and August when demand tends to be highest.
2. Wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce electricity at the time of peak demand. Therefore, reliable (“dispatchable”) generating capacity – not intermittent, unreliable wind turbines – will have to be added to meet increases in peak electricity demand in NY and/or to replace existing generating capacity. Electric customers could end up paying twice; once for unreliable wind capacity and again for capacity that can be counted on to meet peak demand.
3. The funds used by NYSERDA to provide subsidies to “wind farms” owners are collected from electric customers via a surcharge added to the monthly bills.

5. Loss of value for property near “wind farms.” While the wind industry has sought to claim otherwise, there is no longer any serious doubt that “wind farms” have an adverse effect on the value of neighbor’s property and, often, their quality of life.

6. Money is drained from local economies. New York residents already pay some of the very highest electricity prices and taxes in the nation. Adverse economic impacts listed above could result in an even greater drain on the disposable income of citizens in much of New York. When more money must be paid in taxes and for monthly electric bills, less is available to pay for food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses, education, recreation, contributions to charities, savings, or for spending with local businesses. Reduced local spending means fewer local jobs. The inevitable result would be additional downward pressure on local economies in upstate and western New York.

Conclusion. Political and media leaders’ misperceptions about the true economic benefits of “wind farms” are unfortunate – especially for New York’s taxpayers and electric customers, and for local economies that are being drained of their economic lifeblood. Hopefully, these leaders will soon catch up with the facts about the true economic impacts of “wind farms.”

September 1, 2008

Glenn R. Schleede (former New Yorker now living at)
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958

Endnotes:
[i] US Department of Energy, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006, May 2007, pp. 15-16.
[ii] NREL, Wind Turbine design Cost and Scaling Model, December 2006, p. 35
[iii] This point can be illustrated by the local purchase of gasoline used during construction. The total cost of a gallon of gasoline may be $4.00 but the only significant parts of that $4.00 that may add local value are (a) the wages for the service station operator, (b) local taxes paid by the station owner, (c) the station owner’s profit margin – if locally owned, and, (d) perhaps some small part of the cost of transporting gasoline to the station – if by a local transporter. So, potential local economic benefit might total $0.50 or less per gallon (for the local value added), not the remainder of the $4.00 that would go to a crude oil producer, refiner, wholesaler, and transporters and for federal and state taxes.
[iv] “Why are New York Political and Business Leaders putting the interests of Spain-based Iberdrola ahead of the interests of New York’s taxpayers and electric customers?” July 30, 2008, http://www.wind-watch.org/alerts/?p=671

• Iberdrola, the Spanish company that wishes to acquire Energy East and its electric and gas distribution subsidiaries is insisting that it will “walk away from” the deal if it is not permitted to build “wind farms” in New York.
• High-powered New York political, business, labor and media leaders (including Governor Paterson and Senator Schumer) are working to get members of the NY State Public Utility Commission (NYS PSC) to overturn the PSC Staff’s recommendation and the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Iberdrola should not be permitted to own both electric generating capacity (including “wind farms”) and electric distribution companies in NY.
• These NY “leaders” are striving in favor of Iberdrola despite the demonstrable negative impacts that Iberdrola’s proposal would have on New York’s taxpayers, electric customers, and state economy.

This brief paper:

• Provides details on the financial reason that apparently underlies Iberdrola’s insistence on the right to own “wind farms” in NY. That is, huge tax breaks available for “wind farms” could permit Iberdrola to sharply reduce or eliminate liability for paying federal or state tax income tax on profits from Energy East Companies’ electricity and gas distribution operations.
• Speculates about the reasons why NY “leaders” are working so hard on behalf of Iberdrola — and against the interests of NY taxpayers and electric customers — and the state’s economy.

Why is Iberdrola insisting on the right to build “wind farms” in New York?

Clearly, Iberdrola is taking advantage of popular wisdom about wind energy, and working to give the company a “green” image. However, it is a virtual certainty that huge federal and state tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy explain the company’s threat to “walk away” from the Energy East acquisition if it cannot own “wind farms.”

Specifically, a $2 billion investment in “wind farms” in New York would permit Iberdrola’s Energy East to avoid paying most if not all of the federal and New York state corporate income tax that would otherwise be due on the profits from Energy East-owned electricity and gas distribution companies operating in New York. Profits from Energy East’s New York operations (paid for by NY electric and gas customers) would flow out of New York.

When considering the huge tax breaks detailed below, keep in mind that, according to Energy East’s 2007 Annual Report, the total amount of all income taxes — federal and all states in which Energy East operates — paid in 2007 was $114,058,000.

What is startling and disappointing is that NY political leaders — particularly Governor Paterson and Senator Schumer — apparently do not understand and/or do not care that:

• Federal and state government tax breaks and subsidies have made it so lucrative for organizations to “invest” in “wind farms” to avoid paying taxes that would otherwise be due.
• Tax burden that would be avoided by companies such as Iberdrola’s Energy East would be shifted to ordinary taxpayers who do not have access to such tax shelters. (That is, a large transfer of wealth, exacerbated by higher costs of electricity for electric customers.)

Key Tax Breaks and Subsidies for proposed Iberdrola “wind farms”

Wind industry lobbyists have been enormously successful in getting federal and state politicians to enact generous tax breaks and subsidies. Specifically, consider the financial benefits to Iberdrola’s Energy East of only the following five tax breaks and subsidies if the company were to own “wind farms” with a total capital investment of $2 billion.

For simplicity and to be conservative, the following example assumes (i) a cost of $2,000 per kilowatt (kW) of turbine capacity so that Iberdrola’s $2 billion would finance 1,000 MW of wind turbine capacity, and (ii) that all the capacity would be added in a single year. Actually, Iberdrola’s public statements assume a lower cost per kW and, quite likely, the proposed investment would occur over 3 or 4 years but that doesn’t change the key facts.

1. Federal Production Tax Credit for electricity from wind (PTC). First, Iberdrola would receive the federal wind PTC, currently $0.02 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for electricity produced during the 1st 10 years of operation. Congress is expected to extend this tax shelter beyond its current December 31, 2008, expiration date. By itself, this tax credit would reduce Iberdrola’s federal income tax liability over 10 years by $525,600,000, [7] effectively shifting that amount of tax burden to taxpayers who don’t enjoy such tax shelters.

2. Accelerated Depreciation. Second, a $2 billion “wind farm” would qualify for the exceedingly generous 5-year, double declining balance accelerated depreciation for federal income tax purposes. [8] Assuming that $2 billion is the full cost of Iberdrola-owned “wind farms,” the following amounts would be deducted from Iberdrola’s otherwise taxable income and further reduce Iberdrola’s federal income tax liability …

a. Prompt recovery of Iberdrola’s equity investment. The example above, conservatively assumes that the entire “wind farm” capital investment would be equity, rather than debt. If the equity investment was only half the capital cost and the remainder borrowed, (i.e., $1 billion), the table above shows that Iberdrola would recover through depreciation deductions all of its equity investment in less than 2 years and in just over 1 year if the project(s) begin operation late in the first tax year. With no remaining equity investment, Iberdrola’s return on equity would be infinite.

b. A large interest-free loan. The depreciation deduction continues even though all equity has been recovered. Thus, Iberdrola would, in effect, be receiving an interest free loan, courtesy of US taxpayers for an amount equal to the debt financing.

If Iberdrola were unable to use all the tax deductions — which may be the case, schemes are available to “sell” tax credits to other firms that have tax liabilities that they wish to avoid.

3. Avoiding New York Corporate Franchise Taxes. Tax breaks for “wind farms” are not limited to those provided by the federal government. New York State also allows a corporation to take advantage of 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation deductions from otherwise taxable New York income. Therefore, Iberdrola would be able to take deductions like those shown above when calculating its New York corporate tax liability. …

4. Subsidy Payments from NYSERDA to “Wind Farm” Owners. Under rules issued by the NYS Public Service Commission (NYS PSC), customers of New York’s investor owned utilities are assessed a charge (added to monthly electric bills) that provides the funds used by NYSERDA to provide subsidies to producers of electricity from “renewable” energy. In April 2007, NYS PSC and NYSERDA announced selection of 9 proposed “wind farms” owned by three companies to receive payments from NYSERDA over 10 years. The awards averaged $15 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electric produced — which is equal to $0.015 cents per kWh. The awards are said to purchase the “environmental attributes” of the wind-generated electricity.

If Iberdrola’s proposed “wind farms” were to receive similar NYSERDA subsidies, the potential income, based on the conservative assumptions outlined earlier, would be $39,420,000 per year and $394,420,000 over 10 years.

5. New York’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). In addition to the above tax breaks and subsidies, New York has virtually assured big profits for “wind farm” owners by requiring that a growing percentage of the electricity sold in New York must come from “renewable” energy, which, in New York is expected to be mostly from wind. By dictating that a large portion of electricity must be produced from “renewable” energy, owners of facilities that produce electricity from wind and other “renewables” are likely to be able to demand higher prices for their electricity than would be paid under normal market conditions. The higher costs of electricity from renewables that electric distribution companies are forced to pay are passed along to electric customers in their monthly bills — along with the PSC’s “surcharge.”

6. Other Tax Breaks and Subsidies. “Wind Farms” enjoy a variety of other federal and state financial, market and regulatory subsidies. For example, in New York, “wind farms” are eligible for exemption from property taxes.

Why are NY political, business, labor and media leaders urging the NYS PSC to override the PSC Staff’s recommendations and the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision?

The list of political, business, labor and media officials that have publicly urged the members of the NYS PSC to override its staff and ALJ Rafael Epstein includes NY Governor David Paterson; US Senator Charles Schumer; NY State Senators Joe Bruno, James Alesi and George Maziarz, NY Assemblyman Joseph Morelle, Kenneth Adams, president and CEO of the Business Council of New York State, and Brian McMahon, executive director of the New York State Economic Development Council; leaders of Business organizations such as the Rochester Business Alliance, and officials of the Greater Rochester Enterprise; and NY newspaper editorial writers (e.g., Schenectady NY Daily Gazette); New York State Laborers’ Union.

When considering the serious implications of Iberdrola’s insistence on a right to own “wind farms,” the truly puzzling question is:

Why are New York “leaders” favoring the interests of Spain-based Iberdrola over the interests of New York’s taxpayers, electric customers, and economy?

Sadly, the most likely answers to the puzzling question do not reflect favorably on NY leaders who are working on behalf of Iberdrola. To illustrate, perhaps the answers are that:

1. Leaders really don’t understand the extent or implication of available tax breaks and subsidies. Those who follow the workings of federal and state governments now recognize that political leaders often do not understand the implications of the policies, tax breaks and subsidies that they enact. Apparently this is true for New York’s leaders in the case of the huge tax breaks and subsidies that wind industry lobbyists and other wind energy advocates have pushed through the federal and state legislatures and regulatory bodies.

2. Leaders have been misled by false and misleading claims about wind energy. For more than a decade the wind industry and other wind energy advocates have greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy, and greatly under stated the adverse environmental, economic, scenic and property value impacts. Clearly, the public, media and government officials have been misled about wind energy.

Only during the last 3 or 4 years have the facts about wind energy been uncovered. The media has only begun to understand and report these facts. Unfortunately, there is always a delay before the facts begin to penetrate the thinking and actions of legislators and other government officials so it is not unusual for political leaders to continue taking positions that are not in the public interest, and harmful to a state’s taxpayers, consumers and economy long after the negative effects have been identified.

3. Campaign contributions, advertising revenue, and member dues for business associations are taking precedence over the interests of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers. Clearly, the wind industry has enormous financial capability to pay for intensive lobbying of federal, state and local officials, providing campaign contributions, paying for advertising in “friendly” newspapers, and paying dues to associations that lobby on behalf of wind industry interests. Also, it appears that some “environmental” advocacy groups receive substantial contributions from organizations in the wind industry and work to promote wind industry interests. It would be truly surprising if these factors did NOT explain the positions taken by some NY political and business leaders in the Iberdrola situation.

4. Exaggerated claims of economic benefits and jobs from “wind farms” are being believed. Wind industry officials and other advocates (including some New York State and federal agencies) often exaggerate the local and state economic benefits and jobs that would result from “wind farms.” Exaggerated claims are often the result of failure to recognize or acknowledge that:

• a. The overwhelming share of capital costs of a “wind farm” are for turbines, blades and other equipment that is produced elsewhere, often outside the US, thus providing no local or state economic benefits.
• b. Few of the jobs during “wind farm” construction are filled from local sources. Instead, some 80% of the jobs (particularly the higher paying ones) are often filled by workers brought in temporarily. Also, failure to recognize (i) that “wind farm” construction time is only a few months, and (ii) the “imported” workers probably pay taxes in their home states, not in the state where the “wind farm” is located.
• c. Few of the materials and supplies for “wind farms” are purchased locally and, for those purchased locally, only the local”value added” locally will contribute local economic benefit — not the total price of the materials or supplies as wind advocates assume.
• d. Economic benefit from rental payments received by land owners are tiny compared to the higher costs of electricity that are borne by electric customers. Higher electric bills — including the portion added by the NYS PSC to pay for NYSERDA subsidies to “wind farm” owners mean that electric customers have less money to spend locally; e.g., for food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, recreation and other things that help the local economy.

5. Leaders still do not understand that wind turbines cannot provide the reliable generating capacity that is needed in New York to satisfy growing in peak electricity demand or replace older generating units. Because wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within certain speed ranges (start up around 6 mph, reach rated capacity around 32 mph, and cut out around 56 mph), the electricity they produce is inherently intermittent, volatile and unreliable. Furthermore, wind turbines are most likely to produce electricity at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity demand reaches peak levels.
Experience in New York, California and Texas, for example, demonstrate that wind turbines may produce well under 10% and often 0% of their rated capacity when electricity demand is at its peak. Therefore, areas experiencing peak demand growth or needing to replace older generating plants will have to add reliable (”dispatchable”) generating capacity whether or not “wind farms” are built. In fact, wind turbines have little or no real capacity value.

6. Leaders do not understand the full, true costs of wind energy and believe, incorrectly, that wind energy is environmentally benign. Wind energy advocates greatly understate the true costs of electricity from wind energy. Typically they ignore the huge cost of tax breaks and subsidies (only a few have been mentioned above), the need to provide back-up generating capacity because electricity from wind is intermittent, volatile and unreliable, or the adverse environmental, economic, scenic and property value impacts. Evidence of these adverse effects continues to mount (e.g., bird and bat kills, habitat destruction, noise) and is even finding its way into the news media. Claims of environmental benefits are overstated.

Conclusion

The people of New York — particularly the taxpayers and electric customers who are already overburdened with high taxes and high electric bills — do not deserve to pay more while “wind farm” owners avoid taxation, add to electric bills or impair the environment. Those who would be forced to live with “wind farms” do not deserve to have scenic vistas or their property values impaired.

New York political, business, labor, and media leaders need to be more responsive to the people of New York and the state’s economy than to the desires of Spain-based Iberdrola.

Glenn R. Schleede (former New Yorker)
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958

Download “NY Leaders wrongly support Iberdrola over NY Taxpayers & Electric Customers” (includes more figures and referenced footnotes)

Even though the facts tell a different story, people who stand to profit from industrial wind turbines continue to insist there is no problem with the noise and other troubles associated with living too close to a machine that is 40 stories tall with spinning blades that span wider than a Boeing 747. They tell us there is no proof that living 1000 feet from an industrial wind turbine is bad for you in any way. There is plenty of proof.

We’re reminded of the recent assertion of the tanning bed industry that there is no connection between tanning bed use and skin cancer despite the growing medical evidence that indeed there is big trouble. Even The U.S. government’s National Cancer institute states “Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.”

Yet even now, even with the knowledge that they are hurting people, the tanning bed salesmen and the owners of tanning salons continue to insist that tanning beds are safe.

We’re told living 1000 feet from industrial wind turbines is safe, too. Even with the known noise issues, known trouble with shadow flicker and other troubles, we’re still being told it’s is safe by the well-paid wind developers and by the land owners who will profit by hosting the turbines.

They say it’s safe and there are no problems, but people who are actually living in the shadows of these turbines right now have a different story for us. Last month two residents from the town of Byron, Fond Du Lac county drove all the way to Evansville to testify at the public hearing about what it’s been like to live amid the turbines that went on line in their area just this last March. They came because they said they didn’t want anyone else to have to live with what has happened to their families, their homes, and their communities.

Money talks and talks and talks.

Facts are facts.

At the last public hearing in the town of Union some of these facts were presented in the following testimony. We thank the un-paid citizen who did this research and took the time to bring it to the rest of us and make it part of the public record.

In spite of what you may have been told, the same noise concerns in reference to wind turbine siting exist throughout the world, even Germany and Denmark. If you’ve heard the saying- where there’s smoke there’s fire, you might have to believe that -if there are common noise issues concerning wind turbines worldwide, there must be some truth in what people are saying.

After hundreds of hours of reading hundreds of reports from scientists, audiologists, doctors and physicists I’ve come to a conclusion. The so called new technology we’ve been hearing about has not reduced the noise.

The second international “Wind Turbine Noise Conference 2007” was held in France in September. Quote: “The conference aims to bring together the latest information on noise and vibration from wind turbines to give an unbiased framework from which future developments can be accessed”. The conference is chaired by Geoff Levanthall. I’ll just touch on a few of last year’s accepted papers.

“Noise Pollution From Wind Turbines- Living with amplitude modulation, lower frequency emissions and sleep deprivation”, by Julian Davis and Jane Davis a registered nurse. This paper was written by a family in the UK who kept a diary about their life 3060 feet from the nearest wind turbine. The paper describes the nature of the noise with its pulsating character, the vibrations felt by the body and it’s intrusiveness, as well as the impact of the noise on them physically and psychologically. Most serious is the sleep deprivation and the ensuing adverse effects, and the inability to pursue or sustain normal family and social functions. Eventually after 7 months of sleeping at friends houses, they abandoned their home.

Another accepted paper, “Wind Farm Noise Regulations in the Eastern United States”, by Soysal and Soysal Department of Physics and Engineering, Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD. Conclusions; Sound generated by wind turbines has particular characteristics and it creates a different type of nuisance compared to usual urban, industrial or commercial noise. The interaction of the blades with air turbulences around the towers creates low frequency and infrasound components which modulate the broadband noise which create fluctuations of sound level. The low frequency fluctuations of the noise is described as “swishing” or “whooshing” sound, creating an additional disturbance due to the periodic and rhythmic characteristic”.

“Auralization and Assessments of Annoyance from Wind Turbines”, by Soren Vase Legarth, DELTA, Denmark. “The development of wind turbines moves toward maximizing the produced power by increasing size. In general- larger often means louder- and that gives rise to concern for people living near places for new wind turbine projects. Therefore focus also is kept on minimizing the emitted sound to make wind turbines more acceptable for the people living near them. Two primary attributes related to annoyance in wind turbine sounds are tonal components and the swishing sound from the rotating blades. The annoyance should be the key parameter when deciding where to build any new wind turbine park. Earlier studies have addressed this issue and identified perceptive attributes of the wind turbine sound that contributes to the overall annoyance.

“Uncloaking the Nature of Wind Turbines Using the Science of Meteorology”, William K.G. Palmer, Canada. Conclusions: To prevent noise excesses from wind turbines being a constant irritant, calculation of the sound power levels for a wind turbine must consider the wind shear changes from day to night and from season from season. Wind turbine proponents must recognize that evidence does not support the widely made, but inaccurate claim that as turbine output goes up ambient noise caused by ground level winds prevents annoyance.

People’s testimonies in the US and all over the world in many cases living 1/2 mile or more from a wind turbine have reported that their family’s lives have been turned upside down. These people were surprised by the reality of not just the loudness by sound decibel levels but also the content of the noise from a wind turbine. They were led to believe the same thing you’ve been led to believe that, quote: “thanks to improvements in technology, noise is no longer the issue it was”. While a dBA limit is part of the sound limit for a setback from a residence, it’s only a guideline and necessary for regulatory purposes. A one size fits all average noise limit with a built in allowance for masking has everything to do with a certification test and quantity siting and nothing to do with Public Health and Safety. Recent studies have proven that the “tallness” of the modern wind turbines presents a new set of issues. Trust the cumulative reports of the French Academy of Medicine, the UK Noise Association, Dr. Amanda Harry, Frey and Hadden, G.P. van den Berg, Pedersen and Waye, Dr. Soysal, Rick James and George Kamperman who have actual data from operating windfarms, including the Fond du Lac project and who have studied the effects on people living with wind turbines. Please respect their findings and support setbacks of at least 1/2 mile or more [e.g., 2 km, as recommended by Dr. Nina Pierpont in her upcoming study Wind Turbine Syndrome -- Ed.].

“No protestamos por todo, protestamos porque el momento historico lo requiere, porque las circustancias lo ameritan, porque no podemos callar ante el abuso y el atropello. Protestamos por justicia, por dignidad. Mientras otros callan y se olvidan que la lucha comunitaria es vital para que enfrentar con firmeza los problemas que nos afectan nosotros protestamos.” –José F. Saez Cintron

(We are not protesting for nothing, we are protesting because the historical moment requires it, because circumstances merit it, because we can not keep silent in the face of abuse and outrage. We are protesting for justice, for dignity. While others are silent and forget that community struggle is vital to firmly confront the problems that affect us, we protest.)

“Si el progreso es una fuerza, una fuerza de expancion, hay que mantenerla en sus limites antes que se convierta en agrecion.” — Eugenio Maria de Hostos

(If progress is a force, a force of expansion, it must be kept within limits before it becomes aggression.)

Protestamos porque la destrucción es evidente y esto es tan solo el comienzo.
Protestamos porque hay que detener este crimen ambiental.
Protestamos porque nos sentimos indignados ante semejante crimen ambiental.
Protestamos porque atenta contra nuestra Herencia Cultural.
Protestamos porque afecta la Calidad de Vida de los recidentes de las comunidades cercanas.

We protest because the destruction is evident and it has only just begun.
We protest because this environmental crime must be stopped.
We protest because we are angry in the face of this environmental crime.
We protest because its attempt against our cultural heritage.
We protest because it affects the quality of life of the residents in neighboring communities.

Download “¿Por qué protestamos?”

La “Otra Cara” de los Parques Eólicos, lo que nos ocultan:

Que los Molinos o aerogeneradores son derribados por el viento o por vibraciones etc.
Que causan la muerte a una gran cantidad de aves y murciélagos.
Que se incendian.
Que ocurren derrames de aceite el cual contamina el suelo.
Que requieren de una gran infraestructura.
Que ocurren muchos accidentes.
Que destruyen el paisaje y convierten los lugares en desiertos.
Que requiere de la remoción de la corteza terrestre lo cual causa un daño irreversible.

The “other face” of wind parks, which is kept hidden from us:

That the windmills or aerogenerators are destroyed by wind and vibration.
That they cause the death of a huge number of birds and bats.
That they catch fire.
That oil leaks occur that can contaminate the soil.
That they require a huge infrastructure.
That many accidents occur.
That they destroy the countryside and convert their sites into deserts.
That they require removal of topsoil, which causes irreversible damage.

Nuestro Bosque Seco no es renovable!

(Our forest is not renewable!)

Download “La Otra Cara”

As a homeowner in the Pass for 30 years, and familiar with the wind patterns, I had reservations as to all the amounts of power that the wind developers claimed that they could generate and that this was even considered a “good’ wind area.

I began my research some years ago, as I became suspicious of all the claims made by this industry, by collecting data from many knowledgeable and reliable sources, as well as the California Energy Commission, which at one time published their actual production records.

The Wind Industry’s actual production records were so dismal and at variance with what they projected, they lobbied the CEC into not having to reveal their production records anymore.

Nevertheless, I still obtained 15 years of their production records and time of generation from 1998 until 2006. This data confirmed what I observed visually,
as I can see them from my house, when they work and mostly don’t. Every time the wind developers went to get another permit to put up more windmills, the developers always stated how many MW they were installing and how many homes they could provide energy for. What they would do is add all their generation as if it was generated 24/7 and divide it by the average household. This is very misleading and deceptive, as the records indicate:

Only 5-6% of their generation is at peak need time, 33% mid-peak and the balance of 60% when we need it the least; this off-peak generation is deemed as of lesser value, and we must keep in mind that they can only generate about 25% of their capacity, intermittently.

Another big drawback is that it is not constant. One minute it may be blowing and the next couple of weeks or months there may be none.

Even with the volatility of wind, windmills really don’t generate that much power. I became curious as to exactly how much power they were contributing to Edison.

These are the results:

• Wind Power has about 4,000 windmills in the San Gorgonio Pass, which amounts to approximately 375 MW of installed capacity.
• Because the wind is only good enough to generate power 25% of capacity, their generation amounts to an average of 93.5 MW per year, that they sell to Edison [Edison is mandated to purchase all that they generate].
• Edison uses on average about 13,000 MW per year in their service area.
• The astounding fact that has never been revealed is, this amounts to about only about 7 tenths of 1% of what Edison uses. This is all, after 25 years of exaggerated promises.

But, it even gets worse.

• If you take their average annual production of about 93.5 MW and subtract the 60% off-peak generation, this leaves a miniscule amount of about 2.8 tenths of 1% that is meaningful, if you can call it that, that is generated when we really need it, after billions and billions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars in subsidization and even today they still get a portion from our monthly electric bills. I don’t think the people got much bang for their bucks!
• I also learned that when this “off-peak” generation can’t be sold [because demand is low and it can't be stored] the Utility gives it away for 0 cents, but pay the Wind Energy companies their contract price and charge this cost back to the ratepayers — legal double dipping? This off-peak generation is deemed as of “lesser” value. How often this happens is another unknown.
• Another finding is that wind is useless as capacity. Because of wind’s volatile nature, the utilities need a constant, reliable source of power to prevent power disruptions, including in their “spinning reserve” which is power on standby to accommodate any instantaneous demand.
• In order to accommodate wind into the grid, the California ISO turns down hydro and gas turbines [both fairly clean], because they are the easiest to manipulate the inconsistencies of wind power, the unreliability, constant on and off and volatile nature of wind. Also, you can see how small the amount of wind energy really is to the amount that Edison uses. Edison does not use oil. At best, there is some natural gas savings. In Public Hearings, they always refer to our reliance on Middle East oil and how Wind Energy will help alleviate that need. Their statement is simply not true.
• Another drawback is that wind power cannot be stored and cannot be called upon at will when we need it — it does not match the “time of need profile”. So, then, exactly what good is it? Except to feel good?!
• The bottom line is that wind energy is a DUPLICATION of capacity that the utilities already MUST have to provide a steady flow of power, without interruptions and blackouts. Because of wind’s intermittent nature, wind won’t work, it is really inconsequential.
• In Tehachapi, for many years there was a curtailment program, where the windmills were overbuilt for the grid which was too small to handle the surge. Edison made an agreement with the wind industry to just shut the machines down and paid them over $12 million which was also charged back to the ratepayers.
• I am very concerned that this big push by government officials for more wind power when I really don’t think they really understand how it works. They can cover the entire country with windmills and they would do nothing for our capacity. If you stop and think about this … when the wind stops, then what? Edison will have to come on line with the same amount of power that they always need to cover the instantaneous demand, we can’t be waiting for the wind to start blowing again.
• But most alarming are the misleading claims and outright misrepresentations made by the wind industry itself, with no one verifying what they say.
• Because of the wind industry, our power bills have skyrocketed and will continue to do so with each new windmill, while Edison can provide the same power for 2 cents per kWh.
• Unfortunately, the powers that be chose to believe the developers, without ever checking out their veracity or production records. Because of this hysteria for “green”, it appears that they would rather put our power supply at risk and have the ratepayers pay double and triple than what is necessary — for an illusion.

They have scraped miles and miles of desert, obliterated our views, rendered adjacent property valueless and impacted us with noise and dust for this minuscule amount of useless energy … it is beyond belief. And they have so far gotten away with it.

The only transmission has been the $’s from our pockets to theirs.

Alexandra Weit
Whitewater, CA 92282
June 23, 2007

This Article’s Images »

(Photo credits: Thank you to those organizations and people around the world who provide photographic evidence of this environmental tragedy. Among them are sekano.net, Lygeium, the Center for Biological Diversity, Mark Duchamp, Darryl Mueller and other dedicated organizations and people.)

Do you know where your money and representation goes when you support a wildlife, environmental or nature organization? If you think it is going to save and protect wildlife you might want to take a second look. (A list of some of the National wildlife protection groups can be found below.)

The Sierra Club, who pleads to its members for support to save The Endangered Species Act, is lobbying on the side of the American Wind Energy Association to take the teeth out of it. Even though thousands of birds, bats, eagles and other endangered species die every year from deadly collisions with wind turbines. And it is a global problem.

From the Sierra Club’s website:

“The Endangered Species Act is one of America’s most effective tools for safeguarding our fish and wildlife heritage.

Thanks to this landmark law, wild salmon still spawn in the rivers of the Pacific Northwest, wolves have returned to Yellowstone, and the bald eagle soars from coast to coast. The ESA has been successful in keeping over 99 percent of all the fish and wildlife under its care from going extinct, but the Bush administration is rushing to gut the law by changing regulations to make it easier for developers to pave and pollute the nation’s wildlands and our special places.”

While Sierra Club accuses the Bush administration of rushing to gut the law, and may not be attempting to change regulations, it is backing an industry that wants to ignore the laws by essentially sparing itself from oversight, compliance and responsibility with US Fish and Wildlife requested standards and regulations, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Congressman Rahall D-W.VA proposed a section to a larger energy bill, now being debated in Congress, that would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish standards for siting, construction and monitoring of wind projects to mitigate and control further illegal harm to protected wildlife and endangered species.

Of course, the wind energy developers, represented by the American Wind Energy Association, who has gotten a free ride on regulations thus far, went into a tail-spin of public relations hysteria claiming Rahall’s legislation was anti-wind and would “essentially outlaw” the generation of new wind power plants and wind turbines in the US and criminalize this rapidly developing industry.

And the Sierra Club is backing them up on the killing and/or watering down of this life-saving amendment while some important wildlife protection organizations simply refuse, or weren’t aware of it, to take a stand.

The American Wind Energy Association claims Subtitle D would burden wind power with ’sweeping new requirements that have never applied to other energy sectors’. Of course, no other energy sector has been responsible for the direct and irrefutable carnage of thousands of dead birds, bats, eagles and other endangered species in alarming and growing numbers right at the front steps of their industrial plants and facilities.

They also claim the US Fish and Wildlife Service and its scientists are by and large incompetent and ill-equipped to review existing and planned wind projects while omitting the fact that this review would be on behalf of the wildlife and endangered species the US Fish and Wildlife Service is mandated to protect. Not only are they charged with the responsibility of protecting birds and threatened and endangered species but they are also charged with enforcing the laws.

Additionally, the wind industry claims birds do not fly into wind turbines, they simply fly around them. This is based on one industry biased study done in Denmark, who is one of the largest producers and exporters of wind turbines in the world. And has been used over and over again in the media to suppress the truth on bird and bat kills at wind farms.

However AWEA also claims to be working with environmental groups and scientists to address the issue of the deaths to birds and bats at wind farms. So which is it? Are birds and bats being killed or are they not? If they are not, why is this industry claiming to be working to reduce a non-existent impact?

But Rahall, who supports wind power as a renewable energy resource, believes that while wind power should be a part of the Nation’s energy portfolio it needs to grow responsibly “I suspect” he said recently “wind projects are on a regular basis in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, yet no enforcement action is being taken”.

The evidence of Rahall’s statement is born out by the Center for Biological Diversity in California who has been fighting for these billion-dollar businesses to operate in compliance with the law. Over twenty-years there have been 17,000 to 25,000 illegal raptor (eagles, hawks, falcons and owls) deaths at the Altamont Pass Wind Farm and to date the laws have not been enforced, no fines have been paid nor has any meaningful mitigation taken place to prevent more deaths to raptors and endangered species there in the future. Additionally, new studies in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ontario and New York, to name a few, are showing thousands of migratory bats and birds are being slaughtered by wind turbine blades.

According to Donald Michael Fry, PhD, the Director of the Pesticides and Birds Program at the American Bird Conservancy, testimony to the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Oversight Hearing on: “Gone with the Wind: Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats”:

“The mortality at wind farms is significant, because many of the species most impacted are already in decline and all sources of mortality contribute to the continuing decline.”

“The wind energy industry has been constructing and operating wind projects for almost 25 years with little state and federal oversight. They have rejected as either too costly or unproven techniques recommended by NWCC” (and other avian experts) “to reduce bird deaths. The wind industry ignores the expertise of state energy staff and the knowledgeable advice of Fish and Wildlife Service employees on ways to reduce or avoid bird and wildlife impacts.”

Please read the congressional testimony of a public interest law firm that provides legal representation to not for profit environmental, conservation and animal protection organizations HERE to understand why this bill is of vital importance to the development of the wind industry in this country and others.

Below are two of the Federal Laws Rahall’s proposal wants to see carried out and enforced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that is being fought tooth and nail by the wind industry so they will not have to be in compliance or even take them into consideration when siting wind turbines:

The Bald and Golden Eagle Act

Subdivision (a) makes it a criminal offense to “knowingly, or with wanton disregard for the consequences of his act take . . . in any manner . . . any golden eagle . . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 668(a).

‘[T]ake’ includes also . . . kill, . . . molest or disturb.” 16 U.S.C. § 668c.

Penalties: up to $500,000 fine and two years imprisonment for each eagle killed.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act

“[I]t shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, [or] possess . . . any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird . . . .”

Penalties: For each bird killed, up to $15,000 fine and six months imprisonment.

One would think this ‘environmentally friendly’ industry and so called wildlife protection group like the Sierra Club would welcome standards, guidelines and oversight from the US Fish and Wildlife Service if for no other reason than ‘an ounce of prevention would be worth, literally, a pound of cure”. Especially since this growing industry presents itself as struggling and often seeks public lands and waters on which to build their projects at little cost to them (The Cape Wind project, proposed by a private developer for federal waters off of Cape Cod, MA would built an industrial wind power plant the size of the island of Manhattan but only pay a lease on the diameter of the individual 130 turbines. In analogy, they would rent a golf course but only pay for the holes.).

But, just who are these ’struggling’ wind industry owners and developers at, for instance, Altamont Pass?

FPL Group—Florida—$11 billion revenues (2003)

Altamont Power, Green Ridge Power

Vestas—Denmark—$3.4 billion revenues (2004 proj.)

Altamont Power, Green Ridge Power

AES—Virginia—$8.4 billion revenues (2003)

SeaWest

Electricité de France—France (French government-owned electric utility)—$59 billion revenues (2003)

Enxco

Powerworks—Idaho—privately held

Altamont Winds, Pacific Winds

A choice between birds and global warming?

While it is understandable that environmental organizations may support wind power as a source of alternative energy to fossil fuel burning power plants; is it at all understandable that they would want and allow irresponsible development and circumvention of the laws that protect our wildlife from harm on behalf of an industry that has already proven itself to be deadly to those same migratory birds, bats and endangered species?

The American Wind Energy Association, backed by environmental groups like the Sierra Club, would have us believe that the sacrifice of birds and bats is a small price to pay in the face of global warming. But it is not.

There is no reason to sacrifice these beautiful, innocent and important lives to an alternative source of energy that may be made less deadly through responsible siting and regulation. And that is what they are trying to avoid by their opposition to Rahall’s provisions.

The empirical evidence from all over the world shows our eagles, birds and bats are being killed in record numbers by wind turbines that have been placed in migratory flyways, important nesting and foraging areas and endangered species habitats.

A world-wide example can be found with the accompanying pictures to this article.

Thousands of birds and bats are being killed, maimed and suffering excruciating deaths every year at wind farms around the world and that number is increasing every day as new installations are built.

Wind power is the fastest growing alternative energy source and along with it one of the fastest growing sources of death to birds and bats. It must be regulated and overseen by the authorities whose job it is to protect our endangered birds and wildlife.

Is your charitable contribution going to an environmental organization that is using your membership to essentially sign (or ignore by not taking a stand at all) a death warrant for migratory birds, bats and endangered species?

Please contact any wildlife/environmental organization you support and ask if they have taken a stand on Congressamn Rahall’s legislation Subtitle D of H.R. 2337 Title II Energy Bill now before Congress. And if not, why not?

Environmental organizations that support irresponsible development and the circumvention of the law over wildlife protection don’t deserve our financial support.

A list of some national nature, wildlife and environmental protection organizations you may be supporting please also check your local Audubon chapter and wildlife organizations as well to let them know what is going on and ask for their help in upholding the law:

ANIMAL PROTECTION INSTITUTE

AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY

AMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATION

THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION

AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION

BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL

BIRD BANDING LABORATORY, THE NORTH AMERICAN BIRD BANDING PROGRAM, USGS

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

DUCKS UNLIMITED

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE

EARTHWATCH

ENDANGERED SPECIES COALITION

ENDANGERED SPECIES INTERNATIONAL

THE FUND FOR ANIMALS

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

IUCN – THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION

INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE REHABILITATION COUNCIL

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE SOCIETY

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

SEAWORLD & BUSCH GARDENSCONSERVATION FUND —

SIERRA CLUB

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

WORLD SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

Click on this SITE for a list of Animal Rights and Animal Protection Organizations in every state and countries from around the world that might help us fight for the birds, endangered species and wildlife. Please contact them to let them know what is going on and that the birds and bats need their help.

Here is my letter to the nature organizations I support that you might find useful when writing yours. Please feel free to copy and paste or modify to put it into your own words, thoughts and feelings and send to your nature groups:

Dear________,

I would like to bring to your attention an important bill, H.R. 2337 Title II Energy Bill, now being debated in Congress. Subtitle D of this bill would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish standards for siting, construction and monitoring of wind projects to mitigate the horrible deaths they are causing to thousands of birds, bats, eagles and other endangered species by upholding and enforcing the laws that protect them.

As a supporting member of your organization, I do not want the blood of eagles on my hands. And while I support alternative energy, I do not condone the sacrifice of our birds, bats, eagles and other endangered wildlife to do it.

The American Wind Energy Association would have us believe that the sacrifice of birds and bats is a small price to pay in the face of global warming. But it is not.

There is no reason to sacrifice these beautiful, innocent and important lives to an alternative source of energy that may be made less deadly through responsible siting and regulation.

I urge you to support Subtitle D of H.R. 2337 Title II Energy Bill as it was originally proposed by Congressman Rahall.

Sincerely,

Here is my letter in support of Rahall’s vital amendment to my Senators, Congressmen, Governor amd State Legislators you can copy and paste or modify and send to yours: Their State by State email-addresses can be found HERE

Dear________,

As a citizen of this country and the State of __________ I am writing to ask you to give your full support without modification to Subtitle D as originally proposed by Congressman Rahall to H.R. 2337 Title II Energy Bill now being debated in Congress. Subtitle D of this bill would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish standards for siting, construction and monitoring of wind projects to mitigate the horrible deaths they are causing to thousands of birds, bats, eagles and other endangered species by upholding and enforcing the laws that protect them.

While I support alternative energy, I do not condone the sacrifice of our birds, bats, eagles and other endangered wildlife to do it.

The American Wind Energy Association claims Subtitle D would burden wind power with ’sweeping new requirements that have never applied to other energy sectors’. Of course, no other energy sector has been responsible for the direct and irrefutable carnage of thousands of dead birds, bats, eagles and other endangered species at the bases of an alarming and growing number of their plants and facilities.

The wind power industry and some environmental groups would also have us believe that the sacrifice of birds and bats is a small price to pay in the face of global warming. But it is not. And they would have us believe this is an anti-wind energy bill, which it isn’t. It is simply an amendment for responsible wind energy development that would serve to ensure proper siting, planning and mitigation which would allow the wind energy sector to grow responsibly and in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, The Bald and Golden Eagle Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

There is no reason to sacrifice these beautiful, innocent and important lives to an alternative source of energy that may be made less deadly through responsible siting and regulation.

I urge you to support Subtitle D of H.R. 2337 Title II Energy Bill as it was originally proposed by Congressman Rahall.

Sincerely,

Perhaps the most alarming difference between wind factories and other types of power plants is the acreage consumed. A nuclear power plant requires a modest 500 acres while a wind factory needs 150,000 acres or more to generate the same amount of power. In the United States, the hottest days are the least windy and when the wind doesn’t blow no power is generated. As a result, wind turns out to be a good way to save fuel, but because wind energy cannot be saved it is not a good way to avoid building plants that burn fossil fuels. A wind machine is a bit like a bicycle that a commuter keeps in the garage for sunny days. It saves gasoline, but the commuter has to own a car anyway. [And it doesn't save gasoline if the commuter has someone drive along behind him in case he gets winded on his bike, which is what the grid has to do with wind turbines. --Ed.]

Wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates. Its impact on the environment and people’s lives is far from benign. Research also reveals that there is a very cozy relationship between fossil fuel plant owners and wind factory owners. The reason is simple: the more you build wind factories the more you must build fossil fuel plants. Wind factories cannot operate without standby fossil fuel plants. What a scam! They lead people to believe they replace fossil fuel plants but the truth is they perpetuate them! How soon people forget Enron’s smoke and mirrors business plan.

Walt Kittelberger, Chairman
Lower Laguna Madre Foundation
PO Box 153
Port Mansfield, Texas 78598
956-944-2387
llmf@granderiver.net

“In wildness is the preservation of the world.”

Notice that he didn’t say, “In transforming the last scattered remnants of wildness into giant corporate industrial wind factories for the sole benefit of General Electric, Goldman Sachs, NRG Systems, Catamount Energy, etc. and their investors is the preservation of the world.”

Like many Vermonters I am an avid skier, hiker, snowshoer, paddler, hunter, fisherman, and road and mountain biker. And, like many of my fellow outdoor recreationalists who are adamantly opposed to giant corporate industrial wind power, but who don’t dare speak out, I was hesitant when Kate Carter asked me to write this. Like meek lambs we have been silenced by an industry that has cynically but effectively co-opted the “green” mantle, portraying itself as “eco-friendly.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. As one Northeast Kingdom resident [Jon Day of Newark] put it recently, the wind industrialists are “venture capitalists masquerading as environmentalists. There is only one reason these projects are planned in Vermont and that is financial gain. I might add at our pain.”

Right on. There is one reason these corporations exist, and only one reason: to make money for their investors. Period. Despite their rhetoric, they are not in business to make the world a better place. They are in business to make a profit. The only “green” thing about giant corporate industrial wind is the money flowing into their coffers (largely thanks to lavish government subsidies, i.e. your taxes and mine). No wonder the Catamount Energy website proclaims, “Business is brisk.”

And what do we get out of it? The usual benefits of corporate colonialism: a wrecked landscape. Ruined communities. State and local economies in tatters. Slaughtered wildlife. A special place destroyed. All for greed.

A friend who is actually a wind developer in Idaho once told me, “We expect to lose the first two or three rounds when communities resist us. But by the fourth or fifth round we wear out the opposition and we end up winning.”

Please see www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos to learn about the enormous environmental costs of constructing giant corporate industrial wind factories.

The giant corporate industrial wind lobby wants you to think that by turning our mountaintops into industrial parks we will cut greenhouse emissions. That is not true. Giant wind turbines produce an occasional trickle of electricity, something Vermont currently obtains from non-greenhouse gas producing sources. Vermont produces the least CO₂ of any state in the union. What CO₂ you and I do produce mainly comes out of the tailpipes of our cars — something we can address without destroying our mountains.

Vermont currently obtains about 75% of its electricity from nonCO₂-emitting Vermont Yankee and Hydro Quebec. The remainder comes from a variety of sources, such as local hydro and wood. Another 20-30% of our electricity could come from existing hydro plants on the Connecticut River that are currently sending the power to Massachusetts. However, this surplus is likely unnecessary as Vermont officials estimate that we can reduce our current electric usage by 30% merely through efficiency programs.

So, any additional electricity that giant corporate industrial wind managed to squeeze out of our mountaintops would merely be excess power added to the New England grid, where it would end up fueling the wretched excessiveness of our consumer culture: big box stores, suburban sprawl, the ghastly concrete and glass auto-centric wastelands in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Another thing that giant corporate industrial wind doesn’t want you to know is that, even if you covered the Green Mountains with turbines from Massachusetts to Quebec, or the entire Appalachians from Alabama to Newfoundland, you would not replace a single conventional power plant because wind power is so intermittent, unreliable, and has no base load capacity. You can’t store it, and you can’t depend upon it. Every kilowatt generated by wind must be backed up by a conventional source. In Germany, where there are no fewer than 14,500 industrial wind turbines, not a single fossil-fuel power station has been decommissioned.

The biggest energy source we can tap, not only in Vermont but also around the world, is conservation. We don’t need to adopt giant corporate industrial wind’s attitude that we live in a disposable landscape. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Restore. It’s an old fashioned idea that still works.

Vermont was recently ranked by the National Geographic Society as 6th among the world’s most desirable destinations, selected for its unspoiled attractiveness, distinctive cultural character, and environmental stewardship. If those of us who live, work, and recreate here want to keep it this way, we need to speak out against the powerful interests that threaten to destroy our home for absolutely no environmental or social benefit.

“In wildness is the preservation of the world.”

Stephen Gorman is a writer and photographer. His books include “Northeastern Wilds: Journeys of Discovery in the Northern Forest” and “The American Wilderness: Journeys into Distant and Historic Landscapes.” He has worked on assignment for national magazines such as Audubon, Men’s Journal, National Geographic publications, Discovery Channel publications, Sierra, Outside, and many others. He has a Master’s degree in Environmental Studies from Yale. He and his wife live in Norwich, Vermont.

Originally published in Vermont Sports, March 2007

The US Fish & Wildlife Service’s guidance document regarding “wind farm” location states:

1. Avoid placing turbines in areas where there are endangered species.
2. Avoid placing turbines in bird migration pathways.
3. Avoid placing turbines near known bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity colonies.
4. Avoid fragmenting large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat.

As you can see, siting industrial windplants on central Pennsylvania’s forested ridges is in violation of the criteria for acceptable locations according to the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

Download “Improper Industrial Windplant Siting Threatens Pennsylvania Ridgetops”

Words, carelessly used, quickly lose meaning.

“NIMBY” is an acronym for “Not In My Back Yard.” It’s often used as a pejorative by those attempting to make environmentalists appear to be self-serving moral relativists; people who change their values to suit their personal situations and interests.

Even the slightest appearance of self interest can trigger the “NIMBY” epithet. The environmentalist who attempts to deny the charge will look increasingly ridiculous as he goes through the clumsy process of explaining the common good of all is at issue and not personal interest alone.

What then are we to think of the term “NIMBY” set in its most recent and certainly it’s most dramatic context to date, hurled as a pejorative thunderbolt from the usually peaceful decks of the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater by no less a person than that organization’s Environmental Action Director?

It was leveled at the person of Robert H. Boyle, an iconic figure whose name is synonymous with the Storm King Decision and the founding of the modern environmental movement in America.

Don’t worry! Boyle was not harmed in the least. He continues happily at home where he continues to pursue the truth whether or not it is convenient for the corporations or environmental organizations. The onlookers are another matter. They were shocked into a silence from which they have yet to recover.

In truth, it is shocking and one hardly knows what to think of it. But this fleeting mention of “truth” does give us a place to start.

Is it even remotely believable that Manna Jo Greene, Clearwater’s Environmental Action Director, could possibly be under the impression that Robert H. Boyle is a self-serving moral relativist? One could just as easily imagine Pete Seeger polluting the Hudson River!

Robert H. Boyle’s story is well known. Boyle resigned from Riverkeeper, the organization he founded and successfully led to eminence, rather than compromise the principle that science cannot be separated from ethics.

The question at issue was whether or not Boyle would submit to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s demand that an individual who is a convicted perjurer and environmental felon be hired at Riverkeeper as a staff scientist. This perjurer and felon had led an international wildlife smuggling ring over a period of many years, was caught, convicted, and sent to prison. The time he served in prison did nothing to improve this person’s ethics; he even lied in the resume he submitted to Riverkeeper. Boyle likened it to hiring a child molester to work at a nursery school. Riverkeeper did ultimately submit to Kennedy’s demand, but
Boyle emphatically did not.

Boyle, along with eight other board members, resigned from the organization in which Boyle had invested so many years of selfless dedication rather than participate in a compromise of integrity at the whim of a person whose power derives from his family’s inherited celebrity. Does this sound like a candidate for NIMBY to you?

[Much of the following information about Manna Jo Greene is a paraphrase of information from Clearwater's website. For a more detailed description and photo see: About Clearwater; Staff and Bios: (http://www.clearwater.org/contact.html)]

Manna Jo Greene is an environmental educator, a health professional, Councilwoman for the Town of Rosendale, Environmental Action Director for Clearwater, a long time environmental activist and an activist for peace and justice since the 1960s. She has won awards for her community service and environmental action. She did much to establish the recycling program in Ulster County. Manna Jo Greene is founder of the Hudson Valley Sustainable Communities Network (HVSCN).

It is beyond belief to suppose Manna Jo Greene can be sufficiently informed to be able to publish a monthly calendar that is emailed to over 3,000 people in the Hudson Valley and at the same time be so disconnected as to even remotely imagine Boyle’s objections to the wind turbines of Jordanville are predicated on self interest.

To say this accusation of NIMBY is a lie would be an injustice to liars. A liar at least has the dignity of knowing and respecting the truth and contradicting it. This is even worse than a lie. It is a complete indifference to the truth.

Harry Frankfurt, a professor of philosophy at Princeton, has recently described this phenomenon in an extended essay and I very seriously recommend it to you. Its title is On Bullshit (Harry Frankfurt, 2005, Princeton University Press, ISBN: 0691122946).

According to Frankfurt,

“Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about.”

People who interact with the public are often placed in circumstances where they feel obliged to speak regarding matters of which they are ignorant, but which they feel they should know something about.

“Closely related instances arise from the widespread conviction that it is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to have opinions about everything, or at least everything that pertains to the conduct of his country’s affairs.” (Frankfurt, On Bullshit)

In just such a way, Clearwater’s Environmental Action Director might feel responsible to have opinions about everything that pertains to the conduct of Environmental Action, ignorance of specific topics and issues notwithstanding.

There is another aspect to this issue. Greene’s attack on Boyle is illustrative of a deep and growing chasm within environmentalism.

On one side stand the institutions and professional cadre that displaced the original volunteer movement. Under failed leadership, a once vital movement has gradually diminished to the point of near extinction. The “Death of Environmentalism” is a topic that has been much discussed.

On the other side of the chasm stand the ever increasing ranks of a new and growing movement recently vitalized by the public response to sudden climate change.

Manna Jo Greene appears to have been deceived by the dirty players in the power industry who are now disguised in the sheep’s clothing of “alternative energy.” If so, she’s not alone. The same professional environmentalists who have been led around by the nose for so long by the rapacious corporatism of the power industry are now joining forces with the same old corporate power structure in partnering and compromise. Under the guise of necessity in the face of an emergency, “professional environmentalism” is in the process of undoing significant advances the original grass roots movement has achieved over decades of struggle. Professional environmentalism seems to have found a way to attempt to justify tolerating or even adopting the corporate values the original movement had hoped to change.

Corporations aren’t acting to control alternative energy as the result of some sudden vision of enlightened self interest. Corporations continue to be just as opportunistic as ever. As much as corporations could be said to “see” anything, they see only their own, immediate, short term bottom line, oblivious to any impending financial or environmental disaster.

Environmentalists themselves are now joining the corporatists in saying environmental review is too time consuming to pursue in this critical situation! Absolutely wrong! That echoes exactly what the developers have been saying for years.

The argument is that we in the environmental movement mustn’t be obstructionist to the great and urgent task of creating alternative energy through wind farms.

But shall we then forge ahead and sacrifice to the corporate world what little we’ve gained through decades of constant struggle? Is mere survival in and of itself a worthy option for a civilized people? Now more than ever is the time to act to assure survival in a world worth inhabiting.

It’s important to note that GE is prominent in the wind industry, because problems that are solved by making deals with companies that have no moral authority to do business are problems that remain unresolved. I wouldn’t buy a GE light bulb, much less a GE wind turbine to light it and I DO understand GE isn’t directly involved at Jordanville, at least not yet. Alternative Energy companies and interests change ownership rapidly. I’m speaking of the power industry’s brand of corporatism generally. The last I checked, GE was still the major producer of wind turbines.

Given that as background, what could be more laughably absurd than the clown-like spectacle of Clearwater working to discredit local environmental activists in support of a government subsidized industry that enriches the likes of GE? Clearwater is even going so far as to oppose local Clearwater supporters in this matter, including Drayton Grant, an attorney specializing in the environment and Robert H. Boyle, both of whom have served on Clearwater’s board.

It may surprise you to learn there IS something more absurd! The Natural Resources Defense Council is an organization that clearly knows as little about this specific situation as Clearwater. By being less than forthcoming about a meeting that was to have developed a unified position that certainly sounds like compromise, (”Top Environmental Group Seeks To Mend Rift Over Wind Farms,” Jim Kevlin, The Freeman’s Journal, Sept. 1, 2006) the NRDC effectively takes Clearwater’s part in this matter! Both Clearwater and the NRDC ought to have met with the local environmentalists before taking their respective overt or covert positions, especially when such compromise can have the potential to quickly undermine gains the environmental movement has struggled to achieve.

It is especially unfortunate they do this while invoking the name of Urgent Necessity imposed by climate change, because programs that are urgent and necessary do exist. Clearwater’s carelessness and indifference to the truth can trivialize the importance of truly urgent and necessary actions.

As it happens, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., justly famous for biting the hand he himself has celebrated as being the hand that mentored him, is one of the NRDC’s senior attorneys. Kennedy is himself opposing an off shore wind farm proposed for a location within the view shed of the Kennedy family compound at Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. Now THAT is the absolute apex of absurdity.

If one were to judge by appearances, it would seem thanklessness is an essential part of environmentalism. It is an outrage that Clearwater’s Environmental Action Director Manna Jo Greene should have been trashed by Hillary Clinton, but more outrageous still that Greene was abandoned by Clearwater. Clearwater should have cancelled Hillary’s on board photo shoot the instant Greene was disinvited by Hillary Clinton”˜s request that Greene not participate in the shoot. Clearwater appears to have become a group of passengers who exist for the sake of the sloop rather than the other way around.

I absolutely disagree with Manna Jo Greene’s defense of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a person who in his supreme arrogance wears his moral deficits on his sleeve. He was himself convicted for drug abuse. He rewarded his acknowledged mentor Robert H. Boyle in exactly the same way I predict he’ll reward the rest of us if given the opportunity; by continuing to breach the very code of ethics that distinguishes his former mentor and has long distinguished a significant majority of those working within the field of science. Simply stated, that code is this:

Ethics cannot and must not be separated from Science.