Real concerns about wind power

Credit:  James Mullen, The Berkshire Eagle, www.berkshireeagle.com 1 January 2010

The Eagle’s promulgation of the state’s misleading representation of the obstacles to industrial/commercial wind generation in Berkshire County is really quite remarkable (“Exploiting Savoy’s Wind,” Dec. 22).

The foremost of these misconceptions is the notion that “local defenders of the mountaintops” have delayed these projects. Secondly, The Eagle’s support of the Comprehensive Wind Siting Reform Act is premature for it is still in draft form. For a bill revised three times since May 2009, any pledge of support is premature.

Let me begin with the false perception that concerned environmentalists have stymied efforts towards commercial wind generation on Berkshire County’s ridgelines. The Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC), and its Clearinghouse Review Committee whose charge it is to review projects in the county requiring state, or federal environmental permits, local land use actions, found no evidence of local opposition obstructing permitting when reviewing proposals for industrial/commercial wind development in Berkshire County.

Both the Brodie Mountain project, as well as the Hoosac project, were granted permits within months of filing applications. In fact, once Brodie had been permitted, the BRPC found the developer to be the biggest impediment to the progression of the project. The developers delayed the success of their project through a series of inefficient decisions detailed below:

* Some of the sites were in Chapter status in Hancock and they hadn’t planned on needing to get a release. I don’t know how much say the town has in releasing lands from Chapter status but they obviously have some because that was dragged out for a while but the developer should have realized that the lands were in chapter status and that entailed a release process. I count that delay as being primarily the developers fault. They could have requested the release from chapter status ahead of time and avoided the delay which was entirely legal.

* In building the access road, the developer actually cleared land that didn’t belong to them and the trespassed upon property owner sued and got the work stopped.

* Silverleaf Resorts, the timeshare developer that bought Brodie Mountain, sued the proponents of the wind project, I do not know on what grounds. That was settled out of court and I do not know any of the details. But what is now apparent is that the wind project was delayed and the developers didn’t get anything in the settlement which precluded future suits.

* Once the project was under construction and at least one wind turbine had been erected, Silverleaf sued again because the special permit for the access road coming from Lanesborough had lapsed, yet another delay. This was a preventable oversight.

The Hoosac project was also granted a permit in a timely sequence. The delay has been litigious, involving interpretation of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. The case now resides with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; the SJC does not adjudicate frivolous cases. It is important to note that by allowing industrial/commercial wind development on Berkshire ridgelines, we are creating new industrial zones in sensitive ecosystems. As such, it is important to have processes holding these projects to the highest standards.

The Minuteman project has never been permitted. The first permit application to Savoy was withdrawn without prejudice by the proponent. The second is being reviewed by the Savoy Special Permit Granting Authority. The project permitting has not been affected by any opposition. The BRPC has recently reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for this project and found it comprehensively lacking the appropriate information. The public cannot comment in a meaningful way when the details of a project’s anticipated environmental impacts are omitted or promised at a later date. A project application that does so circumvents a complete and adequate MEPA review. The BRPC has asked the secretary of environment and energy affairs to require an Environmental Impact Report for both the Hoosac and Minuteman projects.

The BRPC would like to voice its concern about an emerging and troubling pattern of MEPA filings for wind energy projects in Berkshire County, concerning project segmentation. For example, the land disturbance calculations for Berkshire Wind and Hoosac Wind have increased substantially since their first ENF (Environmental Notification Form) filings. As a project develops and evolves, land disturbance and other calculations may vary. However, projects submitted for MEPA review should be at a sufficient level of design to provide an accurate and realistic snapshot of the anticipated environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Proposed wind farms, such as the Minuteman Savoy Wind Project, are enormous projects and should be thoroughly scrutinized. A thorough MEPA review is best accomplished when all environmental impacts, both on-site and off-site, and proposed mitigation measures are fully documented, understood and considered at one time.

My second concern regards the Comprehensive Wind Siting Reform Act that The Eagle endorses. The Regional Issues Committee (RIC) of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission has expended considerable time and resources reviewing this bill from its first iteration in May 2009. The arcane wording and length of this bill makes it extremely difficult to interpret. However, through multiple meetings and great effort the RIC recommended and the full Commission approved, opposition against this bill for the following reasons:

* The local permitting sections are not necessary since the local permitting process has not been an impediment to the siting of wind energy facilities.

* We believe that removing any acknowledgment of the potential siting of commercial wind projects on state lands protected under Article 97 actually weakens the bill.

* We are opposed to the inequity in the bill for the appeal rights and process between parties of interest (abutters, etc.) and project developers.

* We are opposed to the non-adjudicatory process before the Energy Facilities Siting Board which are embedded in the legislation.

* We believe strongly that the state should develop wind energy siting standards prior to enactment of this legislation. The lack of confidence in the state’s ability to fashion appropriate and fair standards, regardless of the composition of the advisory group, is a major impediment.

* The bill lacks a sensible time table for becoming fully effective.

We believe the standards and regulations will be difficult to develop. Even after they are approved by the EFSB, a period of several months is necessary to fully inform the community. We continue to have a significant number of other timing issues with various aspects of the bill as drafted and do not believe it is workable from that standpoint.

The BRPC remains committed to supporting the adoption of wind and other forms of renewable energy and is actively working with its member communities in facilitating such enactment. The Comprehensive Wind Siting Reform Act, however, is deeply flawed and unacceptable as written, and does not appear to be necessary.

James Mullen is chair of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission.

Tags: Wind power, Wind energy

The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.

---

« Later Post • News Watch Home • Earlier Post »