Resource Documents: Virginia (22 items)

RSSVirginia

---

Senator Jay Rockefeller asked to reconsider his position on industrial wind

Author:  Spiggle, Wayne

Dear Senator Rockefeller,

Please accept my personal warm greetings. We have visited on several occasions, particularly on health care. You may remember me as a physician who yearns for an improved Medicare for All, as embodied in (H.R. 676).

I’ve just read with interest the email response you are making to people actively concerned about your policies on “renewable” energy and I’d like to make the following comments about industrial wind. Personally, I favor subsidies that go to small hydropower development and research on burning coal more cleanly and think they should be increased.

But, on industrial wind:

• Thank you for your steady objection to (H.R. 2454). The Cap and Trade policy has not worked in Europe and will not work in the U.S. Purchasing a permit to pollute and passing the cost to the public just does not make sense.
• Your support of (S. 1462), (S. 3813) and (S. 433) appears to be stated in the affirmative when you say that, in the past, you have supported renewable energy standards and have been the major driving force behind the construction of new wind turbines across the country. This is where I plead for you to re-examine your policy. Please, please educate yourself about the unintended consequences of the proliferation of wind turbines, particularly along Appalachian ridge tops. If you do, you will find:

1. The inefficiency of the turbines related to wind fluctuations will require far more land disruption than does strip mining for coal. First reported by the Nature Conservancy and subsequently documented elsewhere, even by Senator Lamar Alexander you will find it very apparent that if you pass laws that mandate even 15% of electricity be from sources like industrial wind you will be sentencing the majority of our celebrated West Virginia Hills to be pock marked with giant turbines and thousands of miles of new transmission lines to serve them. Tragically, this physical and ecologic transformation of West Virginia’s trademark landscape will have no significant amelioration of green house gasses because of the required co-generation of base load stand by.
2. The federal and state tax subsidies for industrial wind (and solar) are far out of balance for other energy sources, 15 times more. Industrial wind must receive this largess to get started AND to keep going. Explain to me how it is good public policy to provide such a favoritism to an industry that cannot contribute to the global warming problem in a significant way?
3. Imposing renewable standards will drive up electricity costs very significantly. That means the cost of this new energy policy will be disproportionally borne by the middle class and the poor. I feel very confident that is not your intent and will be very sad if it becomes your legacy.

Senator, I belong to The Allegheny Highlands Alliance (AHA), a relatively new grass roots organization with representation in WV, MD, PA, VA, and SC. Our mission is to, in an intellectually honest, scientifically based way; educate the public about the realities of industrial wind and the pending legislation that would further codify its undeserved position. There are several other issues, including impact on migrating song birds and raptors, destruction of habitat for rare terrestrials (both concerns of the USFWS and the WVDNR), negative health impacts from constant low frequency noise inflicted on people living close to an industrial wind facility, water resource disruption, to site a few.

We believe there is a better way to promote alternative energy than to dictate a percentage standard and then to sit back to see what happens. That is getting the cart before the horse. Once again, I implore you, with the assistance of staff to open your mind and investigate the above observations. AHA has extensive expertise on this subject and, if invited, we would appreciate the honor to meet with you for a briefing.

Thank you,

Wayne C. Spiggle, MD
West Virginia

(((( ))))

Allegheny Treasures notes:

Dr. Wayne Spiggle is well known in West Virginia and Maryland as an effective social justice advocate and environmental leader. As a former president of MedChi, the Maryland Medical Society, he pressed for universal health care and he is still involved in that fight. As a Mineral County commissioner, he has promoted quality of life issues and emphasized the importance of developing a welcoming environment to encourage jobs and business development. For his public health initiatives he was recently recognized by the West Virginia State Medical Society with their prestigious Excellence in Medicine Award.

Spiggle has studied industrial wind with the critical eye of a scientist. He has concluded that industrial wind is poor public policy because it requires base load back up from fossil fuel, cannot reduce green house gases, receives public subsidies some 15 times more than other energy sources, is destined to raise electricity bills for homes and businesses and is handicapped by very significant environmental issues sufficient to bring about a transformation of Appalachian ridge tops of geologic proportions while having a disastrous mortality on migrating song birds, raptors and resident bats.

A member of the Allegheny Highlands Alliance (AHA), he has joined their mission to inform the public about industrial wind by adhering to the principals on intellectual honesty and scientific based knowledge.

The Allegheny Highlands Alliance (AHA) is a consortium of citizen/environment organizations with membership in five states along the Allegheny Front. The AHA is in the process of discovering the facts about industrial wind, its potential to reduce green house gases, its economics and the impact of industrial wind energy project installations on the ecology and human health.

The purposes of AHA shall include but not be limited to the following:

1. To advance public knowledge and understanding of the cultural, biological, environmental diversity, uniqueness, and sensitivity of the major ridgelines that comprise the Allegheny Highlands;
2. To preserve and protect areas of particular scenic, geologic, biologic, historic, wilderness, and/or recreational importance in the Allegheny Highlands;
3. To aid in the establishment of responsible policies to protect scientific, educational or aesthetic values;
4. To conduct regional and resource studies as a basis for the wise use of the various resources of the Allegheny Highlands; to develop programs in energy conservation and wise production; and to serve local communities, the region, the people of the Allegheny Highlands as an agency for popular enlightenment, for cultural improvement, and for scientific advancement;
5. To advocate governmental policies for the conservation and wise management of energy and natural resources of the Allegheny Highlands.

AHA Contact Larry Thomas, President, at larryvthomas@aol.com

---

Comments and Questions on Proposed Wind Energy Permit by Rule

Author:  Webb, Rick

Date: October 5, 2010

To: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Re: Follow-up Comments and Questions on Proposed Regulation; 9VAC15-40. Small Renewable Energy Projects (Wind) Permit by Rule (adding 9VAC15-40-10 through 9VAC15-40-140)

This submission includes follow-up comments, questions, and requests for information concerning the regulations proposed by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to implement the Permit by Rule (PBR) legislation for wind energy projects. These follow-up comments, questions, and information requests focus on the DEQ’s responses to specific questions posed in my original comments, dated August 18, 2010.

I have three major objections to the process followed by the DEQ in the development of the proposed regulations.

1) Decisions concerning a number of critical regulatory requirements are described by the DEQ as based on Regulatory Advisory Panel (RAP) consensus. This is evasive or nonresponsive to requests for the basis of important rule-making decisions. As specified below, I am asking that the DEQ identify the objective criteria that served as the basis for RAP consensus decisions. I am also asking that the DEQ provide the documents and other information that were considered by the RAP as the basis for its consensus decisions.

2) Contrary to the stated intent of the PBR legislation and the DEQ’s stated intent in the notice of proposed regulation, the DEQ indicates that it intends to rely in a number of instances on guidance “to be developed” for implementation of the PBR rather than setting forth permit requirements “up front.” This both defeats the intent of the legislation to provide certainty in the permitting process and denies the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the rules that will ultimately be in effect.

3) The DEQ failed to respond to my specific comment and question concerning the basis for ruling that only T&E and SGCN wildlife species warrant site-specific data collection. The DEQ also fails to explain why, for onshore wind projects, mitigation plans to provide wildlife protection are only required when state T&E wildlife or bats are found within the defined disturbance zone. The PBR legislation does not limit wildlife protection to only these few species, nor does it define “significant adverse impacts to wildlife” to exclude consideration of impacts to wildlife other than state T&E species and bats. The DEQ’s proposed regulations are thus not compliant with the PBR legislation.

Specific additional comments, questions, and requests for information related to my original comments (in green) and DEQ responses follow. The numbering of my original comments is the same as in my original comment submission.

1. How was it determined that a disturbance zone defined as the directly impacted area plus a margin of 100 feet provides a sufficient criterion for evaluation of potential wildlife impacts?

• DEQ response to (1): Issue resolved by consensus of members of the RAP.
• Follow-up question: What objective criteria provided the basis for the RAP determination?
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the RAP in making this determination.

4. Given that the legislation does not appear to impose any such limitation, how was it determined that only T&E and SGCN wildlife species warrant site-specific data collection?

• DEQ response to (4): The DEQ provided no response.
• Follow-up question: What objective criteria provided the basis for the DEQ or RAP determination to limit site-specific data collection to only these species?
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the DEQ or RAP in making this determination.

5. What protocols or standards does the DEQ intend to require, and if it is the intent of the legislation to create a PBR process that clearly establishes permit review requirements “upfront,” is it not necessary to include explicit language in the regulations concerning protocols and standards required for all surveys, data collection, and analysis?
6. If the public is to be provided an actual opportunity to make informed and meaningful comments on the proposed PBR regulations, doesn’t the public need an opportunity to examine and comment on the protocols and standards for required surveys, data collection, and analysis?
15. Will the DEQ review and approve monitoring plans, and what criteria, including search methods, search frequency, search area, and searcher qualifications, will the DEQ consider in approving monitoring plans?

• DEQ response to (5), (6), and (15): Protocols and methods details were developed by consensus of the RAP. The DEQ plans to include these as a guidance to be written after the regulations are final, per consensus of the RAP. Guidance drafting is not subject to Administrative Process Act.
• Follow-up question and comments: What objective criteria provided the basis for the RAP determination that protocols and methods should not be included as regulations subject to formal public review and comment? Informal development of requirements as guidance at an unspecified later time does not conform with the purpose of the PBR or the stated intent of the DEQ to provide certainty and rules “up front.” Protocol and method requirements should be proposed as regulations and the public should be provided a new formal comment period to review and provide input on these requirements.
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the RAP or DEQ in developing protocols and methods details. Please provide copies of the guidance provisions suggested by the RAP and any other guidance provisions under consideration by the DEQ.

7. Does the DEQ plan to require access to all wildlife data and analysis results?
16. Will the DEQ require submission of all monitoring data, and will this data be made available to the public?

• DEQ response to (7) and (16): The DEQ intends to clarify requirements related to data submission, evaluation, retention, and public availability in regulation or guidance.
• Follow-up comment: The DEQ should make requirements known “up front,” and requirements should be proposed as regulations rather than guidance. The public should be provided a new formal comment period to review and provide input on these requirements.
• Request for information: Please provide any documents and information under consideration by the DEQ that concern data submission, evaluation, retention, and public availability requirements.

9. Is there a threshold of potential environmental harm that will result in permit denial or substantial project modification?
10. Can wind energy projects be permitted in cases where significant adverse impacts to state-listed T&E wildlife cannot be avoided?

• DEQ response to (9) and (10): The DEQ provided no specific response to (9). The DEQ indicates that approval decisions such as approval of mitigation plans will be based on the final version the PBR regulations after consulting with “sister” agencies.
• Follow-up comments and question: The DEQ should respond to the simple question posed in question (9): Is there any threshold of potential environmental harm that will result in permit denial or substantial project modification? Consistent with the intent of the PBR legislation, the DEQ should make requirements known “up front,” and requirements should be proposed as regulations rather than guidance. The public should be provided a new formal comment period to review and provide input on these requirements.

11. What does this mean [“development of reasonable and proportionate mitigation plans that offset adverse impacts”]; does it mean that an applicant might satisfy mitigation requirements by providing protection for historic resources other than the particular historic resource that is adversely affected by the project?

DEQ response to (11): Questions on this were resolved by consensus of the RAP with DHR input. DEQ will draft guidance.

Follow-up comment: The DEQ should make requirements known “up front,” and requirements should be proposed as regulations rather than guidance. The public should be provided a new formal comment period to review and provide input on these requirements.

Request for information: Please provide copies of the RAP’s recommended guidance provisions.

12. What criteria or rationale support the decision to limit money spent on, or cost of, avoidance of bat mortality to $5,000 per turbine?

• DEQ response to (12): The issue was resolved by consensus of members of the RAP.
• Follow-up question: What objective criteria provided the basis for the RAP consensus determination?
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the RAP in making this determination.

14. Why hasn’t the DEQ required curtailment or turbine shutdown to protect raptors and migratory birds?

• DEQ response to (14): Wildlife mitigation issues were resolved by consensus of the RAP.
• Follow-up question: What objective criteria provided the basis for the RAP consensus determination?
• Request for information: Please provide the documents and information considered by the RAP in making this determination.

Please consider the above requests for documents and information as Freedom of Information Act requests. I also requests that a new formal public comment period be provided once the DEQ has provided the requested information and completed development of a complete set of proposed regulations to implement the PBR.

Download original document: “Comments and Questions on Proposed Wind Energy Permit by Rule”

---

Site Analysis: Poor Mountain proposed wind project

Author:  Hartman, Hollister

These charts present data relevant to the wind siting guidelines provided by Sierra Club Wind Siting Advisory dated Nov. 2003, as applied to the wind project proposed for siting at Poor Mountain.

The salient change is that each Wind Siting Criterion now is associated with descriptions of features which allow a site to be characterized as either Most, Marginally, or Least appropriate with respect to each criterion. Any site which scores Least Appropriate on one or more criteria would render serious doubt as to suitability for a wind project.

Most of Sierra Club’s criteria actually are surrogates for “amount of wildlife habitat to be bulldozed”; which given the source as being Sierra Club – an organization sworn to protect wilderness values – is understandable. For example, under “Infrastructure” more credit is given to sites with preexisting power transmission lines. This avoids the need to build extensive new power lines, at the cost of bulldozing large areas of wildlife habitat. Similarly, being near major population centers reduces the amount of land which would have to be disrupted to access a new wind project. And to eliminate any trace of doubt as to their intent, Sierra Club also explicitly includes the variable, “Impact on Wildlife and/or Habitat”.

The value of using surrogate criteria rather than actual environmental impacts in the early phases of siting efforts is that it’s usually much faster and less costly to screen large areas of land qualitatively rather than quantitatively. By putting forth environmentally-conscious criteria for use by energy developers, Sierra Club performed the public service (intentionally or otherwise) of providing a means to orient attention away from what might end up being contentious sites which drain time, energy, and money from both developers & opponents. …

Strictly speaking, because Poor Mountain does not satisfy Sierra Club’s sole EXCLUSIONARY criterion of wind power potential, the proposed site should be eliminated from further consideration. However, in light of current confusion surrounding industry-standard siting practices, Evaluative criteria also are discussed in the following charts [full discussions are included in the original document, available for download below].

Current and/or Recent Land Use: federally excluded areas: national parks, wilderness areas, etc.; critical habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species; habitat for indigenous species critical to regional/state biodiversity. – Least appropriate

Infrastructure: existing infrastructure would require expanding and/or upgrading. – Marginally appropriate

Geographic Relation to Human Population: near major population and/or other power consumption centers [how near? how large a population?]. – Marginally appropriate

Impact on Wildlife and/or Habitat: unacceptable impact on wildlife or habitat, IAW credible environmental review [what level or type of impact is acceptable? to whom? how is reviewer credibility determined?]. – Least appropriate

Impairment of Scenic Value: important scenic values would be impaired [how is a scenic value deemed unimportant? what degrees or types of change constitute “no impairment”? how can scenic impairment be mitigated? what level or type of impairment is acceptable?]. – Least appropriate

Bottom Line: The Weight of Evidence shows that Poor Mountain must be rejected as UNSUITABLE for siting the proposed wind project.

Hollister Hartman is the author of several publications related to the fields of Civil Engineering and Natural Resource Management. She received her BS Degree in Biology from Yale University and her PhD in Population Biology (Applied Mathematics) from the University of California, Riverside. She also received certification in Multi-Attribute Decision Making from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Hartman’s professional siting experience includes instituting integration of Geographic Information Systems, managing geophysical/biocultural modeling for compliance of EPA regulations, and developing/implementing site selection methodologies for Hard Mobile Launcher, Small ICBM, and Peacekeeper deployment.

Additionally, she identified pivotal geological and engineering criteria underlying intractable nuclear waste repository siting issues for the U.S Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Project, overseeing project performance against federal, state and local regulations.

Dr. Hartman served in leadership positions with the National Research Council, the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA) and numerous consortium appointments. She serves her community as Vice Chair of the Sierra Club/Roanoke, VA Group; Member of the Franklin County Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee and Technical Analyst for defenders of Poor Mountain, VA.

Download original document: “Site Analysis: Poor Mountain proposed wind project”

---

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed New Highland Winds Project on Highland County, Virginia

Author:  Siegel, Michael

Summary of Impacts on Highland County

Jobs

• Few, if any, of the project’s temporary construction-related jobs would be filled by local residents. Most such jobs will be held by employees and contractors of the turbine manufacturer who are trained and experienced in the installation of this highly specialized equipment. Some jobs, such as earth-moving and/or grading jobs might be filled by residents of Highland County or other nearby areas.
• Few, if any, of the materials necessary to construct and equip the project would be produced or acquired in Highland County. A significant exception might be for acquisition of aggregate and/or fill material and possibly timber, if required.
• The project might result in one or two permanent jobs in Highland County for minor maintenance, monitoring and security for the project. This position(s) could be filled by someone residing outside of the County.
• The project’s ability to attract significant net new tourism and recreational outlays to the County is virtually zero.

Property Taxes

• The project will be assessed for local real property tax purposes by the State Corporation Commission (SCC).
• The project’s ability to generate additional real property tax revenue to the County will depend upon: the “market value” and “stated” ratios, and depreciation schedule applied by the SCC, and the local real property tax rate to which it would be subject.
• The potential of the project to cause a reduction in real property tax revenue to the County will depend largely upon its negative impact on neighboring and nearby properties, and potential losses to the County’s recreational, tourism and hunting operations and enterprises.
• Based on current SCC practices, the amount of real property tax revenue that would be generated by the project would be highest in the first few years after construction, and would decline annually to some fraction of this amount in the last few years of its depreciation cycle.
• Based on a 20-year period depreciation cycle, an initial year taxable assessed value of about $32.6 million, and a local tax rate of $0.62 per $100, the project would generate an annual average of about $105,000 in real property tax revenue to the County. This amount could be somewhat greater if depreciation is significantly limited in the later years.
• Based on the foregoing, the net present value of the twenty-year real property tax revenue paid to the County over the depreciable life of the project would be about $1.5 million.
• These amounts would be offset by any loss in local tax revenues caused by: I) reductions in value of neighboring and nearby properties, ii) other economic losses to existing County businesses, and; iii) costs for the provision of County services to the project, such as Sheriff’s patrol (though these costs can be expected to be low).
• For a neighboring or nearby property with a current taxable assessed value of $100,000, a loss in value of 25 percent would cause a reduction in real property tax revenue of $155, annually. Over twenty years, the net present value of this loss is $2,230. A loss in value of 50 percent would cause an annual reduction of $310 annually which, over twenty years, represents a net present value loss of $4,456.
• For a combination of such parcels with a current taxable assessed value of $10.0 million, a 25 percent loss in value represents a net present value loss of $223,000 in real property tax revenue over a twenty year period. This amount would be double for a reduction in value of 50 percent.
• Because the County’s Local Composite Index is statutorily set, the amount of State assistance for local public schools would be unaffected by the project.
• A change in State statutes or regulations could cause local real property tax payments by the project to be lower than estimated herein.

Local Services

• Aside from Sheriff’s patrol, the project would generate little demand for local County services.
• Since the project would generate few, if any jobs and new residents to the County, there would be little, if any, demand for additional services off-site.

Preliminary Report
Prepared by: Michael Siegel
Presented at the Highland County Wind Forum
Sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce of Highland County, Virginia
May 20, 2004

Download original document: “Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed New Highland Winds Project on Highland County, Virginia”

---

Earlier Documents »

Click here to send in ordinances, contracts, research, testimony, presentations, etc.
Or see Contact page for more anonymous options.