[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

County’s wind map loses its teeth 

Credit:  By Lois Henry | The Bakersfield Californian | www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com 23 September 2012 ~~

If you attend the Board of Supervisors’ meeting Tuesday, be prepared to hear the following phrase more than a few times: bait and switch.

That’s the reaction I got from residents of the Tehachapi area over the county’s latest proposed wind boundary map, which was released on Thursday.

Supervisors are scheduled to discuss the map and possibly vote on the Kern County Planning Department’s recommendation at their Tuesday afternoon meeting.

Residents were upset because they said the map was presented by Planning Director Lorelei Oviatt in August as a zoning ordinance, which would have the legal weight to keep giant wind turbines confined to specific areas.

Oviatt had repeatedly said, including on my radio program (every Wednesday on KERN 1180 AM from 9 to 10 a.m.), that people could seek a zone change for wind parks inside two areas outlined in blue on the map.

Outside the blue lines, they couldn’t even ask for zoning to allow wind parks, she said.

One month and several public workshops later, however, Oviatt is now recommending that the map be used only as a “guidance document.”

Wind developers could ask for a zone change pretty much anywhere, but would be told that areas outside the blue lines would be more “challenging” to get approval as opposed to inside the blue lines.

At first, Oviatt bristled when I suggested this would be seen as a bait and switch. Later she agreed her thinking on the map and its implications had “evolved” over time.

Uh huh. Smells like politics to me.

Remember, it was Supervisor Zack Scrivner, already in hot water with constituents for his perceived cowtowing to monied wind companies, who called for the map in the first place and then tried to rush it through approval with only a few weeks public notice. He tried to sell it as assurance for residents tired of fighting wind projects piecemeal.

Scrivner’s hope for cover blew up in his face, however, when residents saw how the map would vastly increase wind project areas and they believed it would fast track projects even more.

The map was pulled back last January and reworked with much smaller wind areas and the zoning ordinance concept. That caused large landowners to balk, however, and even threaten to sue.

Which makes me wonder exactly what, and who, helped influence Oviatt’s “evolved” thinking.

Either way, there were several hurdles to designating all land in the county that fell outside the blue lines as “no go” for wind, she told me.

Mainly, such a zoning change would require a massive, time consuming and expensive environmental process.

Instead, she said, she decided to seek board direction on a county policy toward wind energy development.

She likened her recommendation to the board’s “policy” on General Plan amendments.

Say you have two developers. One wants to put a subdivision in near Hageman and Allen roads and another wants to plop his way out west of Enos Lane.

Oviatt has been directed by the board to let those applicants know that the Hageman/Allen subdivision, which would be contiguous with existing growth and could tie into roads, sewer, water and other services, would face far fewer challenges than the Enos Lane project, which wouldn’t be able to tie into any of those services.

Hmm. I had no idea we had such a policy. Most likely because I’ve seen supervisors give the nod time and again to exactly that kind of leap frog growth.

Though Oviatt insisted this “guidance map” would be a big step from where we are now on wind developments, I don’t see it.

“People really feel a loss of social justice with what the Planning Department and supervisors have been doing to us,” said Mike Fortuna with Friends of Mojave, one of several groups that have sprung up in recent years to try to gain some control over where wind turbines are placed.

Part of the problem, he said, is each project is done separately. Residents aren’t given a full picture of how many projects are in the wings.

Lest anyone think this is just a NIMBY issue over aesthetics, remember, these turbines are more than 500 feet tall, nearly twice the height of the Statue of Liberty.

With federal tax breaks making wind development more lucrative and AB32 requiring California utilities to increase their renewable energy portfolios, wind has exploded in recent years.

Wind developers are pushing north of Tehachapi into mountainous terrain so rugged they have to cut 35 miles of switch backs to make five miles of roads to lug up their equipment. They’re shearing off mountain tops for pads. And their turbines have already killed several protected golden eagles. Many fear the endangered California condor could be next.

Though Oviatt has said she is extremely sensitive to the raptor issue, the Planning Department recommended and supervisors approved the North Sky wind project a year ago even after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service warned against approval based on possible bird kills.

Back to the latest map iteration, Oviatt acknowledged her recommendation is “softer” than it started out, but noted there may not be much happening in wind from here on out anyway.

Transmission capacity to get wind power from the mountains to Southern California is all spoken for, she said. Congress appears likely to let the wind tax credit lapse. And she doesn’t have any new wind applications.

That may be true for now, but after the election the tax credit will probably be renewed as it has been for decades, AB32 is forcing a greater need for wind power and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is well on its way to getting the environmental work done on a massive new transmission station to take power down the east side of the Sierra. The Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project is expected to provide about 1,100 megawatts of additional power transmission capacity, according to the LADWP.

All of which means this could just be a lull before another wind boom.

Fortuna said he wasn’t sure how his group will address the new map on Tuesday.

Other groups that have formed in Tehachapi, Sand Canyon and the Piute mountains to fight wind projects were similarly mulling this latest turn of events.

Personally, I think a map, particularly this one, won’t be much help to anyone. Groups would be better off pushing for more and earlier notification of wind projects so they can get their oar in the water sooner.

But the map wasn’t all bad, it drew together all the disparate groups that had been fighting alone. Now they can share information, keep tabs on the county and use their numbers for greater political clout.

That’s better than a map any day.

Source:  By Lois Henry | The Bakersfield Californian | www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com 23 September 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky