VAWind

State and national newspapers, including the Richmond Times Dispatch and USA Today, have reported that Highland New Wind Development is prepared to begin construction by early summer with possible completion by the end of the year.

The source of the reported information is the developer's public relations spokesman, Frank Maisano, who announced in a press release that the company has filed a site plan, which he characterized as the last step in obtaining a building permit.

The newspapers in question simply repeated the company's public relations material on the controversial project.

The press release was seemingly designed to help the developer obtain or retain the investors needed to finance the 19-turbine, 65-million-dollar project proposed for a remote and exceptionally wild area in the northwest corner of Virginia's highest elevation and least populated county.

Despite Mr. Maisano's statement, the wind project developer:

does not have a building permit
does not have an Erosion and Sediment Control permit
does not have approval from the FAA
has not met conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission
has not obtained an Endangered Species Act permit

Highland New Wind has faced a series of legal and environmental challenges since losing its first development partner in 2003. Virginia's wildlife management agency has concluded that the project may result in the highest mortality of birds and bats for wind projects in the eastern United States. Virginia's historic resources agency has raised concerns about impacts to the adjacent Camp Alleghany, listed on the Federal Register of Historic Places and recognized as the most pristine among the remaining undeveloped Civil War battlefields.

Following the death of thousands of bats flying into turbine blades during the first weeks of a West Virginia wind project, and given the location of the proposed Highland project within the range of endangered bat species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly recommended that Highland New Wind obtain a permit under the Endangered Species Act, and both Highland New Wind and the Highland County supervisors have been served a notice-of-intent to sue if the project goes forward without the permit. A federal suit has been brought against a West Virginia developer over the same issue, and earlier this year the U.S. Forest Service blocked plans for a wind turbine project in the George Washington National Forest in part because of the risk to the endangered bats that inhabit Virginia's mountain ridges.

The developer of the proposed Highland New Wind project has complained that investors would be scared away by strict wildlife monitoring requirements imposed on the project by the SCC.

To-date no investors have been publically identified, and Mr. Maisano made no reference to investors in his press release.

For updates see News Reports and Commentary and Perspective

Map of proposed turbine locations

[Top]

Renewable energy vs environmental assessment

Congress has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestmant Act of 2009, providing $15 billion for renewable energy projects and new electric transmission lines. Although an amendment to bypass National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for funded projects was defeated, an amendment calling for expedited NEPA reveiw was approved.

The effort to eliminate or reduce NEPA review for industrial facilities is not new. As stated in a recent article in Environmental Science and Technology, the business community has sought to reduce requirements for environmental impact assessment ever since NEPA became law in 1970.

What is new is the alliance of industry and some environmental groups seeking to fast track the review process for industrial-scale renewable energy development. But some are warning that the rush to build renewable energy facilities is already creating potentially irreversible mistakes.

Excerpts from the article:

There are national groups that are so fixated on doing everything possible to stem global climate change as rapidly as possible that there may be a tendency to downplay other problems, that when we look back, could be seen as ecological catastrophes in their own right.

-- Eric Glitzenstein, public-interest attorney

We need to have a streamlined process -- and we absolutely must reduce our carbon footprint -- but we can't afford to create new problems in our efforts to address existing ones by adding to species mortality and habitat fragmentation . . . . Renewable energy has a dark side that is not getting enough attention in the push to curb greenhouse gases. The renewable energy industry likes to tout themselves as green, but killing birds and bats, hugely fragmenting habitat, and adding to cumulative impacts to species is not green . . . . There is a particularly evident lack of environmental oversight of renewable energy projects on private land, which predominates in the eastern U.S.

-- Al Manville, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

A tsunami of wind energy projects is being proposed for the East Coast . . . The best sites for wind energy development include Appalachian Mountain crests. Unfortunately, these are also prime locations for migrating bats and birds, including raptors.

-- Taber Allison, Mass Audubon

Citation: Pelley, J., Dueling priorities: renewable energy vs environmental assessment. Environmental Science and Technology, 2009, 43(9), pp 3001-3002.

Full text pdf
Full text with links

[Top]

National Forest Proposal Denied

FreedomWorks LLC is one among several corporations considering wind project development on or adjacent national forest land (see previous report).

FreedomWorks proposed construction of 131 440-foot wind turbines along an 18-mile stretch of national forest ridgeline in Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties (VA) and Hardy County (WV). The proposed project area is identified as unsuitable for commercial wind development in the Revised George Washington National Forest Management Plan.

On April 2, 2009, Maureen Hyzer, Forest Sueprvisor for the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, denied FreedomWorks' proposal to construct meteorological towers to collect preliminary data required for the wind project. The rejection letter to FreedomWorks lists a number of concerns about the project.

Among those concerns (paraphrased here):

The project would require at least 16 miles of road construction.
The project would require at least 500 acres of permanent forest clearing in an area with limited human activity that currently provides remote habitat for wildlife.
The project would visually dominate the landscape of Great North Mountain and the adjacent Shenandoah Valley.
The project would potentially exacerbate the threat to bat populations that are now being killed in large numbers by White Nose Syndrome.

As indicated in a letter to "Interested Citizens" from James T. Smalls, District Ranger of the Lee Ranger District, the FreedomWorks proposal did not comply with the Forest Plan and it did not provide sufficient rational for use of national forest land.

Forest Supervisor's letter
District Ranger's letter

UPDATE (1): An article in the Northern Virginia Daily (041109) indicates that the developer intends to circumvent the local Forest Service decision by seeking approval at the national level.

UPDATE (2): An article in the Daily News Record (042209) includes two significant errors concerning the FreedomWorks proposal.

First, the article falls for the exageratted PR claims of Appalachian wind developers by comparing the capacity of the proposed FreedomWorks project (215 MW) with Dominion's Wise County coal-fired power plant (580 MW) --suggesting that the the proposed wind project could produce almost 40% as much electricity as Dominion's plant.

Electricity generation, however, is properly quantified in terms of megawatt hours, not megawatts. Because of the low capacity factor of wind turbines on Appalachian ridges, wind projects only produce a small fraction of their theoretical generation.

The FreedomWorks proposal involves 131 2-MW turbines and would require 18 miles of ridgeline. It would require 2,260 2-MW turbines to match the output of the proposed Wise County coal-fired generating plant in August (the peak demand period of the year). That would require about 323 miles of ridgeline, about the length of the Blue Ridge Mountain chain in Virginia.

Second, the article quotes the developer, stating that, except for the Forest Service permit, the project has all the permits it needs, including a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is not correct. The project will need both state and local permits, which it does not have, before it can go forward.

Moreover, because of the threat to endangered bats and raptors, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly recommended that central Appalachian region wind project developers prepare Habitat Conservation Plans and obtain Incidental Take Permits as required by the Endangered Species Act. To date, no developers have complied.

[Top]

The energy conservation alternative

A recent Appalachian Regional Commission report, "Energy Efficiency in Appalachia," estimates that it would require the construction of 40 new coal-fired power plants to keep up with the region's projected increase in energy consumption through 2030. The report cites investment in energy efficiency and conservation as a practical and beneficial alternative.

For perspective, it would require hundreds of miles of ridgeline wind turbine development to offset the need for even one relatively small coal-fired power plant.

Abstract of the ARC report:
The Appalachian Region’s energy consumption is expected to increase 28 percent between 2006 and 2030, compared with a 19 percent increase forecast for the United States as a whole. Research indicates that strong policy interventions will be needed to promote energy-efficient purchases and practices that could help the Region meet its future energy needs while ensuring its continued economic and environmental health. This study assesses the long-term energy-efficiency gains that could be achieved by implementing an ambitious package of energy-efficiency policies throughout Appalachia. It examines the breadth of energy-efficiency resources in Appalachia; the timeframe for harnessing these resources; and the policies and programs that could most effectively translate these resources into energy savings, as well as the impact those policies and programs could have on jobs and wages in Appalachia. The engineering-economic modeling conducted in the study concludes that such policies could result in significant energy savings and positively impact the Appalachian economy.

ARC Report: Energy Efficiency in Appalachia
031709 AP article on ARC Report
032209 Roanoke Times Editorial on ARC Report

See also: Miles of Mountain Ridges

[Top]

Bailing out wind energy project is a misuse of stimulus money

The Highland County Board of Supervisors has unwisely proposed that the Commonwealth of Virginia provide $1,500,000 in economic stimulus money to help facilitate the proposed Highland New Wind Development project in order to "enhance the long-term returns to the county, developer and Commonwealth."

The Highland New Wind project received permits over a year ago from both the State Corporation Commission and Highland County after a long, contentious, and expensive review process involving multiple government agencies and conservation groups. Both permits will expire in the fall of 2009 unless construction goes forward, which is doubtful.

The proposed project has real environmental problems, and despite the benefit of significant financial incentives for commercial wind energy, the developer has not been able to find the investors needed to go forward. To date the project has not submitted a site plan to either the county or the state, and a number of the required mitigation studies have not been completed.

The main problem with the Highland New Wind project is the extreme risk of harm to wildlife, especially the death of raptors and bats due to collision with turbine blades. Based on pre-construction studies at the site, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries concluded that this project may result in record-high rates of wildlife mortality.

Both the state wildlife agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that Highland New Wind prepare a habitat conservation plan and obtain a permit in compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act, but the developer has thus far refused to do so.

The SCC did not require the federal permit but instead imposed stringent monitoring conditions that ensure that the inevitable violations will be detected. In declining to require compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the SCC advised that Highland New Wind was taking a business risk, but it was the developer's money at risk, and it was the developer's risk to take.

The lead attorney for the developer complained that the SCC monitoring requirements would "scare away investors." He seems to have been correct.

Since obtaining its state and county permits, Highland New Wind has sought to find a way to dodge, eliminate, or avoid its permit conditions. It has supported a state legislator who has worked to exempt projects like Highland New Wind from SCC oversight or approval. It has persistently tried to ignore or shortcut the requests of agencies charged with reviewing the project and implementing permit conditions. The proposed use of economic stimulus money to further study this well-studied project is part of a pattern.

It seems that the latest plan is for a new study that will reach new conclusions. Remarkably, the proposal specifically calls for a joint venture involving the developer and the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative, a wind energy advocacy group whose principals have been long-time and outspoken supporters of the project.

Highland New Wind is a risky project, and a substantial amount of state money and agency resources have already been spent in studying the project and in the development of appropriate permit conditions. It's time to let the project rise or fall on its own merits.

Virginia has a long list of much better ways to use the stimulus money.

Published as a Guest View by Rick Webb, The Recorder, 031209

Published as an Op-Ed by Rick Webb, The Roanoke Times, 031209

Recorder article:
Highland Supervisors Request $1.5 Million in Stimulus Money to Facilitate Highland New Wind

Recorder editorial:
Spending Stimulus Money on Wind Project Study Won't Change the Landscape

[Top]

Wind power needs regulation

A good precedent for regulation of the wind energy industry in Virginia was established by the State Corporation Commission when it issued a permit for the proposed Highland New Wind project in Highland County. The review process was systematic, and the permit included precautionary conditions based on the carefully considered recommendations of natural resources agencies and conservation organizations.

Concerns have been raised, however, that the process took too long, and that strict requirements for monitoring bird and bat mortality have scared away investors.

Although the Highland New Wind project poses an exceptional risk to wildlife and is the first commercial-scale wind project to obtain a permit in Virginia, the uncertainty and delay associated with the approval process has proved off-putting to other would-be developers of wind energy in the state. So the wind industry is seeking to change the rules.

It is certainly understandable that the wind industry would want a predictable, fair, and efficient regulatory process. But that is not what the package of wind energy bills currently moving through the Virginia General Assembly is all about. We have instead a rather blatant attempt to eliminate meaningful environmental regulation altogether.

A responsible regulatory process would ensure that wind energy development occurs only in appropriate locations and with constraints that serve to minimize harm to our other natural resources.

I would argue that legislation to establish a responsible regulatory process should achieve the following:

Objective and independent evaluation of potential wildlife, environmental, and cultural impacts prior to permitting.
Effective implementation of a risk management process in cases where potential wildlife, environmental, or cultural impacts are indicated.
Transparency in the review and permitting process, including meaningful opportunity for public involvement.

These are appropriate regulatory objectives for any industrial development proposed for relatively undisturbed areas. The wind energy bills now before the Virginia General Assembly, however, were clearly designed by, or at the behest of, wind industry lobbyists to ensure that such objectives will not be achieved.

Despite the huge footprint and serious wildlife, environmental, and cultural resource issues associated with wind industry projects on our forested mountain ridges, it seems that the General Assembly is poised to vote for deregulation and elimination of requirements for effective pre-permitting studies and post-construction wildlife mortality monitoring.

As if to alleviate concern with confusion, the bills in question only apply to "small wind projects," which are absurdly defined in these bills as projects of 100 megawatts in capacity or less. A 100 megawatt project can consist of 50 two-megawatt turbines and can occupy over 7 miles of ridgeline. The current generation of turbines can be up to 550 feet tall, requiring up to 5 acres of clearing per turbine, with 100-foot wide connecting roads and transmission corridors. There is nothing "small" about commercial wind projects.

Moreover, the environmental impact of commercial wind projects is a function of location, location, location rather than megawatts. In the face of very-well-established risk, the General Assembly is about to enact legislation that will allow poorly evaluated wind development to go forward in our remaining wild landscape without real oversight or accountability.

With respect to energy supply versus environmental tradeoff, the cost-benefit ratio for wind development on our mountain ridges is remarkably poor to begin with. Now, unless the General Assembly can be persuaded to slow down and give the issue a bit more thought, it's about to get a lot worse.

Published as an Op-Ed by Rick Webb, Roanoke Times, 020409

PDF

[Top]

Legislation to eliminate environmental review of wind projects

Although conservation groups in Virginia now recognize the need for site-specific assessment of the environmental costs and benefits of commercial-scale wind development on our forested mountain ridges, wind industry lobbyists, with the help of some state politicians, are working to eliminate the review process.

We currently have a good precedent in Virginia that was established by the State Corporation Commission (SCC) when it issued a permit for the Highland New Wind project. The review process was systematic, and the permit included precautionary conditions based on the carefully considered recommendations of natural resource agencies and conservation organizations. See: SCC Final Order

The Highland New Wind precedent and SCC involvement in commercial wind project review are now threatened by bills before the 2009 General Assembly. It now appears, based on reliable sources, that Lt. Governor Bill Bolling and his staff are responsible for these bills.

Two sets of bills, with identical House and Senate versions, are before the General Assembly:

SB 1347 (Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach)
HB 2525 (Jackson Miller, R-Manassas)

SB 1194 (Phillip Puckett, D-Tazewell)
HB 2175 (Clarke Hogan, R-South Boston)

These two sets of bills effectively eliminate meaningful environmental review and regulation of what the bills define as "small" wind projects.

Both sets of bills define "small" wind projects as projects of 100 MW or less. A 100 MW project can consist of 50 2 MW turbines, or 66 1.5 MW turbines, and can occupy over 7 miles of ridgeline. The current generation of turbines can be up to 550 feet tall, requiring up to 5 acres of clearing per turbine, with 100-foot wide connecting roads and transmission corridors. There is nothing "small" about commercial wind projects.

Included in these bills are provisions:

to make the DEQ the lead permitting agency for wind projects rather than the SCC
to reduce environmental review to a check list rather than a meaningful assessment
to unreasonably limit or eliminate post construction monitoring of wildlife mortality
to provide an investment tax credit equal to 35% of project cost, and
to limit state and local property tax liability to 20% of value.

Wind industry lobbyists frequently cite the protracted and still incomplete review of the Highland New Wind project as justification for their deregulation efforts. They fail to acknowledge that:

1) Serious environmental risks were identified by state wildlife agencies and conservation groups
2) The developer has failed to provide as site plan and other key information to the reviewing agencies
3) The SCC has, in fact, issued a permit with appropriate monitoring and mitigation conditions
4) The project is delayed because no investors are willing to assume the environmental risks.

There is no reason to change the current permitting process provided by the State Corporation Commission. It works, and it allows wind development to proceed in a responsible manner. There is also no reason to limit environmental review based on project size. Project location, rather than megawatt size, is the real predictor of the environmental harm caused by wind projects.

Final note: The Virginia Conservation Network, which includes more than 100 member organizations, has adopted a position in opposition to these bills.

See: VCN Legislative Positions

PDF of this entry

[Top]

Contention Continues

Highland New Wind Development continues to resist requests for information from Virginia's Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the agency responsible for evaluating the effects of the project on historic and cultural resources.

As described previously (below) the State Corporation Commission imposed strict monitoring, mitigation, and review requirements as part of its conditioned approval of the HNWD project. The developer, however, has persistently tried to ignore, shortcut, or avoid the requests of agencies charged with reviewing the project and implementing the permit conditions.

A particular concern has been the potential impact of the proposed 400-foot wind turbines on Camp Allegheny, a mountain-top Civil War encampment and battlefield located less than a mile from the project. Camp Allegheny, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, is remarkably well preserved, located in a remote forest and pastured landscape that looks much as it did in 1861.

The DHR has requested information over a several-year period that it has not received, including a site plan, an archaeological survey, and a viewshed analysis (see: DHR/HNWD correspondence).

As reported in The Recorder, things are seemingly at an impasse. HNWD continues to object to the DHR information requests. Meanwhile, the DHR is both reconsidering its requests and considering its legal options.

Recorder article:
Wind project owner resists state's request

Recorder editorial:
Which way is the wind blowing?

[Top]

Truth in advertising

Submitted electronically to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (Case No. PUE-2008-00044)

We are writing in reference to the request by Dominion Virginia Power to offer a renewable electricity option to its customers. This is generally a good idea if Dominion’s customers, who will be asked to pay a premium for renewable electricity, are also provided a basis for making an informed choice. It will not serve the interests of Dominion’s customers if electricity is simply marketed as “renewable” without information concerning the source of the generation and without reliable assurance that the source of the generation is environmentally responsible.

Without meaning to imply that Dominion Virginia Power has other objectives, we believe that this can be characterized as a “truth in advertising” issue.

We are particularly concerned about the potential proliferation of wind energy projects in western Virginia and in adjacent Appalachian states. Through its review and approval of the Highland New Wind Project, the SCC has addressed and become informed concerning the environmental issues associated with the ridgeline development that is occurring in this region. We are thus confident that the SCC recognizes that not all wind energy projects, or all renewable energy projects, are equal with respect to environmental benefits and tradeoffs.

We suggest two means whereby the SCC can ensure that Dominion’s customers are afforded a true choice when offered “renewable” electricity obtained from utility-scale wind energy projects:

Require that the individual wind projects meet the same environmental protection standards as required by the SCC for the Highland New Wind Project. This could be achieved by requiring Dominion to provide documentation to the SCC describing the assessment and review process, as well as the monitoring and mitigation programs, associated with each source of wind generated electricity that it proposes to offer its customers.

The SCC deserves credit for imposing strict monitoring, mitigation, and review requirements on the Highland New Wind project as part of its conditioned approval. An appropriate precedent was established that should apply to other commercial wind energy developers proposing to construct ridgeline wind projects in the mountains of western Virginia and adjacent states.
Dominion’s customers should have access to the type of information that will allow them to evaluate the costs and benefits of the wind generated electricity that is offered. Given both the national and state-level interest in renewable energy it is clear that wind energy development will be driven by both demand and mandates. The potential for actual benefits will be maximized if principals of transparency and accountability are established at this early stage.

This can be achieved if, for any wind generated electricity offered, Dominion is required to provide for each wind project:
- The name, the location, the size (number, physical size, and installed capacity of the turbines), and the ownership
- The hourly generation output achieved by the project
- Information on wildlife mortality monitoring and mitigation programs, including:
  - The monitoring protocol, schedule of surveys, survey design, and reporting schedule
  - Provisions for public access to monitoring and mitigation reports
  - Identity of the government agencies or other entities providing oversight

Although these recommendations apply specifically to the Dominion Virginia Power request presently before the SCC, they apply also to other such requests that will certainly come before the SCC.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Rick Webb and Dan Boone
Virginia Wind
www.VaWind.org

[Top]

Highland New Wind Development: failure of process?

When Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) proposed to construct twenty 400-foot wind turbines in one of the most remote, undisturbed, and ecologically unique areas in Virginia, wildlife experts, conservationists, and preservationists argued that the tradeoffs and risks were unacceptable. The Virginia State Corporation Commission deserves credit for imposing strict monitoring, mitigation, and review requirements on the project as part of its conditioned approval. An appropriate precedent was established for the many other commercial wind energy developers waiting in the wings to construct ridgeline wind projects in the western Virginia mountains.

There is reason to doubt, however, that the reality of implementation will match the promise of the precedent.

Even as HNWD touts its proposed project to potential investors as the “Greenest Wind Farm in the World,” it tries to ignore, shortcut, or avoid the requests of agencies charged with reviewing the project and implementing the permit conditions. As Highland Citizens argued to the SCC in early 2007, this has been the pattern from the outset. “. . . HNWD has tried to provide as little information as possible in an effort to manipulate and limit the review process.”

HNWD was charged by the SCC to work with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) to implement the wildlife mortality monitoring and mitigation program for the project. In the eight months following the SCC permit approval in December of 2007, there has been no correspondence between HNWD and DGIF. Is it HNWD’s strategy to make the monitoring program less effective by failing to consult or coordinate with and generally ignoring the DGIF until the last minute – allowing no time for informed and deliberate decision making?

A similar pattern is playing out with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the agency responsible for evaluating the effects of the project on historic and cultural resources. Concerns have been raised about the effect of the project on the pristine Camp Allegheny battlefield, less than a mile from the project. The DHR has repeatedly requested information over a several-year period that it has not received, including a site plan, an archaeological survey, and a viewshed analysis. Instead of providing the requested information, HNWD has deployed its lawyers and PR people, among them two state senators, to argue for scaled-back requirements.

Meanwhile HNWD and its spokespersons argue that the wind project review process is broken and that it takes too long.

Correspondence between HNWD and the DHR
(2.5 mb compilation)

HNWD's argument with the DHR:
Recorder article
Recorder editorial

[Top]

Virginia's offshore option

If wind energy development in the eastern U.S. is going to make a real rather than symbolic contribution to solving our energy and air pollution problems, it will certainly be offshore development.

Arguments and analyses that promote wind energy development as providing high percentages of future electricity demand (e.g., 20% by 2030), commonly don’t make it immediately clear that in Virginia and other mid-Atlantic states the development projections are mainly based on offshore wind. Appalachian ridgeline developers deceptively cite these projections when they promote their destructive and low-benefit projects. It’s fraudulent, and Virginians will come to understand this. In the meantime, however, damage will be done in terms of pointless and destructive landscape transformation, as well as in terms of lost opportunity for meaningful investment of resources.

Although the promoters of Appalachian wind projects are doing what they can to manipulate public perception, it is a matter of when, not a matter of if, the public will demand actual unbiased cost-benefit analysis.

Wind industry investors apparently understand this.

Most of the promotional images seen in magazines, on websites, in political ads, and otherwise on television depict wind turbines in the ocean, in the desert, in farmland, or in other flat and unforested landscape. Except for the PR associated with a few particular projects, there are few media images of wind projects on forested mountain ridges.

For now, Highland New Wind, with its conditioned approval from the State Corporation Commission, serves as the clear example for what’s wrong with industrial-scale wind projects in the Virginia mountains – and for the extreme in industry hype (the project is promoted to potential investors as the “Greenest Wind Farm in the World”). The level of controversy and public alarm can only grow as more and more wind developers stake their claims for ridgelines in the national forest and adjacent private lands.

An offshore-onshore comparison
Virginian Pilot article on offshore wind
U.S. Wind Resource Map: onshore and offshore

[Top]

Miles of mountain ridges

The first sentence in the Washington Post article, Wind is Given 2nd Look as Energy Needs Grow (080308), gets right to the point: the energy industry has targeted western Virginia’s forested mountains for industrial wind energy development.

“Wind is catching fire” said L. Preston Bryant Jr. Virginia’s secretary of natural resources. “It is literally all the rage.”

Although the Washington Post article highlights the “conflict within the environmental community” concerning this development push, it fails to provide much in the way of details concerning the basis for the objections. It also repeats a number of the industry’s deceptive talking points without offering any analysis.

For example:

The article repeats misleading claims that wind energy in Virginia has the potential to produce as much as 20 percent of the state's electricity needs.

More than 90% of that potential is offshore, where wind energy development is not considered economically viable at present. Yet wind energy proponents cite the offshore-based estimate to support the current push for development on our forested mountain ridges. (see: Wind Resource Estimates)

The article repeats exaggerated claims concerning the number of households that would be served by two proposed ridgeline projects in western Virginia. It states that the proposed Highland New Wind project is expected to produce enough electricity to power 15,000 homes, and that the proposed FreedomWorks project will produce enough electricity to power 86,000 homes.

These estimates are based on the unrealistic assumptions that all electricity produced will be for residential use, that electricity is not needed on days when there is no wind, and that the projects will dramatically exceed the performance of existing Appalachian wind projects. (see: Per Turbine Analysis)

The article repeats the uniformed claim that wind power provides an alternative to new coal-burning power plants, a claim made both by FreedomWorks, Inc., on its company website, and by some environmental groups opposing Dominion’s Wise County power plant.

Although concerns about the mining and burning of coal are well founded, promotion of wind energy as an alternative is not an effective argument. It would require 2,260 2-megawatt turbines to match the output of the proposed Wise County coal-fired generating plant in August (the peak demand period of the year). That would require about 323 miles of ridgeline, about the length of the Blue Ridge Mountain chain in Virginia. (see: FreedomWorks Claim)

Despite these shortcomings, the Washington Post article should be given credit for at least acknowledging that the environmental community is conflicted over the ridgeline development issue.

Also, there is ironic truth in the included statement by Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, who acknowledges that wind power “. . . is no longer an alternative energy source . . . it’s mainstream.”

The push for wind energy development is now driven by multi-national business interests, and along with that goes the usual investment in the manipulation of public perception.

In this context it will be difficult to achieve the informed public debate that is clearly needed if we are to achieve real solutions to our energy and environmental problems.

[Top]

Greenwashing a not-so-green wind project proposal

Highland New Wind Development (HNWD), developer of the proposed 20-turbine ridgeline wind project in Highland County, Virginia, has taken its search for investors to extremes, posting a website entitled: “The Greenest Windfarm in the World.”

The website (www.highlandnewwind.com) describes the proposed project as the “first electric generation facility of any type, anywhere to be required under its state permit to perform daily surveys for bird and bat mortality for the life of the project.”

This greenest-of-all posturing puts a new spin on the permit conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission (SCC). The same conditions were earlier decried by HNWD’s lawyer, John Flora, who complained to the SCC that such permit conditions would “scare away investors.” Similarly, wind industry spokesperson, Frank Maisano, was quoted in a news article stating that the SCC conditions "could threaten the viability of the project."

Although potential investors will want to know why the SCC imposed precedent-setting wildlife monitoring conditions on the project, this critical information is missing from the HNWD website. Most of the extensive record, however, including expert reports and testimony submitted to the SCC, is provided here on the Virginia Wind website. (See the links to the right.)

Most significantly, nighttime radar studies of birds and bats flying over the turbine sites led the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to conclude that the project could lead to the highest mortality of birds and bats among wind projects in the east. Due to the presence of endangered bat species, as well as golden and bald eagles, both the state wildlife agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that the developer prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain an Incidental Take Permit as provided by the Endangered Species Act. The developer has not done so, and both the developer and the Highland County supervisors have been served a notice of intent to sue if the project goes forward without the permit.

The HNWD website further fails to reasonably describe the area in which the project would be located, representing it as “not wilderness.” In fact, the project would be built in the Laurel Fork watershed, one of the most remote, undisturbed, and ecologically unique areas in Virginia.

Additional information on the website concerns the developer’s June trip to the Windpower 2008 conference in Texas. HNWD’s attorney had previously advised the Highland supervisors that they hoped to report that investors had been obtained when they returned. Instead it was reported that no investment partners had been found among the over 13,000 conference attendees, and that HNWD was now expanding its search.

[Top]

Wind Damage

Wind energy development in the U.S. is dependent on federal benefits, including the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which is due to expire at the end of 2009. Although the wind industry has defeated previous efforts to tie environmental safeguards to renewal of the PTC, concern about mortality of birds and bats due to collision with turbine blades is increasing.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has identified commercial wind energy production as one of the most significant issues associated with declining bird populations in North America.

Dr. George Wallace, the ABC's Vice President for International Programs, testified before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the House of Representatives' Committee on Natural Resources on July 10, 2008. His presentation, entitled Going, Going, Gone? An Assessment of the Global Decline in Bird Populations, included the following statement:

“Last year, my colleague at ABC, Dr. Michael Fry presented testimony to the full Committee on the ongoing impact of commercial wind energy production. While the actual number of birds killed by wind turbines is unknown, estimates have been made in the range of 30,000 to 60,000 per year at the current level of wind development. However, the wind industry is prepared to increase the number of turbines 30 fold over the next 20 years in order to fulfill the President’s request that renewable energy projects supply 20% of the nation’s energy needs by 2030. At the current estimated mortality rate, the wind industry will be killing 900,000 to 1.8 million birds per year. While this number is a relatively small percentage of the total number of birds estimated to live in North America, many of the bird species being killed are already declining for other reasons, and losses of more than a million birds per year would exacerbate these declines.

ABC recommends that any renewal of the production tax credit by Congress include provisions that require minimizing bird and bat kills by wind projects, and require developers to follow standard Best Management Practices in avoiding and minimizing bird and wildlife impacts in order to qualify for the full, taxpayer provided subsidy .”

This recommendation has particular significance for commercial wind development on Appalachian ridges.

As reported by The Wildlife Society, "Wind facilities located on forest ridges in the eastern U.S. have the highest documented bat and passerine fatalities." (Source: Arnett, E.C., et al., Technical Review 07-2: Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat. The Wildlife Society, 2007.)

Full text of ABC congressional testimony.

[Top]

Overstated Benefits, Understated Costs

Industrial Wind Power in the Mountains of Virginia provides a counterpoint to the Virginia State Wind Symposium at James Madison University. (June 18-19, 2008; see http://vwec.cisat.jmu.edu/)

This symposium is sponsored by the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), a state and federally funded organization that purports to promote balanced development of wind generated electricity in Virginia. The symposium, however, is remarkably unbalanced.

Although concerns have been widely raised about the overstated benefits and understated costs of industrial-scale wind development on our region’s mountain ridges, it is apparent that these concerns will not be fairly addressed at the VWEC symposium.

Those sessions of the symposium that might provide an opportunity for a balanced treatment of the issues are dominated by ardent wind energy advocates, entrepreneurs, and lobbyists. The agenda includes no one to present a countering viewpoint.

Six of the speakers and session moderators are on record supporting the controversial Highland New Wind Project either before the State Corporation Commission or in the media. These include Jonathan Miles, Deborah Jacobsen, Don Giecek, Mitch King, John Flora, and Frank Maisano.

Remarkably, the only speaker addressing the wildlife impacts of wind energy development is John Flora, the attorney and spokesman for the proposed Highland project. Mr. Flora has been dismissive of wildlife impacts – despite concerns expressed by state agency biologists that the project presents unacceptable risks to wildlife and may result in the highest mortality of birds and bats among wind projects in the eastern United States.

It seems that the purpose of the symposium is to discount legitimate concerns about wind development on Virginia’s mountain ridges, to promote unrealistic expectations for wind energy, and to foster a political climate that will favor additional mandates and incentives for the wind industry – while reducing environmental review requirements.

It is disappointing that state government and a state university have chosen to support and participate in this biased treatment of an increasingly important issue.

[Top]

Highland New Wind Confronts Review Requirements, Limited Turbine Availability, and Loss of Investor Interest

When the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) issued a permit for the proposed Highland New Wind project in December 2007 it imposed stringent wildlife protection conditions and requirements for further review.

The developer asserted that potential investors would lose interest because of the precedent-setting requirements to monitor and mitigate impacts to birds and bats. Further complicating the issue, both the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recommended that Highland New Wind obtain permits for incidental take of endangered species through the provisions of Endangered Species Act - something the developer has thus far refused to do.

Now it appears that the project faces additional uncertainty as some of the agencies responsible for further review seem unclear about their respective roles in the continuing process.

Consistent with recommendations by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the SCC order identified a number of agencies with which Highland New Wind was directed to work, consult, and coordinate.

Among the conditions imposed by the SCC is the requirement that Highland New Wind will provide a final site plan to the reviewing agencies. As interpreted by the General Counsel for the SCC, it is the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to determine which reviewing agencies are to receive a final site plan. The DEQ, however, has taken the position that it has no further coordinating role, and that Highland New Wind is obliged to determine which additional approvals and permits are necessary.

Meanwhile Highland New Wind has developed a list of necessary approvals or permits that does not include a number of the state and federal agencies with review responsibilities. Among these are Virginia's Department of Historic Resources, Department of Conservation and Recreation, and Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. In addition, the list does not include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers.

On May 6, 2008, Highland New Wind's attorney, John Flora, advised the Highland County Board of Supervisors that a final site plan has not been completed - given uncertainty in turbine availability and the need to secure investment partners.

SCC Final Order (12/20/07)
- see pages 8 and 9 concerning permits conditions and reviewing agencies

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Recommendations to the SCC
030106
063006

Articles addressing the continuing review process
The Recorder, 050108
The Recorder, 050808

[Top]

Wind Turbine Projects Planned for George Washington National Forest

Two national forest projects have been proposed, one by FreedomWorks LLC and one by an unnamed developer represented by WEST, Inc.

Information on both projects is provided below.

FreedomWorks LLC project

Developer's Website

Site Map

The map shows the locations of 131 wind turbines proposed for Hardy County, WV and Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties, VA by FreedomWorks, LLC. The locations are based upon the coordinates provided in applications filed with the FAA. It appears that all but one of these huge wind turbines (440 feet tall) are to be sited within the George Washington National Forest (GWNF).

The map's information can be verified by checking with the FAA's 7460-1 database. Each wind turbine has a separate 7460-1 application filed with FAA, and a detailed map showing the exact location of this planned wind turbine by clicking on "View Map" in the FAA application notice provided via the weblink.

In the map, areas of the GWNF for which the pending management plan has identified as being "generally suitable" for wind energy development (gold colored) are based upon the map of "Areas Generally Suitable for Wind Generation Sites" compiled Feb. 9, 2007 by the US Forest Service

An examination of Oct. 2006 aerial photos covering the entire 18-mile ridge length where this project is to occur reveals that - other than a powerline and one small road (public) which crosses between Hardy and Shenandoah Counties - the project area is completely undisturbed forest (with no sign of logging roads or clearcuts). It appears that this project would destroy over 500 acres of forest and additionally will cause extensive forest fragmenation - likely wiping out over 2500 acres of forest-interior habitat (about 4 square miles!).

FreedomWorks Benefits Claim

Related newspaper articles:

News-Virginian, 032508
Northern Virginia Daily, 032608
Daily News Record, 032608-1
Daily News Record, 032608-2

Note: The spokesman for the development company, FreedomWorks LLC, is quoted stating that most potential wind project locations in Va are off limits. An examination of legal and management restrictions indicates that this is not correct.

WEST, Inc. project

Site Map

The map indicates the approximate location of a potential wind energy project in the GWNF in Pendleton, Hardy, and Rockingham Counties. The proposed project was discussed a 11/16/08 letter from the WV field office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to WEST, Inc, consultants for an unidentified developer. The location of the proposed FreedomWorks LLC project is also indicated. The USFWS recommended against construction of the WEST, Inc. project due to high risk to bird and bat species protected by the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter (11/16/07)
(0.9 mb)

Related newspaper articles:

The Recorder, 013108
Daily News Record, 011508

For additional information about forest impacts of wind energy projects, see: Using GIS to Evaluate Forest Habitat and Public Land Impacts of Wind Energy Development

[Top]

Lawyer Spins Statistics to Promote
Wind Turbine Project

John Flora is the attorney for Highland New Wind Development. Speaking at a January 22, 2008 Shenandoah Sierra Club forum, Mr. Flora stated that two-thirds of Highland County residents support the proposed project. He further stated that he obtained this information from Highland County’s Administrator and Board of Supervisors.

This remarkable claim has significance, given that:

The Shenandoah Sierra Club Group is seeking objective information in order to develop a position on the project
The project developer needs to convince potential investors that the turbine project is supported by Highland County citizens
Additional wind energy developers are attempting to determine if Highland County ridges are a good target for their ventures

The information provided to Mr. Flora by Highland County officials was apparently not what Mr. Flora claimed. In response to questions posed at a recent meeting, the Chairman of the Highland County Board of Supervisors suggested that Mr. Flora may be basing his assertion on a petition that was circulated in opposition to the project. Signatures on the petition included 27% of registered voters in the county. It seems that Mr. Flora has made the specious assumption that everyone who didn’t sign the petition can be counted as a supporter of the project.

See Recorder article (discussion on page 4)

[Top]

Highland County supervisors face continuing legal action over wind
energy project

Although Highland New Wind has received a permit from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC), the permit is heavily conditioned upon additional agency review and strict wildlife monitoring and mitigation requirements (see SCC Conditions below).

Additional legal issues now confront the Highland County officials, who must issue a building permit before the project can go forward. Attorneys for a group of Highland citizens have reaffirmed their intention to sue if the project is permitted to go forward in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other environmental laws.

In a February 27th letter to the Board of Supervisors, the Roanoke based Woods Rogers law firm called attention to additional information presented in proceedings before the SCC that shows the project will violate the ESA unless an Incidental Take Permit is procured.

As described in the letter, experts testifying before the SCC indicated that endangered bat species would likely be killed by at the proposed facility. Wildlife biologists with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) stated that the “project clearly poses a risk of significant mortality to all species of bats using the site. This includes the [endangered] Virginia Big-Eared bat and the Indiana Bat.”

Both the DGIF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recommended that Highland New Wind obtain permits for incidental take of endangered species through the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan.

Note: although a spokesman for Highland New Wind has reportedly indicated that the firm may at some later time apply for an endangered species takings permit; there is no provision under the ESA for after-the-fact permitting of harm to endangered species.

In addition to warnings concerning violation of the ESA, the Woods Roger’s letter to the Highland Supervisors further warned that legal remedies may be sought if the project is allowed to go forward in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Projection Act. In submissions to the SCC, experts for Highland New Wind testified that eagles were not present at the site. However, additional testimony before the SCC demonstrated the presence of both bald and golden eagles in and around Highland County.

Finally, the Woods Rogers letter raised questions about County enforcement of Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Although the SCC explicitly relied on Highland County to implement sediment and erosion control requirements that apply to the proposed Highland New Wind project, the County has subsequently been found to be inconsistent in its enforcement of erosion and sediment control law by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. The Woods Rogers letter put the County on notice that private citizens and adjacent landowners have standing to enforce sediment and erosion control ordinances through court action.

The Woods Rogers letter requested that the County exercise its responsibility to address all of these issues through proper implementation of the Conditional Use Permit issued to Highland New Wind.

For more information, see:
Woods Rogers 022708 letter
Recorder article

[Top]

Proposed Forest Service Directive on Wind Energy Development

The Wilderness Society, along with other conservation groups and individuals, contends that the Forest Service has failed to follow proper procedure in proposing a wind energy program for the National Forests.

In comments to the Forest Service, the Wilderness Society argues that Wind energy projects should be treated the same as any other proposed use of federal lands, subject to thorough, programmatic and site-specific analysis, and public participation. "All laws and regulations applicable to other projects on the federal lands must be complied with, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other federal laws. The first steps in that compliance should be completion of a programmatic EIS and, as discussed below, formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service."

Comments submitted to the Forest Service:
The Wilderness Society
Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County

[Top]

Outgoing SCC Commissioner Morrison Comments on Highland Wind Project

“ . . . it’s beautiful country up there, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable for you all to want it to stay that way, without windmills on the skyline.”

Concerning wind energy’s potential contribution to the electricity supply

“ . . . I wish people would get realistic about the promise of renewables. . . . People shouldn’t think we can get away from large plants with these.”

“ . . . I looked at windmills in California. I was there 4-5 days and not a single one of them were turning. There were hundreds of them, and someone, somewhere had to be powering electricity elsewhere.”

Concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed wind energy project

“ . . . The controversy in Highland County really boiled down to how much environmental protection we should afford, and who pays for it.”

“ . . . This is definitely a laboratory project, a pilot project to see how many bats we can slay, if you will.”

“ . . . . The chances are good they will take endangered species. . . . if I were the developer, I would want to minimize risk as much as you can before you spend the whole bundle, $60 million, on the project.”

“ . . . we weren’t sure whether the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries was going to be able to participate . . . . And they participated fully. That’s the first time that’s ever happened.”

Concerning Senator Frank Wagner’s efforts to minimize environmental review of wind energy projects

“ . . . I don’t think it’s a good idea.” (referring to Wagner’s S.B. 324; see topic below)

“ . . . Sen. Frank Wagner can talk all he wants, but he doesn’t know anymore about windmills than I do.”

Read Complete Interview: The Recorder

[Top]

"McBride Bill" Would Allow Highland New Wind To Dodge SCC Conditions

Senator Frank Wagner has introduced a bill in the Virginia General Assembly that will exempt from any State Corporation Commission oversight or approval, all electric generating facilities fueled by renewable resources, with a rated capacity of 50 megawatts or less.

S.B. 324 is known as the “McBride Bill” because it is clearly intended either to overturn or to supplant the SCC decision in the Highland New Wind Case. Lawyers for Henry McBride, the developer of Highland New Wind, have complained that wildlife monitoring and mitigation conditions attached to the SCC approval of the 39 megawatt project have made it unattractive to investors. (See the article below for a description of the SCC conditions.)

McBride must raise more than 60 million dollars to go forward with the project in the face of wildlife mortality issues and risks to endangered species.

Frank Wagner, State Senator from Virginia Beach, has testified against strict conditions on behalf of Highland New Wind before the SCC.

S.B. 324 has broad implications beyond the effect on the proposed Highland County wind project. It could, for example, result in a proliferation 50 megawatt or less wind farms with no real control other than local zoning laws. Given that the bill will also apply to generation fueled by any "renewable resource” there is no way to predict the mischief the bill could generate. Municipal waste, for example, is considered a renewable resource.

There is no comprehensive and reliable state level environmental review of wind energy projects other than that by the SCC, which may be minimal unless concerned citizens have the resources to hire the lawyers and experts needed to participate effectively as formal respondents. The Highland New Wind review by the SCC involved great expense on the part of concerned citizens.

It remains to be seen which, if any, “environmental” groups will support the “McBride Bill.”

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, for example, a Maryland based program with growing Virginia influence, is aggressively promoting commercial wind development in Virginia. CCAN promoted the Highland New Wind Project and was dismissive of both wildlife concerns and project opponents.

CCAN campaigned successfully in Maryland for legislation that prohibits the state wildlife agency from participating in the Maryland Public Service Commission review of wind projects.

S.B. 324

For updates see News and Commentary

[Top]

SCC Grants Conditional Approval to Highland New Wind

- imposes monitoring and mitigation requirements for the life of project

- includes elements that the developer claims will likely prevent project from becoming a reality

- affirms risk to project associated with Endangered Species Act noncompliance

The State Corporation Commission has granted conditional approval for the 39-MW Highland New Wind Development project that, if actually developed, will involve construction of twenty 400-foot turbines and associated infrastructure in the remote and ecologically unique northwest corner of Virginia’s Highland County.

The conditional approval imposes monitoring and mitigation requirements that Highland New Wind claims will cause “every potential investor in the wind market [to] lose interest in the Project . . . .”

Although the SCC asserted no authority to require the applicant to enter into a Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain an Incidental Take Permit attendant to the Endangered Species Act, the SCC did characterize Highland New Wind’s apparent refusal to do so as “a business risk voluntarily assumed by Highland Wind, which may impact the viability of the project. . . .”

The SCC acknowledged the significant risk to bats and birds that will result from the Highland New Wind project and refused to accept the “downsized” monitoring and mitigation plan proposed by the developer. The SCC instead adopted the plan recommended by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and further provided that limits on the cost of the plan may be adjusted if necessary. Despite objections raised by the developer, the DGIF has been assigned responsibility for implementing both the monitoring and mitigation portions of the required plan. Key elements of the plan include:

Daily monitoring for bird and bat mortality at 10 randomly selected turbines from April 1 – October 30
Daily monitoring for raptor mortality at 10 randomly selected turbines from November 15- March 31
Unrestricted access to the project site by the DGIF or its designees to conduct research on wildlife passage rates, site utilization, and management of wind energy production impacts on wildlife
Development of annual project mitigation or curtailment plans addressing seasonal migration and ensuring achievement of specified mortality thresholds for birds and bats
Immediate notification to the DGIF and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the event that endangered bat species or protected raptors are killed at the project
Additional species-specific fees for each raptor killed at the facility

Upper limits or caps to the cost of monitoring and mitigation are established by the order. In response to concern that the cost caps may not be protective if “bird and bat carnage continues to exceed target levels,” the SCC provided that the DGIF can request adjustment after three years. This provision prompted a dissenting opinion by one of the SCC commissioners, who argued that it creates untenable financial uncertainty, leaves the plan wide open for future modifications, and creates “a situation where potential investors simply will not know the limits to which operation of the project may be curtailed. . . .”

More information see
SCC Final Order
SCC Press Release
Developer Press Release
Roanoke Times
Associated Press
Daily News Record

For updates see News and Commentary

[Top]

Citizens argue that wind project
requires Endangered Species Act
(ESA) permit

"The [SCC Hearing Examiner's] report acknowledges that the project presents risks to endangered species but then ignores recommendations of state and federal wildlife agencies and other expert testimony by failing to require that HNWD obtain an incidental take permit. . . ."

"The record is replete with evidence that the project, if constructed, will result in a take of an endangered species. . . . "

"Throughout these proceedings HNWD has ignored the application of the ESA and the repeated warnings and recommendations of the wildlife agencies. It can no longer do so. . . ."

- from comments submitted to State Corporation Commission by attorneys for Highland Citizens

For more information see comments to SCC:

Highland Citizens
The Nature Conservancy
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
SCC Staff
Highland New Wind

and

The Recorder

[TOP]

Wildlife monitoring requirement may "scare away investors"

The Hearing Examiner for the State Corporation Commission has issued findings and recommendations concerning wildlife risks associated with the proposed Highland New Wind project. He found that the project represents "a significant risk to bats, and a lesser risk to birds." His recommendations include monitoring for the life of the project and unrestricted access to the project site for state and federal authorities.

The Hearing Examiner also recommended that the project obtain an "incidental take" permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and create a Habitat
Conservation Plan to avoid risk of shut-down and penalties.

The developer's attorney has objected to what he termed a "bat tax" and the possibility that the cost of monitoring and mitigation could "scare away investors." Energy industry spokesman, Frank Maisano, has expressed a similar concern: ". . . I'm saying it could threaten the viability of the project."

As described previously (see the "Front Page" topic below), the real problem for Highland New Wind and other Appalachian region wind projects is not the cost of monitoring wildlife impact. The real problem is that stringent monitoring will document unacceptable levels of wildlife mortality.

For more information, see:
Hearing Examiner's Report
The Recorder
The Roanoke Times
The Richmond Times Dispatch

[Top]

It's the monitoring data that may put
the project at risk, not the monitoring costs

Due to very high concentrations of birds and bats at the site of the proposed Highland New Wind project in Virginia's Highland County, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) has argued in testimony to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) that the project presents an unacceptable risk to wildlife --unless effective monitoring and mitigation requirements are imposed. The developer has countered with testimony claiming that the monitoring and mitigation recommendations of both the VDGIF and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) would put the project at financial risk. However, the SCC has released financial information for the project that suggests otherwise.

In a brief, which was unintentionally posted by the SCC on its website, TNC argued that "the cost of monitoring and mitigating the environmental risk this project poses to bats, even if continued at the maximum levels suggested by the Conservancy for the 20-year life of the project, would amount to approximately 2.5 percent of the project's annual revenues during the first three years of its operation and less than 1.5 percent of revenues thereafter."

This is covered in detail in an article and editorial in The Recorder, the weekly newspaper that serves Highland County (see the red text near the end of both).

Additional information on this topic is provided in an article in the Roanoke Times.

The TNC Brief

[Top]

Behold the giants: the potential impacts of wind energy on wildlife

Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007
The Wildlife Society

With the wind energy industry expanding rapidly to meet the world’s rising demand for energy, researchers are trying to move quickly to get a better grasp on how to minimize wildlife mortality and habitat impacts that seem to inevitably accompany wind facilities.

Complete article with annotations

[Top]

Raptors and Wind Energy Development in the Central Appalachians:
Where We Stand on the Issue

Authors: Todd Katzner, David Brandes,
Michael Lanzone, Trish Miller, Dan Ombalski

On migration routes of high ecological significance . . . wind energy facilities should be constructed only if replicated studies show conclusively that there will not be harm to natural resources - birds, bats, habitat, etc. In these cases there must be an especially high burden of proof to show that harm will not be caused.

Complete statement

[Top]

Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses

Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2007; 5(6): 315-324.

Authors: Thomas H Kunz, Edward B Arnett, Wallace P Erickson, Alexander R Hoar, Gregory D Johnson, Ronald P Larkin, M Dale Strickland, Robert W Thresher, and Merlin D Tuttle

Abstract: At a time of growing concern over the rising costs and long-term environmental impacts of the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy, wind energy has become an increasingly important sector of the electrical power industry, largely because it has been promoted as being emission-free and is supported by government subsidies and tax credits. However, large numbers of bats are killed at utility-scale wind energy facilities, especially along forested ridgetops in the eastern United States. These fatalities raise important concerns about cumulative impacts of proposed wind energy development on bat populations. This paper summarizes evidence of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in the US, makes projections of cumulative fatalities of bats in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, identifies research needs, and proposes hypotheses to better inform researchers, developers, decision makers, and other stakeholders, and to help minimize adverse effects of wind energy development.

Complete Article

[Top]

Wind project developer seeks to avoid wildlife protection measures

The Virginia State Corporation Commission is hearing testimony on the proposed Highland New Wind project on Tuesday, July 17, at its Richmond office building. If the Highland County project goes forward, it will be Virginia’s first utility-scale wind project.

Highland New Wind is testifying that it cannot afford wildlife protections recommended by wildlife agencies, conservation groups, and citizen respondents in the case now before the Virginia State Corporation Commission.

Despite the prospects of government incentives, which would cover the majority of development costs, it remains a marginal project, promising negligible benefits and huge environmental costs.

“This project is simply a bad investment for the wind industry and a bad precedent for the Commonwealth,” says Rick Webb, co-manager of Virginia Wind and co-author of a National Academies report on environmental impacts of wind projects. “If it goes forward, it can only damage the concept of green energy.”

The proposed Highland New Wind project would involve twenty 400-foot turbines on two ridges in the Laurel Fork area of Virginia’s least populated county, an area noted for its high mountain scenery and wildlife abundance. Limited studies conducted by the developer indicate that the project site may have the highest numbers of migrating birds and bats among all wind project sites in the eastern United States.

Multiple agencies and organizations have presented testimony about the proposed project to the State Corporation Commission.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service : recommends that wind energy developers avoid wildlife concentration areas, and that development only occur after multi-year and multi-season study of wildlife use. Highland New Wind must obtain a Habitat Conservation Plan required by the Endangered Species Act.

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries : indicates that wildlife mortality at the proposed site may exceed that of all other sites in the eastern U.S. and that without effective monitoring and mitigation measures, the project presents “unacceptable risks.” Continuous monitoring for the life of the project should be required, with project curtailment when mortality thresholds are exceeded.

The Nature Conservancy : provides estimates that as many as 64,000 bats will be killed each year given the number of wind turbines projected for construction by 2020 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Unless solutions are found, the proposed Highland New Wind project will contribute to this “intolerable situation.”

Highland Citizens : argues that Highland New Wind “has tried to provide as little information as possible in an effort to manipulate and limit the review process.”

Virginia Wind : estimates that Highland New Wind will provide less than one-tenth of one-percent of the Commonwealth’s annual electricity needs, and even that small amount will not be available during the peak summer demand period when commonly the wind is not blowing.

This project clearly tests the limits of public support for wind development.

Virginia Wind takes the position that meaningful steps must be taken to solve our energy problem and address air pollution and climate change. The Highland New Wind project is a step in the wrong direction.

Virginia Wind New Release

Summary of Pre-Filed Testimony

[Top]

Open letter to Mr. Frank Maisano, spokesperson for Appalachian wind developers

Mr. Maisano - I see that you are quoted in several articles concerning the WV PSC denial of a permit for the Liberty Gap wind project.

One of the issues raised by the WV PSC is that the applicant has failed to prepare the Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain the Incidental Take Permit needed for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. I believe that this failure had to do with the fact that there are no proven measures for avoiding bat mortality. The applicants certainly knew that if they pursued the matter the lack of mitigation measures would become all too clear. I note that you neglect this key issue in your newspaper statements.

I understand the role that you play as wind industry PR person. But I suggest that you do a disservice to potential investors in Allegheny Highlands wind projects. Given that the only mitigation measure for the bat mortality problem is likely to be project curtailment, any requirement for effective monitoring of bat mortality is not likely to appeal to investors. And it is not likely that future projects will go forward without strict monitoring requirements.

I raise this selective representation of the issues on your part because it appears that you are also promoting the myth that the industry has solved the bat problem. For example, in an article titled "Wind Wars," published this month in Conserve Magazine, you are reported to have said that the industry has found ways to reduce the danger of wind turbines to bats. I am confident that this is not correct. However, in the interest of informed public debate, we will publish any supporting analysis that you can provide. - Rick Webb

Who is Frank Maisano?

Follow-up correspondence

[Top]

Appalachian wind energy development and mountaintop removal mining

Wind energy promoters assert that construction of wind turbines on Appalachian ridges will reduce or prevent mountaintop removal and the other destructive effects of our reliance on coal as an energy source.

For example, the Summer 2007 issue of UVA Magazine includes an article titled, Wind Chill, in which Mr. Alden Hathaway, a wind energy broker, is reported to estimate that each wind turbine offsets the need for 40 to 50 acres of coalfield.

We offered to publish any analysis that Mr. Hathaway could provide in support of this estimate.

Mr. Hathaway responded, stating that he does not recall making such an estimate, and he instead offered analysis showing that each wind turbine will potentially save 18 acres of coalfield.

We thank Mr. Hathaway for providing this clarification. However, he still presents an unrealistically high estimate of mountaintop removal offset. We have prepared a critique of his analysis.

The Hathaway analysis

The Virginia Wind critique

[Top]

Letter-Writing Campaign by Project Proponents

Urgent: Bring Clean Energy to Virginia
Chesapeake Climate Action Network

CEP Urges Support of Virginia Wind Farm
Clean Energy Partnership

Editorial Response:
The Recorder
03/23/06

Other Comments and Reports

Highland Citizens
Expert Testimony to SCC on
Energy, Air-Quality, and Environmental Issues
090106-1 (3.3 mb)
090106-2 (1.4 mb)
090106-3 (2.5 mb)
061907
011907
110607

The Nature Conservancy
Expert Testimony to SCC on Wildlife Issues
Preliminary Comments (0.3 mb)
083001-1 (2.6 mb)
083001-2 (2.2 mb)
061807
082807
011807
110207

Virginia Highlands Grotto
National Speleological Society:
Potential Impacts on Rare and Endangered Bats
041106 (2.2 mb)
102906 (0.4 mb)

Viewshed Analysis
(8.0 mb)
John R. Sweet

Radar Study Results
Graphical display of collision risk to nocturnal migrant birds and bats posed by planned wind turbines.

Agency Comments and Review Material

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
030106
073006

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
022406
052406
092006
061807

Virginia Department of Conservation

Virginia Department of Historic Resources
022306
022008

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2003 2005 2006

National Park Service

Army Corps of Engineers

The Developer's Environmental Reports

Reports submitted on 020706 to the SCC include the following, which were divided into five separate 1.7 to 2.8 mb files on the SCC website:

Document 1:
transmittal letter - John Flora
general project description - Jeffrey Paulson
avian issue - Paul Kerlinger

Document 2:
Document 3:
Document 4:
avian issue continued -
Paul Kerlinger

Document 5:
avian issues continued -
Paul Kerlinger
bat issue - Scott Reynolds
northern flying squirrel issue -
Michael Edwin sponds to Agency Comments
Response to Agency Comments
042706 - Part 1
042706 - Part 2
Related news article: 050206

Response to DEQ Report
080406 - Part 1
080406 - Part 2
080406 - Part 3 on
includes emissions "backdown" reports (also provided with Virginia Wind response under "Air Quality Benefits ?") ")

080906 - Part 1
080906 - Part 2
avian issue - Paul Kerlinger

Post-hearing briefs:
011907
110607

Review Process

The application, reports, comments, and legal briefs are available on the State Corporation Commission website
(access SCC documents). Much of this material is posted here via the links below.

SCC Final Order

Va Wind Comments: 032906

Air Quality Benefits Question
Hathaway-Jacobsen: 07050
Va Wind Response: 080906

Developer's Reports

Agency Comments

Other Comments/Reports

Campaign by Proponents

Potential Contribution of Highland New Wind Development to Virginia’s Projected Monthly Electricity Demand in 2015 (shown in relation to estimated total onshore wind energy capacity)

Highland New Wind

Twenty 400-foot turbines would be distributed on high-elevation pastures in the Laurel Fork watershed, one of the most remote, undisturbed, and ecologically unique areas in Virginia. Concerns about potential adverse effects of the project have been raised by a broad range of agencies and organizations.

Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries:

“. . . the Highland Project has passage rate indices ranging from 36-80% greater than comparable sites. These data demonstrate the importance of this site as migratory pathway for bats and birds . . . . We believe this may translate into the highest mortality rates in the east.”

Additional concerns about impacts to natural and cultural resources have been raised by: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Virginia Division of Historic Resources, The Nature Conservancy, the Virginia Society of Ornithology, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Valley Conservation Council, Scenic Virginia, and others.

Highland County is known for its scenic beauty and unique habitat that supports a diverse animal population. From the outset of the SCC process, HNWD has tried to provide as little information as possible in an effort to manipulate and limit the review process. DEQ, DGIF and DCR have all stated that the information submitted by HNWD was not sufficient for them to determine the impact upon wildlife but that the information that was provided indicated that there is a likelihood of significant bat and bird mortality. - from Post-Hearing Brief, Highland Citizens, 01/19/07

Basis for estimation that
4317 turbines would be needed
to meet a 12.5% RPS in Virginia
in 2015

Estimated electricity consumption for 2015:

136,129,411 MWhs

This is based on projecting from 2001 consumption given 2.52% annual growth in demand (the average growth rate for 1992 through 2001).

The annual production for a 1.5 MW turbine:

1.5MW x .30 (capacity factor) x 365 days x 24 hours/day = 3942 MWhs per turbine per year

Given that the annual capacity factor for turbines in the mid Appalachian region is 30%.

The number of turbines to supply 12.5% of estimated 2015 electricity consumption:

(136,129,411 MWhs x 0.125) / 3942 MWhs/turbine = 4317 turbines

4317 turbines at 8 turbines per mile of ridgeline
= 540 miles of ridgeline

To put this in perspective:
540 miles is more than 5 times the length of the Shenandoah National Park

The electricity consumption data obtained from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Energy Information Administration

Renewable
portfolio standard legislation would require industrial wind development in Virginia.

The Cart Before the Horse
The need for objective study.

Regional Projections
Turbines to satisfy RPS requirements in 2030.

Potential Contribution of Onshore Wind Development to
Virginia’s Projected Monthly Electricity Demand in 2015
Estimates indicate that onshore wind capacity is equivalent to 3.6% of Virginia's 2015 demand. Any additional requirement would need to be satisfied by development in the bay or offshore.

Front Page
News Reports
Commentary and Perspective

Gone With the Windmills?
A Plea to President Obama
to Save the National Forests of Appalachia

Industrial Wind Power in the Mountains of Virginia

National Academies Report

Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects

Costs and Benefits Summary

Assessment/Guidance

West Virginia Sustainable Fair Presentation - 041908 (2 mb)

Wind Energy Development in Western Virginia (2.5 mb)

USFWS Interim Guidelines
GAO: Impacts on Wildlife

Policy Development

Virginia Conservation Network 2009 Wind Power Statement

Virginia Forest Watch
Wind Energy Policy

Highland Conservancy
Wind Energy Policy

Wild Virginia
Position Paper

Environmental Issues

Wind and Wildlife Conference
Birds, bats, and forests

Landscape Classification System for Virginia

Objectives/Authors
Table of Contents
Document (3.4 mb)
Example Maps
Why are there 2 versions?

Development Scale

Turbine Size
VA Wind Energy Potential Projects in the Highlands
Development in the Region

objectives of Virginia wind

To provide access to a Landscape Classification System for environmentally responsible siting of utility-scale wind projects in Virginia.
To provide a technical and policy oriented synthesis of available information on utility-scale wind energy development and associated environmental impacts in Virginia and the central Appalachian region.
To promote awareness of the need for effective environmental assessment prior to utility-scale wind development in the region.

We are guided by the Precautionary Principle, wherein "if we have reasonable suspicion of harm, accompanied by scientific uncertainty, then we all have a duty to take action to prevent harm."

We remain hopeful that the wind industry will embrace the principle of precaution and stand as a role-model for other industries by taking strong and proactive steps to prevent environmental harm.

We intend to continue work on the Landscape Classification System and to promote effective assessment of environmental issues related to wind energy development. We envision this website and the Landscape Classification System as works in progress, and we invite feedback and comments.

Virginia Wind is maintained by
Dan Boone (bio)
and
Rick Webb (bio)
062309

News Reports

The following news reports concern environmental harm, the need for research, and the development of a regulatory review process for utility-scale wind energy development in Virginia and the surrounding central Appalachian region

Highland New Wind Asks for Building Permit
The Recorder, 061809

Map of proposed turbine locations

What's Left for Highland New Wind to Do?
The Recorder, 061809

Timeline for Highland New Wind
The Recorder, 061809

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against West Virginia Wind Energy Developer for Non-Compliance With Endangered Species Act
Beckley Register Herald, 061109

Blown Away
Daily News Record, 042209

This article includes siginificant misinformation (see Front Page).

Developer to Seek Approval at National Level
WHSV.com, 041309

Permit for Virginia National Forest Project Denied
Nothern Virginia Daily, 041109

Forest Supervisor's letter

Energy Efficiency Could Aid Economy and Offset Need for New Coal-Fired Power Plants in Appalachian Region
Associated Press, 031709

Who Will Protect Laurel Fork? Landowners say county responsible under permit terms for wind utility
The Recorder, 031209

Highland Supervisors Request $1.5 Million in Stimulus Money to Facilitate Highland New Wind
The Recorder, 030509

West Virginia Wind Industry Faces Financial and Environmental Problems
Charleston Gazette, 021509

Steering Committee Formed to Address Ridgeline Wind Energy Development in Tazewell County
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 021109

Tazewell County Committee to Examine Proposed Ridgeline Protection Ordinance
Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 020409

Map: Potential Turbines Sites in Tazewell County

It's Blowin in the Wind
The Augusta Free Press, 013009

Opposition to bills being considered in the 2009 Virginia General Assemby

Highland Supervisors Oppose Wind Energy Bills
The Recorder, 012909

State Agency and Highland Residents Seek More Information From Wind Developer
The Recorder, 012909

Two Wind Projects Planned for Tazewell and Wise Counties
Richmond-Times Dispatch, 012509

This article has wind industry lobbyist Frank Maisano announcing that the proposed Highland New Wind project has received all the permits it needs and plans to break ground in the first half of this year. That is simply not true. Highland New Wind has yet to provide the site plan that is required before permit reviews can be completed.

Industrial Develoment in the Headwaters of Laurel Fork, an Exceptional Native Trout Stream
The Recorder, 120408

Wind Energy Ordinance Drafted for Bath County
The Recorder, 112008

Wind Company Still Looking for Money: "We are not the best deal in the market."
The Recorder, 110608

Highland New Wind Continues to Resist Agency Information Request
The Recorder, 103008

We Have Never Seen a Site Plan
The Recorder, 092508

Highland New Wind Resists Historic Resource Review
The Recorder, 090408

Virginia Offshore Wind Project Possible
The Virginian Pilot, 083008

Testing the Virginia Renewables Site Scoring System in Bath County
The Recorder, 080708

Potential Bath County Wind Development
- map prepared by Virginia Wind

Wind Energy in Virginia Gets a 2nd Look
Washington Post, 080308

For a review of this article, see Miles of Mountain Ridges (Front Page)

Wind Energy Development In National Forest Addressed at Forest Plan Meeting
The Shenandoah Valley Herald, 071708

The Future of George Washington National Forest
WHSV, Harrisonburg, VA- 071908

George Washington National Forest Plan Revision Draft National Forest Wind Project Suitability Map

Highland New Wind Has Not Found Investors
The Recorder, 070308

Note: John Flora, attorney and spokesman for the proposed Highland County project, indicates that turbine shortage, not environmental concerns, is the main reason for lack of investor interest. This contradicts his earlier argument to the State Corporation Commission that strict requirements for monitoring bird and bat mortality would "scare away investors."

Merits of Commercial Wind Power Undecided Statewide
The Recorder, 062608

Views on Wind Power Clash at Symposium
The Recorder, 062608

Note: as indicated in the above article, Jon Miles (a symposium moderator), complained to the attendees about a Virginia Wind statement on the symposium's lack of balance. Miles selectively read from the statement - leaving out the primary basis for the objection - which was that the symposium agenda included no one to objectively address environmental concerns about ridge line wind projects.

See: Virginia Wind Statement (the content omitted by Jon Miles is highlighted)

Expanding Wind Industry Hits Bats, Turbulence, and Lawsuits
Earth News, 061208

Albemarle Planners Address Wind Turbine Issue
Cville Weekly, 052808

Citizen Groups to Sue West Virginia Wind Project Over Endangered Species Act Violation
The Huntington News, 051108

Highland Conservancy Revises Wind Energy Policy
The Highlands Voice, May 2008

Wind Project Seeking Investors
The Recorder, 050808

Uncertain Review Process Confronts Highland Wind Project: Questions Raised about Coordination
The Recorder, 050108

Maryland Wind Project Reduces Number of Turbines (from 67 to 28) to Avoid Review Process
Baltimore Sun, 042408

Note: this project is adjacent the West Virginia project where an estimated 4,000 bats were killed in one 6-week period in 2003.

Dominion to Build Wind Projects to Meet Virginia Renewables Target
Washington Post, 042208

Dominion and BP to Build Wind Energy Projects in Virginia
WHSV, Harrisonburg, 042108

Governor Cites Value of Maryland's Other Environmental Resources
Washington Post, 041308

Maryland to Ban Commercial Wind Energy Development in State Forests
Baltimore Sun, 041208

Confronting Wind Energy Development in the Valley
Shenandoah Valley Herald, 040908

Potential for Project Shutdown Due to Endangered Species Act
The Recorder, 040308

Cited Injunction Cases

Is Wind Farm in Valley's Future?
Daily News Record, 032608

Feelings Mixed on Proposed Wind Farms
Daily News Record, 032608

Note: The spokesman for the development company is quoted stating that most potential wind project locations in Va are off limits. An examination of legal and management restrictions indicates that this is not correct.

Valley Targeted for Wind Turbines
Northern Virginia Daily, 032608

Unidentified Company Files Initial Application for Wind Turbine Construction in the George Washington National Forest
News-Virginian, 032508

Uncertainty Over Permits, Approvals, and Required Coordination with Agencies
The Recorder, 031308

Mount Storm 132-Turbine Wind Energy Project: concrete, rebar, and roads
Cumberland-Times, 031008

Virginia Counties Begin to Craft Regulations for Wind Energy Projects
Richmond Times Dispatch, 030908

Wind Project Faces Continuing Legal Issues
The Recorder, 030608

Highland Supervisors Address Wind Project Issues
The Recorder, 030608

Comments on Proposed Forest Service Wind Energy Policy Directive
The Recorder, 013108

SCC Commissioner Comments on Highland Wind Project
The Recorder, 013108

Virginia Senate Bills Would Affect Environmental Review of Wind Projects
The Recorder, 013108

Project on Rockingham County-WV Border a Threat to Species Protected by Federal Environmental Laws
The Recorder, 013108

Bill Would Strike a Blow for Highland Wind Farm
The Hook, 012108

New Rules Sought for Windmills: Bill would exempt smaller projects from SCC oversight
Richmond Times Dispatch, 011908

USFWS Opposes Wind Proect on Rockingham County-WV Border Due to Wildlife Risk
Daily News Record, 011508

Residents and Supervisors Consider Next Moves After State Approves Wind Plant Permit
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 010308

Wind Plant Approval Contains Strict Conditions
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 010308

Will County Address Endangered Species Act?
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 010308

Highland Developer Seeks Investors
Daily News Record, 122707

Strings Attached to State Wind Farm
Roanoke Times, 122107

Virginia's First Wind Project Approved
Associated Press, 122007

Wind Turbines Proposed for State Forests in Maryland
Cumberland Times-News, 121107

Comments on SCC Hearing Examiner's Report
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 111507

SCC Official Recommends Monitoring Wind Energy Project for its Lifespan
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 101807

SCC Officer Said Wildlife Protection Outweighs Financial Concerns
Roanoke Times, 101807

Examiner of Highland County Project Wants to Watch its Effect on Birds and Bats
Richmond Times Dispatch, 101807

Wind and the wilds: The release of a proposed wind energy plant's financial data raises new questions about its environmental options
Roanoke Times, 100507

County Prevails in Case Before Supreme Court
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 092007

Note: The Virginia Supreme Court ruled against Highland County citizens contesting the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Highland New Wind by the county's Board of Supervisors. The ruling was based primarily on technicalities. It did not address environmental issues. This article also presents unintentionally released finanical information for the proposed project, and puts the cost of proposed wildlife monitoring in perspective. See the text in red toward the end of the article.

Turbulence Over Proposed Wind Farm
The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, 091607

High Court Rejects Challenges to Virginia Wind Farm
The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, 091507

Virginia Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Highland Wind Project: Final Step is Approval by SCC
Richmond Times Dispatch, 091507

Note: project supporters continue to assert, and news articles continue to repeat, that the Highland New Wind Project will supply electricity for 10,000 to 20,000 homes. This is an inflated estimate. Based on a per capita analysis, the annual average number of homes the 39 MW project would support is about 2,700; the average number of homes in August would be about 1000. See: Comparitive Analysis.

Last of Aurguments on Highland Wind Plan Submitted to State Corporation Commssion
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 091307

Expansion of Allegheny Front Wind Projects Planned
Charleston Gazette, 080107

Maryland General Assembly Prevents Environmental Review of Wind Projects
Washington Post, 072307

The law in question was passed to allow more wind turbines on Backbone Mountain, the same ridge in immediately adjacent West Virginia where thousands of bats have been killed at the Mountaineer wind project. Bill supporters included the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, which is promoting mandatory wind development in Virginia.

SCC Hearing on Wildlife Monitoring and Mitigation
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 071907

Windmill Plan in Jeopardy
Richmond Times Dispatch/AP, 081906

According to this article, project supporters assert that the Highland New Wind Project will supply electricity for 10,000 to 15,000 homes. This is an inflated estimate. Based on a per capita analysis, the annual average number of homes the 39 MW project would support is about 2,700; the average number of homes in August would be about 1000. See: Comparitive Analysis.

Wind Project Poses Unacceptable Risks
Letter to Editor, Richmond Times Dispatch, 080407

Wildlife Experts Present Testimony on Proposed Highland New Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 071207

WV Public Service Commission Denies Permit for Proposed Liberty Gap Project
Gazette-Mail, 062307

The reasons for the denial include: (1) failure to adequately address cultural resource issues, and (2) failure to complete a Habitat Conservation Plan for an Incidental Take Permit (for endangered bat species) from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The PSC order

Western NC Town Bans Wind Turbines
Winston-Salem Journal, 061507

Highland New Wind Case Heard by Virginia Supreme Court
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 061407

Legal Setbacks for Wind Industry in West Virginia
Gazette-Mail, 061007

Court Dismisses Challenge to Wind Projects in Western MD
Baltimore Sun, 060907

U.Va. Environmental Scientist Advocates Impact Assessments for Wind Energy Projects
UVA Today, 060507

Free Pass for Wind Industry
IWA Press Release, 061507

Lawmaker Compromises on Wind Rules
AP, 060607

Congressman Pushes for Rules on Wind Industry
AP, 060307

Wind Wars
Conserve Magazine, 060207

Note: Frank Maisano is a public relations spokesman for the wind industry. According to this article, Mr. Maisano claims that the industry has found ways to reduce the danger of wind turbines to bats. We know of no evidence to support this claim, and we are confident that it is not correct. However, we will publish any supporting analysis that Mr. Maisano can provide.

Wind Chill
UVA Magazine, Summer 2007

Note: This article includes a claim that a single wind turbine produces enough electricity to offset " the need for 40-50 acres of coalfields." This claim was attributed to Mr. Alden Hathaway. We inquired about the analysis that supports this claim. We have posted Mr. Hathaway's response and our critique of his analysis.

The Hathaway analysis

The Virginia Wind critique

Industrial Wind Action Welcomes National Academies Report
IWA Press Release. 051807

Where Does the Highland New Wind Project Stand?
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 05100

SCC Should Consider National Academies Findings
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 051007

National Academies Report: Wind Energy Carries Risk to Environment
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 051007

National Wind Watch Criticizes National Academies Report
NWW Press Realease, 050907

West Virginia Supreme Court Considers Wind Cases
Highlands Voice, 050407

Report Provides Material for Legal Arguments
Register-Herald (Beckley, WV), 050407

Study Says Policies on Wind Energy Inadequate
Register-Herald (Beckley, WV), 050407

Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests
The New York Times, 050407

Wind Energy Report Released
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 050307

New Report Examines Wind Energy's Impacts on Emissions, Wildlife, and Humans
National Academies Press Release, 050307

British Petroleum Inquires About Wind Energy in Bath County, Virginia
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 050307

Regulate Wind Power, Mollohan Says
Charleston Gazette, 050207

Mollohan Testifies on Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife
Huntington News, 050207

Congressional Hearing: The Downside of Wind Power, Impacts on Birds and Bats
eNewsUSA, 050107

National Energy Corridors to Open Remote Areas for Wind Development
UPI, 043097

This U.S. Department of Energy directive raises scenario in which local land use control and environmental concerns would be discounted to connect Appalachian wind projects to urban demand centers.

Tracking Bats to Determine Wind Project Impact
Daily American (Somerset, PA), 042907

Virginia SCC Says it Needs More Information on Highland New Wind
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 041207

SCC Schedule for Continuing Review of Highland New Wind
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 041207

Highland New Wind Objects to Delay
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 041207

Legal Arguments Concerning Highland New Wind
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 041207

Bill to Reduce Environmental Review of Wind Projects Passes Maryland General Assembly
Baltimore Sun, 040807

Bill supporters include the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and wind industry representatives. Bill opponents include the the MD Department of Natural Resources, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Maryland Conservation Council, and the Sierra Club.

VA State Corporation Commission Sends Wind Case Back for Testimony and Hearings on Wildlife Issues
AP, 040607

SCC Ruling - 040607

American Electric Power Seeks to Buy Wind Energy in Virginia and West Virginia
AP, 040407

Highland Citizens Ask For Stay in Permitting Decision - Developer Complains Delay Would Jeopardize Economic Feasibility
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 031607

Maryland Bill Would Cut Project Review for Wind Plants
Baltimore Sun, 031007

Highland Turbines Get Initial OK by SCC
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 030807

Birds, Bats, and Blades: Highland County Project
Roanoke Times, 030207

Draft National Forest Plan Designates Areas Generally Suitable for Wind Energy Development
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 030107

SCC Hearing Examiner Recommends Permitting Highland Wind Project With Conditions
AP, 030107

This article indicates that the Highland New Wind Project will supply electricity for 39,000 homes. This is actually twice as much as even the developer claims. Based on a per capita analysis, the annual average number of homes the 39 MW project would support is about 2,700; the average number of homes in August would be about 1000. See: Comparitive Analysis.

SCC Hearing Examiner's Recommendation on Highland Wind Project - - (Access Report)
SCC News Release, 030197

Wind Industry Still Waiting to Expand
Gazette-Mail (Chlarleston, WV), 021707

Patrick County Supervisors Pass Ordinance Effectively Banning Wind Turbines
Enterprise, 021407

Supreme Court to Hear Highland Wind Project Case
Roanoke Times, 021607

Division Over Planned Virginia Wind Farm
New York Times, 021307

Oppositio n to North Carolina Wind Project
News and Observer (Raliegh), 011007

Highland Citizens Say Highland New Wind Fail to Make Its Case
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 012507

Highland New Wind Ready to "Move Ahead"
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 012507

SCC Staff Says Highland Project Can Be Approved on Most Criteria
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 012507

Wind Project Controversy in Ashe County, NC
The Mountain Times, 011807

Tracking Golden Eagles to Find Sites for Wind Turbines
Pittsburg Gazette, 011407

Patrick County to Ban Tall Structures
Richmond Times Dispatch, 011407

Partnership Studies Impact of Turbines on Birds
Pittsburg Tribune-Domocrat, 011107

Golden Eagles, Wind Turbines on Collision Course?
Pittsburg Tribune-Review, 011107

Patrick County Survey Respondents Favor Tall Structures Ordinance - Prohibiting Wind Turbines
Enterprise, 010307

Wind Power Complications
The New York Times, 122806

Federal Tax Credits Power Turbine Development
Tribune-Democrat, Johnstown, PA, 122506

Region May Get Hundreds of Turbines
Tribune-Democrat, Johnstown, PA, 122406

Albemarle County Considers Mountain Protection Plan
C-Ville Weekly, Charlottesville, VA, 122106

Dominion Buys Into Allegheny Front Wind Project
Charleston Gazette, 122006

Storms of Opposition to Maryland Wind Projects
AP, 121706

Biologist Questions Wind Energy Mythology
The Patriot, Harrisburg, PA. 121006

Wind Turbines Raise Concerns about Birds and Bats The Patriot, Harrisburg, PA. 121006

Alrlington and Charlottesville Officials Declare Support for Highland Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 120806

Pendleton, WV Wind Proposal Found Lacking
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 120806

Bath County Officials Want to Limit Wind Development
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 120106

Wind Hearings End
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 112206

Patrick County Enacts Height Restrictions: Effectively Banning Wind Turbines
Enterprise, 111206

Site Plan Needed to Evaluate Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906

First Meeting of Renewables Site Scoring System
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906

JMU Scoring System Grant
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906

Wind Hearing Underway
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110206

Public Debate Over Wind Farm Still Blows Strong
Roanoke Times, 103106

Debate Centers on Environment: Highland Wind Farm's Supporters and Foes Both Claim High Ground
Richmond Times Dispatch, 103106

Wind Hearing Begins
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706

State Agency Urges Caution on Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706

Federal Agency Urges Liberty Gap to Get Permit
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706

Wind Group Director Responds to Criticism
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706

Wind Energy Group to Spearhead Siting Guidelines
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 101906

Wind Project Presents Unacceptable Risk
Virginia Wind News Release, 100106

Patrick County to Conduct Survey on Proposed Wind Development
Enterprise (Patrick County), 091306

Jack Mountain: WV Public Service Commission to Reconsider Pendleton Project
Daily News Record, 090406

Wind Power Promises and Questions
Richmond Times Dispatch/AP, 081906

A misquote or misprint in this article indicates that the Highland New Wind Project will supply electricity for 39,000 homes. This is actually twice as much as even the developer claims. Based on a per capita analysis, the annual average number of homes the 39 MW project would support is about 2,700; the average number of homes in August would be about 1000. See: Comparitive Analysis.

Highland Wind Developer Responds to DEQ Report
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 081706

Highland Wind Developer Against Viewshed Analysis
Richmond Times Dispatch, 081706

Note: the following 3 articles concern U.S. Wind Forces's proposed Jack Mountain/Liberty Gap project in Pendleton County, WV. Phase 2 of the project would apparently extend into Highland County, VA.

Jack Mountain: Developer Appeals Application Dismissal
Charelston Daily Mail/AP, 080106

Jack Mountain: WV Public Service Commission Dismisses Project Application
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 072106

Jack Mountain: WV Public Service Commission Decision
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 072106

State Corporation Commission Sets Testimony and Hearing Schedule for Highland Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 071306

Blue Ridge Parkway Enters Wind Project Controversy
Enterprise (Patrick County), 071206

Virginia DEQ Issues Report on Highland Wind Project
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 070706

Highland Wind Trial Testimony-2
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 070706

Highland Wind Trial Testimony-1
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 063006

DEQ Wants Study of How Highland Windmills Would Affect Birds, Bats
Richmond Times Dispatch, 070106

Proposed Energy Plant Creates Windstorm of Debate
Roanoke Times, 070106

County Wins in Court
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 070106

Highlanders File 2nd Motion to Dismiss Wind Project Application
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 061606

Debate Over Wind Power Creates Environmental Rift
New York Times, 060606

Wind Project Proposed for Patrick County
Enterprise, 051006

Wind Project Proposed for Roanoke County
Roanoke Times, 050606

Project Lawyer Responds to Environmental Agency Concerns
Richmond Times Dispatch, 050206

Blowin in the Wind
The Hook, Charlottesville, 031706

Highlanders Pick Apart Wind Plans
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 031706

Virginia Game Officials Say Effects Need Study
Richmond Times Dispatch, 030406

Renewable Energy Study
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 112905

USF&WS Says Wind Project Needs Study
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 100705

Feds Wonder if Wind Farm Will Hurt Va. Wildlife
Richmond Times Dispatch, 100605

Wind Application Faces Thorough Review
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 091505

GAO Calls for More Federal Involvement in Wind Farms
Associated Press, 092905

Environmental Review of Windmills Plan Urged
Richmond Times Dispatch, 091105

FPL Energy Veto Stymies Bat Study
Chaleston Gazette, 060805

Researchers Alarmed by Bat Deaths From Wind Turbines
Washington Post, 010105

Commentary and Perspective

The following editorials and commentaries address the need for assessment of site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts prior to utility-scale development of wind energy in Virginia and the surrounding central Appalachian region. Inclusion here does not necessarily imply endorsement of all the expressed opinions.

No Stone Unturned
Recorder Editorial, June 18, 2009

Is Highland New Wind Really Ready?

Highland New Wind Development Expects to Finally Submit a Site Plan
Recorder Editorial, April 16, 2009

This is the wrong place for wind turbines of this scale, and it's the wrong time for anyone who cares about Highland to give up the fight to protect it.

Ignoring the Rules That Provide for Good Government
Letter to the Editor, The Recorder, April 2, 2009

Highland County supervisors violated the Freedom of Information Act when they planned their request for $1.5 million in economic stimulus money to further study the proposed Highland New Wind project.

The Energy Conservation Alternative to New Coal Plants and Wind Turbines on Ridges
Roanoke Times Editorial, March 22, 2009

This editorial points to a recent report by the Appalachian Regional Commission calling for investment in energy efficiency as an alternative response to projected increases in energy consumption.

031709 AP article on ARC Report
ARC Report: Energy Efficiency in Appalachia

Misuse of Economic Stimulus Money to Bail Out a Troubled Wind Energy Project
Recorder Guest View, March 12, 2009

Spending Stimulus Money on Wind Project Study Won't Change the Landscape
Recorder Editorial, March 5, 2009

Wind Power Needs Regulation
Op-Ed in the Roanoke Times, February 4, 2009

Windmills: Many Sacrifices, Few Benefits
Letter to Editor, Bluefield Daily Telegraph, February 4, 2009

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Recorder Editorial, January 29, 2009

"Our county officials may be more concerned about the loss of revenue, but Virginia residents as a whole should be even more alarmed by the lack of environmental studies and oversight the bill would allow."

A Better Shade of Green
Op-Ed in he New York Times, January 24, 2009

This commentary compares two means to achieve reductions in carbon emissions. It concludes that a cap-and-trade program can work while a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) will make energy production excessively expensive and do little to reduce carbon emissions.

This has direct relevance to Virginia, which now has a voluntary RPS - and where some are advocating a mandatory RPS.

Is Wind Energy the Next Subprime Swindle?
Op-Ed in the Charleston Gazette, January 18, 2009

Rural Versus Urban Civil War Over Wind Energy Development?
Op-Ed in the Endeavor (Potter and Cameron Counties, PA), December 20, 2008

This commentary describes a conflict between rural preservationists and urban politicians styling themselves as protectors of the environment. Something similar has arisen in Virginia in the conflict over the proposed Highland New Wind project. Local citizens, as well as mutliple conservation groups and wildlife agencies, have expressed concern or opposition to the project. In contrast, a number of distant urban groups and politicians, including the Arlington County Board of Supervisors, the Charlottesville City Council, and a State Senator from Virginia Beach, have promoted the project.

Who is Calling the Shots
Does Highland New Wind Intimidate Public Officials?
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), December 4, 2008

Getting Ahead of the Game: A Wind Energy Ordinance for Bath County
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), November 20, 2008

Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), October 30, 2008

Highland New Wind Resists Reviewing Agencies
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), September 4, 2008

The Gold Rushing Wind
Op-Ed in the Weekly Press (Philadelphia, PA), September 3, 2008

Turbines Don't Belong in Bath and Highland
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), August 14, 2008

T. Boone Picken's Wind Energy Scheme
Op-Ed in the Roanoke Times, August 14, 2008

The Industry Doth Protest Too Much
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), July 3, 2008

Frank Maisano: Lobbyist for Appalachian Wind Developers
Letter to Northern Virginia Daily, April 11, 2008

See also: Who is Frank Maisano?

Siting Industrial Wind turbines on the Pristine Mountains is Not the Answer to Our Nation's Need for Energy Sources
The Recorder, April 3, 2008

Wind Farm Plan Could Get Stormy
Northern Virginia Daily, March 29, 2008

Tilting at Wind Turbines (concern about development in National Forests)
Smoky Mountain News, March 19, 2008

SCC Plays Vital Role in Wind Project Approvals
Roanoke Times, January 23, 2008

False Promises of Appalachian Wind Development:
It's About Tax Avoidance
Charleston Gazette, January 8, 2008

State Corporation Commission Stands By Virginia
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
January 3, 2007

Wind Farms, Yes, But Not on Ridges
Commentary in the Roanoke Times, December 10, 2007

Gone With the Wind - Wind Turbines in Maryland State Forests?
Editorial in the Baltimore Sun, December 7, 2007

Getting the Math Right - Buyer Beware
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
October 18, 2007

Power Brokers Issue False Claims About Wind Power
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
September 20, 2007

Wind Power: There is a place for it, but not at the expense of the environment
Editorial in The Patriot News (Harrisburg, PA)

Power of Truth
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
July 5, 2007

No End in Site for Highland New Wind
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
May 17, 2007

Allegheny Highlands No Place for Experiments
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
May 17, 2007

West Virginia Should Regulate Wind Projects
Charleston Daily Mail, May 4, 2007

SCC Caution on Highland New Wind Appropriate
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
April 12, 2007

An Ill Wind
Editorial in the Baltimore Sun, March 9, 2007

Justice May Yet Prevail for Highland Citizens
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
March 8, 2007

Voltage Hogs
Bacon's Rebellion, March 5, 2007

Virginia Wind response, March 6, 2007

Forest Service Needs to Clarify Meaning of "Generally Suitable" For Wind Development
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
March 1, 2007

Unethical Legislative End Run for Wind Project Should be Stopped
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
February 15, 2007

Regulations Needed for Wind Projects
Winston-Salem Journal, February 11, 2007

SCC Staff Recommendation: Predetermined Cop Out Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
January, 25, 2007

Pennsylvania Needs Wind Project Siting Rules
Editorial in the Patriot News, January 19, 2007

Virginia Considers Renewable Power
Commentaries in the Richmond Times Dispatch,
January 17, 2007

Support for RPS Legislation is a Stand for Clean Energy

But the Bill Would Achieve Little Benefit at Great Cost

Responses to Charlottesville and Arlington County
Letters to the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
December 14, 2006

Survey County Sentiment
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
December 14, 2006

Spinning Out of Control
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
December 8, 2006

Tale of Two Counties: Highland and Bath
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
December 1, 2006

Windmills and Mountaintop Removal
Commentary in the Highlands Voice.
November 2006

Protect That Which Defines Us
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
November 22, 2006

Energy Pioneers
Editorial in the Newleader (Staunton, VA), November 22, 2006

Wind Shear: Potential for Wind Development Off the Coast of Virginia
Bacon's Rebellion, November 20, 2006

Evidence is Clear
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
October 27, 2006

Wind Energy Group Poor Choice to Spearhead Siting Guidelines
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
October 19, 2006

Wind Farm Not Welcome in Highland County
News-Virginian (Waynesboro), October 18, 2006

Looming Disaster?
Commentary in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, August 20, 2006

Arrogance Not Effective for Wind Project Developers
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), July 21, 2006

Virginia Can Do it Better
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), July 6, 2006

Wind Generators Pose Threat to Migratory Birds
Commentary in the Morning Call (Allentown, PA), June 22, 2006

Going Around and Around on Windmills
Editorial in the Roanoke Times. June 18, 2006

Converging on Conclusions
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), June 9, 2006

Environmentalist Miss the Mark
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 2006

Highlanders Present Convincing Case
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 2006

Valley Conservation Council calls for study prior to commercial wind development
Article and Resolution in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 2006

More on Wind
Editorial in the Richmond Times Dispatch, 2005

Wind-Energy Commentaries Off-Balance
Commentary in the Roanoke Times, 2005

State Agencies Get Weight on Their Shoulders
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 2005

In the Wind
Editorial in the Daily Press (Newport News, VA), 2005

An Unbalanced Case for Wind Turbines
Editorial in the Roanoke Times, 2005

A Balanced Approach to Commercial Wind Energy Development in Virginia
Commentary in the Roanoke Times, 2004

Incentives and Mandates

Although electricity produced using wind energy is more expensive than electricity from traditional sources, a number of factors are likely to accelerate the pace and increase the extent of wind energy development in Virginia and the surrounding states.

A major incentive for wind energy development is the production tax credit. This is a congressional level support that is a direct credit against a company’s federal income tax based on the generation of renewable resources. In addition, wind projects are eligible for greatly accelerated depreciation rates. The result is that 2/3 or more of the capital cost to install wind energy projects can be recovered by the developer and investors through tax shelter provisions and credits.

Another major driver of wind energy development is the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) legislation enacted by various states specifying that utilities operating in those states supply a fixed percentage of their power from renewable sources such as wind. Nearby states or jurisdictions that share the same electricity transmission grid as Virginia have already enacted RPS laws, including Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, DC. Virginia has not enacted an RPS, although there are continuing efforts underway to promote RPS legislation.

Current efforts to promote utility-scale wind energy development in Virginia include promotion of RPS legislation, as well as revocation of local authority over wind project siting. There is reason for concern that state-level mandates will be imposed without objective evaluation of environmental and economic costs and benefis.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Key Issues of Concern

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recommendation for Pre-Construction Assessment Prior to Wind Project Development in Highland County, Virginia

Forest Fragmentation

Assessing Bird and Bat Migration Over Appalachian Ridges

Monopole Turbines Versus Lattice Turbines

Wind Energy and Raptors: An Unsolved Issue

Raptors and Wind Energy Development in the Central Appalachians

Effects on Appalachian Bats

Reports prepared by Virginia Highlands Grotto, National Speleological Society
Highland New Wind:
041106 (2.2 mb), 102906 (0.4 mb)
Liberty Gap: 041106 (2.9 mb)

Bat Conservation International: Wind Energy and Bats

Memo to Wind Energy Producers and Wildlife Conservation Planners

Bat and Wind Energy Collaborative

Wind Energy: A Lethal Crisis
Bat Conservation Times, October 2005

Battered by Harsh Winds
Must bats pay the price for wind energy?
Bats: Fall 2005 (1.8 mb pdf)

Wind Energy and the Threat to Bats
Bats: Summer 2004

Why are there two versions of The Landscape Classification System ?

The effort that led the publication of the Landscape Classification System (LCS) document and associated geographic information material on the Virginia Wind website began in 2002 when a number of Virginia conservationist wrote to Governor Warner expressing concern about the lack of any state-level process to insure that wind energy development is conducted responsibly. They were directed to work with the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), a loose affiliation of wind energy advocates receiving state and federal funds to promote wind energy development. It was agreed that an Environmental Working Group would develop a landscape classification system to address siting issues. This group engaged in a long process involving many work sessions and meetings with agency and organizational representatives.

Eventually a draft LCS report was submitted to the original VWEC partners who rejected it, objecting to the call for assessment and to inclusion of material on wildlife and ecosystem impacts. After multiple revisions were rejected, the Environmental Working Group decided to produce the LCS as a finished product.

The VWEC response was to edit the completed LCS document, removing all reference to the need for environmental assessment and most of the information on wildlife and ecosystem impacts. VWEC then published its edited version of the document as a VWEC report without the concurrence of the Environmental Working Group.

Both versions of the LCS are posted here:

Original Verision - 70 pages, 3.3 MB

Altered Version - 26 pages, 0.3 MB

The largest turbines currently proposed for construction on Appalachian Ridges are about 550-feet tall --to the top of the rotor.

General Electric is marketing a 2.X MW turbine series for land-based wind projects.

The following videos provide perspective on turbine size; the associated sound may not provide an accurate representation of turbine noise.

Turbine Video -1
Turbine Video - 2
Turbine Video - 3
Turbine Video - 4
Turbine Video - 5

Highland Precedent

Assessment Material
Project Site Map
Highland New Wind seeks to build twenty 400-foot turbines in Highland County. Precedent-setting monitoring and mitigation requirments have been imposed due to high risk to birds and bats, including federal and state protected species.

Landscape Classification System

Addressing Environmental Issues Associated With Utility-Scale Wind Energy Development in Virginia

Objectives

To provide a readily accessible environmental database to facilitate siting decisions for utility scale wind energy developments so that sites with significant natural resource values are avoided to the greatest extent possible;
To identify critical information gaps at the local and regional scale likely to impede accurate evaluation of adverse environmental impacts;
To promote site-specific
assessments prior to making a significant financial commitment to development of a given site; and
To demonstrate the need for an assessment of cumulative impacts prior to extensive development of wind energy in Virginia and the surrounding region.

Authors

Dan Boone, Judy Dunscomb, Rick Webb, and Christina Wulf

See Appendix 1 of the Landscape Classification System for Biographical Information

Renewables Site Scoring System

Compromised

The Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy (DMME) has seriously compromised the integrity of the Virginia Energy Plan by contracting with JMU's Jon Miles to develop the Virginia Renewables Site Scoring System, which will essentially establish public policy on wind project siting in Virginia.

Jon Miles is JMU Director of the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), an unreserved advocacy group for wind development in Virginia. Almost all of the principal VWEC "partners," including Jon Miles, Alden Hathaway, Deborah Jacobsen, and Mitch King have submitted testimony in support of the proposed Highland wind project. One VWEC partner, Mitch King, has a financial interest in the project.

In appointing Jon Miles to develop the site scoring process, the DMME is working at cross purposes with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, which has determined that the proposed Highland project presents "unacceptable risks to wildlife."

In response to this concern, we have been assured by DMME that the contract for development of the scoring system was issued to JMU and not to VWEC:

"We have not hired VWEC for this matter, but have contracted with JMU. While Dr. Miles has been involved with VWEC, the contract is not with VWEC. Therefore, other members of VWEC should not be involved in this process to any greater or lesser extent than other parties . . . ."

This statement, however, has been contradicted by a JMU press release, which indicates that the scoring system project has been "assigned to James Madison University and the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy."

For more on this, see:

JMU press release. November 3. 2006

Wind Energy Group to Spearhead Siting Guidelines
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 101906

Wind Energy Group Poor Choice to Spearhead Siting Guidelines
Editorial in the Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties),
101906

Wind Group Director Responds to Criticism
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 102706

First Meeting of Renewables Site Scoring System
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906

JMU Scoring System Grant
Recorder (Bath and Highland Counties), 110906

FRONT PAGE

Review Process

Highland New Wind

Basis for estimation that 4317 turbines would be needed to meet a 12.5% RPS in Virginia in 2015

objectives of Virginia wind

News Reports

Commentary and Perspective

Incentives and Mandates

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Effects on Appalachian Bats

Why are there two versions of The Landscape Classification System ?

Highland Precedent

Landscape Classification System

Objectives

Authors

Renewables Site Scoring System

Basis for estimation that
4317 turbines would be needed
to meet a 12.5% RPS in Virginia
in 2015