Photo Credit: NREL
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (12) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
February 28, 2005

Altamont Wind Farm Suit to Move Ahead

Alamada County, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

An Alameda County Superior Court Judge in California has ruled that a lawsuit filed against wind power companies that operate the Altamont Pass Wind Farm may proceed, according to the Bay-area newspaper, The Argus.

"We have been working with various stakeholders on our plan for more than a year and have been frustrated by the lack of progress, and the inability of the stakeholders to reach consensus on a reasonable program that presents the most environmentally and economically viable solution."

- Bryan Fennell, vice president of business management for FPL Energy

The expansive Altamont Pass wind power facility was one of the first major wind power developments in the country and includes over 5,200 wind turbines. The facility has come under fire for purportedly high levels of avian collisions between birds of prey and the wind turbines.

A lawsuit filed last November by a number of environmental organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity, claims that wind turbines at the farm have killed an estimated 881 to 1,300 birds in violation with state and federal wildlife laws. The lawsuit alleges that "the failure of wildlife regulators to enforce laws protecting the birds gave wind farm operators an unfair competitive advantage."

The defendants, which include the Florida-based FPL Energy and California-based Enxco, had moved to dismiss the suit but Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw allowed the suit to move forward because "wildlife is part of the public trust, and the state hold the wildlife for the benefit of the people."

Altamont Pass has proven an unfortunate case for the wind power industry as it has contributed to public perceptions that bird kills are prevalent at other wind power sites across the country when industry sources say certain aspects of the Altamont Pass facility are to blame. These include the wind farm's location in potential migratory paths and the prevalence of older wind turbines with lattice-style towers that afford ample perching room for birds.

The wind industry says that detailed studies, and monitoring following construction, at other wind development areas indicate that this is a site-specific issue that will not be a problem at most potential wind sites.

After consultation with biological experts and agencies, FPL Energy, which owns and operates most of the facility's turbines, said it has taken a number of actions to reduce collisions including removing high risk turbines, perch guarding and participation in a rodent control program.

FPL Energy, along with its partners and other turbine owners and operators at the wind power facility, said they are planning to institute an adaptive management plan. The plan will enable the companies to implement steps taken to reduce bird collisions with wind turbines as soon as all stakeholders reach consensus.

Reaching that agreement, however, has not been easy.

"An adaptive management plan is a flexible approach to dealing with the complex issue of bird-wind turbine interaction for which neither industry, government, nor other stakeholders have all the answers," said Bryan Fennell, vice president of business management for FPL Energy. "We have been working with various stakeholders on our plan for more than a year and have been frustrated by the lack of progress, and the inability of the stakeholders to reach consensus on a reasonable program that presents the most environmentally and economically viable solution."

The company said it has already removed or taken out of service approximately 10 percent of the turbines it operates in the Altamont including removing 169 turbines and replacing them with 31 modern wind turbines and shutting down and either removing or relocating nearly 100 additional turbines in areas identified as having a high potential for interaction with birds. The company has also upgraded electrical protection measures on utility structures to better prevent the potential of raptor electrocutions from perching.

"The turbine removal and relocation project and the upgrading of utility poles are just two of the steps in our overall plan and we want to do more," Fennell said. "Due to the complexity of the issue and varying opinions on potential solutions, we believe buy in by all stakeholders on the remaining elements of the plan is critical to the plan's overall success. Once we achieve that, which we hope is very soon, we will begin to implement other elements of the plan. Unfortunately, it seems our plan has been held hostage by the competing interests of various stakeholders.

Avian issues at Altamont Pass are the exception to the rule according to Tom Gray, Deputy Executive Director of Communications for the American Wind Energy Association, when reached for earlier comment on the subject.

"It's important to make clear that the highly publicized problem in Altamont Pass is not representative of wind farms across the U.S.," Gray said. "Wind farms do coexist successfully with wildlife in many other locations."
Image Gallery (1)
 
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Reader Comments (12)
 
No image available
Anonymous
February 28, 2005
I think they are funded by the gas and oil companies.
Comment 1 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
February 28, 2005
environMENTAL agitators are like LAWYERS:

They want money.

You look at any major settlement with an environMENTAL lawsuit and it has invariably resulted in damage to the businesses involved and a 'financial contribution' to the environMENTAL organization/or a related party as a 'de-facto' payoff to cease the legal attack.

This stuff is nothing more than a legally questionable shakedown/protection racket by the greenies to financially perpetuate their lifestyle.

It should be recognized as such and prosecuted accordingly.
Comment 2 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
February 28, 2005
Do these environmentalists sueing really think that there is an environmental neutral way to make energy?
Comment 3 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
March 1, 2005
The second commenter asks, 'Or are they going to get suckered on "clean" nukes the way the Sierra Club did in the 1960's.'

The large environmental institutions, including the Sierra Club, are in fact very actively promoting the expansion of wind power. Yes: suckers again, I'd say.
Comment 4 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
March 1, 2005
The usual myths about windenergy.


With proper placing the number of bird kills are negligable. The true bird killers are cars, cats, hunter and high rise buildings.


The need for 100% backup is also nonsense. All powerplants are intemittent, nuclear and coal powerplants drop out of the net all the time. And much more suddenly than the smooth changes in wind. The backu-up is therfore already there. Several researches confirm that you can have 20% wind without only very limited extra backup (max 5%). Beyond this 20% you can use the storage capacity of hydroplants, make stronger connections in the European grid and in the long term use hydrogen as storage.


A real waste of taxpayers money is the continuing subsidy on the use of fossile fuels and nuclear energy.



See www.bwea.org www.windpower.org www.ewea.org www.yes2wind.com for the debunking of more anti-wind myths
Comment 5 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
March 1, 2005
This is the kind of new sites being targeted:
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1905

Take a look, and tell us again that Altamont is history. In reality Altamont is being extended all over the world. I have examples in bird reserves in Scotland and Spain, eagle ranges in Australia and Scotland, migration flyways in Japan and the Appalachian - you name it.

The wind industry, and global warming ecologists, think nothing of bird massacres in the name of money, jobs, or political power. And climate change is a lame excuse, as wind turbines are ineffective due to their randomly intermittent production which would cause blackouts if not backed up 24 hours a day by polluting conventional power plants.

A total waste of (taxpayers') money. And a long list of disastrous consequences for the environment (birdkills, fires, erosion, noise, water contamination, etc.) . See: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1170 effects on people, nature
Comment 6 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
March 1, 2005
The alomont windfarm turbines are antiques. They played an important role in development of windenergy, but are totally obsolete now. Why not look for a new site in the neighbourhood that is not on a migratory pathway?



Why battle when you can co-operate?.
Comment 7 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
March 1, 2005
To the cynical commentating about supposed money grubbing, oil-funded environmentalists.....Please. Legal expenses incurred to force the wind industry to take responsibility or the government to protect rare and endangered birds is not a fast track to riches. And need we point out how many renewable energy firms have financial backing from the carbon industry? Come on. Pick your enemies carefully.
Comment 8 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
March 1, 2005
Unfortunately, the avian deaths at Altamont have been allowed and accepted for 20 years, creating a world famous black eye for the wind industry. Until the operators make a serious effort and progress in reducing avian deaths, advocates for wind energy/wind credits and subsidies - advocated by those supposed "environmental extremists" will be much more difficult. And please remember, enviro advocates are advocating for the benefit and growth of the wind energy; its YOUR gain. Watch who you condemn.
Comment 9 of 12
No image available
March 4, 2005
I find it hard to believe that 100 birds have been killed let alone the numbers quoted here (881 to 1300) that's a big margin for one thing, and on the other hand who is keeping track of the carcasses ?, is this documented at some public place ? It would be funny to find out that the same folks crying about fossil fuels are trying to hurt this endeavour.
Comment 10 of 12
March 4, 2005
Dear Readers, while we welcome your increasingly spirited discussion around many of the articles we write, we will continue to remove comments that do not, in any substantive way, add to the discourse or merely seek to promote other web sites. I thank you for keeping it clean and on topic. Sincerely, Oliver Strube, Publisher - RenewableEnergyAccess.com
Comment 11 of 12
No image available
Anonymous
April 8, 2005
environmentalists should not sue environmentalists. This will allow their true enemies to "divide and conquer"
Comment 12 of 12
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
IntertechPira Johnson Controls, Inc. SolarCraft Pace Energy and Climate Center Third Sun Solar and Wind Power, Ltd. Garrad Hassan America Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo