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 (6) 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
November 29, 2005

Congressional Attacks Pick Up Again Against Wind Power

Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

Once again, representatives of the U.S. wind power industry are finding themselves fighting a battle against legislative attacks from politicians hoping to stymie new development of projects. Laws that would have been damaging to an already struggling offshore wind power business in the U.S. almost made it into the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and now, two new provisions in two pending bills in Congress are reigniting the fight.

The Coast Guard already has the authority to review offshore wind projects on the issue of navigation -- it does not need to be asked to do its work twice.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the wind power industry's major trade association, two new anti-wind energy provisions in two pending bills in Congress would create unnecessary and costly hurdles for wind development at a time they say is particularly important for the country to diversify its energy mix.

Both provisions -- one in Coast Guard legislation and the other in Defense Legislation -- offer harmful bureaucratic "solutions" for nonexistent problems, says AWEA. Each provision follows, in the words and descriptions of AWEA:

- Military radar study of wind turbine impacts:

An amendment inserted by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) into H.R. 1815, the Defense Authorization Bill, calls for a study of how wind energy projects might affect military radar systems, even though previous studies have already shown that radar interference is not a problem. As justification for his unilateral action, Sen. Warner cites concerns in the United Kingdom about possible impacts on military radars, but, ironically, the British Ministry of Defense (MOD) recently announced that "actually it really isn't a problem for the air defense community." And here in the U.S., as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for a wind farm proposed off Nantucket Island, the U.S. Air Force has found that the proposed project would not negatively affect the Force's Cape Cod radar installation.

- Coast Guard review of wind projects:

Language in the manager's amendment to H.R. 889, the Coast Guard authorization bill, calls for the Guard Commandant to review offshore wind energy projects -- an unnecessary provision that adds a wasteful and redundant layer of red tape to a thorough permitting process in an attempt to delay proposed clean energy wind projects. The Coast Guard already has the authority to review offshore wind projects on the issue of navigation -- it does not need to be asked to do its work twice.

Such anti-wind energy efforts are not guided by public policy concerns, but by Not-In-My-Backyard sentiments that lead wind energy opponents to try time and again to delay or derail a project. Sen. Warner, a co-sponsor of an earlier failed effort to delay development of the Cape Wind offshore project in Massachusetts, is said to have family members who own property in Nantucket.
Reader Comments (6)
 
No image available
November 29, 2005
Ernest Teeuwe:

The cost guard deosn't need to review offshore wind energy projects in order to protect them, as long as they are notified of their existance they don't need to play a part in the process to approve the turbines.
Comment 1 of 6
No image available
November 29, 2005
It can be readily understood why the Coast Guard wishes oversite beyond navigation. An Offshore Windfarm becomes part of America's Energy infrastructure, and as such, becomes a high value target for terrorists, no different than Offshore Oil Platforms or LNG Tankers. The Coast Guard is charged with security oversite under the Code of Federal Regulations, and must be brought into the process to address these issues .
E.Teeuwe,Marine Project Mgr.
Galveston Offshore Wind,LLC.
Comment 2 of 6
No image available
November 29, 2005
No newspaper reports on the Cape Wind project as thoroughly and fairly as http://CapeCodToday.com
Comment 3 of 6
No image available
November 30, 2005
It now appears that Minerals Management Service in the Interior Department is being handed the mantle of managing the sale of 'leases' for offshore wind farms (as they do for offshore oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico). This seems unusual, since 'wind' in the minds of most people, is not a 'mineral' to be 'managed', like oil and gas (?) It would more appear to be an obvious attempt by the Federal government (and perhaps state governments as well) to create a new revenue source (e.g. a 'tax') that will become a further detriment to the profitability of energy companies and their investors. This may also be extended to near-shore 'wave energy' producers ? Shouldn't we think this through a bit more ?
Comment 4 of 6
No image available
November 30, 2005
The Coast guard would more than likely be concerned the wind farms could cause "dark terratory" that prevents land bases from triangulating boats needing rescue or other things. Wind Farms and Sea farms would make radio noise of some kind producing the power and transmitting the power to shore as well which could mean "white washing".

Those weather alert radios aboard the boats need weather reports. as for the military I think they need it forced on them. they are the biggest energy hogs in the world. Tanks that get 10 gallons a mile. Planes that polute the air we breath with toxic chemicals.
Lets judge them some too while we are at it.

D~W
Comment 5 of 6
No image available
December 3, 2005
I have worked in the Offshore Oil Industry for 35 years. Apparently, there are many misconceptions as to how Federally owned Offshore lands are administered and protected. For those not aware of the U.S. Coast Guard role in providing Outer Continental Shelf(OCS) Facility Security you might consult 33CFRCh.1,Pt.106 for enlightment. Minerals Management Service regulations regarding Offshore Structures, Inspections,etc. can be found at 30CFRCh2, Pt.250.900. Additional rules are currently being promulgated and existing rules modified to more accurately fit a Utility Plant located Offshore.
Comment 6 of 6
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
Siterra Corporation KYOCERA Solar, Inc. Financial Research Associates, LLC Michigan Economic Development Corporation The Switch AltaTerra Research
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo