Article Rating
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version 32 Comments
Article Tool Sponsor:

Learn More About Online Advertising with RenewableEnergyWorld.com

New Legislation Would Bring Wind Power to 'Grinding Halt'

by Carl Levesque, American Wind Energy Association
Published: May 21, 2007

Legislation just introduced and slated to move quickly in the U.S. House of Representatives would bring new wind energy development in the U.S. to a grinding halt, AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher warned on May 18.

AWEA is asking its members to contact their respective Representative and urge him or her to oppose the anti-wind provisions of H.R. 2337.
Introduced this week by Congressman Nick Rahall (D. WV), and scheduled for action in early June at the House Resources Committee which he chairs, H.R. 2337 would burden wind power with sweeping new requirements that have never applied to other energy sectors, Swisher said, noting:

-- Subtitle D of the bill would direct the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review every existing and planned wind project, a mandate far beyond the agency's resources and capabilities, and criminalize operation of wind energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS.

-- Under the legislation, landowners and farmers with wind turbines on their property would be subject to invasive inspection requirements.

-- Landowners and farmers could face jail time or a $50,000 penalty for putting a wind turbine, regardless of whether it is for personal use or of a commercial scale, on their property without certification by the USFWS director.

A hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee is scheduled for May 23 on the bill. "This bill is an unprecedented threat to clean, renewable energy," said Swisher. "It would undermine an essential piece of the global warming solution. Wind energy is the one readily deployable, cost-effective option we have available to meet this challenge, and Rep. Rahall's proposal would put a massive roadblock in its path.

A National Academy of Sciences report released earlier this month concludes that wind turbines caused less than 0.003% of human-cause bird mortality -- one thousand times lower than bird mortality associated with house cats. Last November the National Audubon Society, pointing to the link between global warming and the birds and other wildlife that scientists assert it will kill, said it "strongly supports" properly sited wind power as a clean energy source.

The bill's introduction comes at a time when the wind energy industry is working in partnership with environmental organizations to address any wildlife concerns stemming from wind energy development. The industry and environmental groups have been collaborating on the issue for several years; as for the latest activity, a Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee will soon convene to develop constructive, science-based recommendations. The body of experts is in a much better position to determine what is needed and how any national action will complement the numerous activities already underway at the state level, AWEA said.

AWEA is asking its members to contact their respective Representative and urge him or her to oppose the anti-wind provisions of H.R. 2337 [use the link below].

This article first appeared in the May 18, 2007, edition of Wind Energy Weekly, published by AWEA.
Additional Information
Previous Article
Next Article
Add Your Comment 32 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 32
May 21, 2007
The offending Senator is from West Virginia right?

Wanna bet the Coal industry is behind this.
No image available
Comment
2 of 32
May 21, 2007
Let Rahall know what you think.

contact page
No image available
Comment
3 of 32
May 21, 2007
Laws passed to hurt the wind industry only do damage to our growth toward clean power. I don't know where Congressman Nick Rahall's radical ideas came from but his proposed legislation stinks. Criminalizing "operation of wind energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS" would seem to imply an illegal activity. Is this "illegality" the conception of wind power energy conversion for our country? Strange indeed!!!

Imposing a $50,000 penalty upon a farmer for placing a wind turbine on his property for personal or commercial use without USFWS certification seems like an infringement of property rights.

Since "radar" reasons did not impede wind farm growth, this proposed "certification" seems to have been drummed up as the next obstacle.

adrianakau@aol.com
No image available
Comment
4 of 32
May 21, 2007
I have no evidence, but I wonder how much of Congressman Rahall's campaign contributions come from the coal industry in West Virginia.

I've already written my Representative asking her to oppose 2337, have you written to yours?
No image available
Comment
5 of 32
May 21, 2007
I can guarantee you that if you dig a little you'll discover either electrical utilities and/or the oil companies are behind this. Their greed will lead us all to the destruction of our planet if people don't start standing up to or better still ELIMINATE political lobbying as it is practiced in Washington.
No image available
Comment
6 of 32
May 22, 2007
Some words about the coal industry...

Our renewable solutions to energy will effectively eliminate all coal-to-energy jobs.
This shift will be devastating for coal producing states.
However, The North American Coal Co. makes coal chemical products in Beulah N.D. and sequesters all of their CO2 in the Canadian oil fields. This plant is very profitable. Other coal companies should follow their lead to prevent their own exctinction. We will need hydrocarbons for durable goods and fertilizers far into the future.

The people who work in these mines are not from another country, or work for the "Evil Empire." They are Americans who are making a living the only way many have available. Do you think 15 large PV manufacturing plants built in the most impacted states would pay better?
We should encourage Mr. Boyce at Peabody, Mr. Leer at Arch Coal, Mr. Marshall at Rio Tinto, and others to get into the renewables business, instead of trying to put a finger in the dike.

John Carr
No image available
Comment
7 of 32
May 23, 2007
Eric Rosenbloom is a "professional" windpower opponent.
Here's one example where his BS is ripped apart.

Things you should know about Eric Rosenbloom's paper 'A Problem with Wind Power'
No image available
Comment
8 of 32
This is not surprising. If something is unregulated government will jump in to over- regulate it. A perfect example is hydroelectric - in order to generate even the smallest amount of electricity you will fall under FERC jurisdiction and will have to file for license or exemption (which is just as much effort). You then must consult with and obtain the approval of a couple dozen agencies before proceeding. Expensive studies could be required that for the small projects would make them unfeasible. This is currently not required for solar or wind or bio. It was inevitable that the feds would want to be Big Brother here also. Write your congressman!!!
No image available
Comment
9 of 32
May 23, 2007
Last I heard, the wind industry calls itself "green". Why are they so scared of outside environmental scrutiny?
No image available
Comment
10 of 32
May 23, 2007
I think the smog lifted temporarily in West Virginia and Rahall got too much sun.
No image available
Comment
11 of 32
May 23, 2007
Congressman Rahal is a clown, frankly I'm surprised at the diplomatic responses here. This guy is an idiot.
Business as usual for the US Gov.
I originally heard about this last week from one my clients in Canada, I couldn't believe it. He's going to some exposure on this, time for an AP WIre. Here it comes Rahal, better start looking for a place to hide.
No image available
Comment
12 of 32
May 23, 2007
CPUC is doing the same thing with solar PV in California. They've made the rebate program more complicated and now the utilities are checking every installation to make sure installers have used the exact angle, orientation, location and minimal shading that they now use to figure the rebate. Get it wrong 3 times, in the entire company- that is, for example, if 3 of the 6 people that do the measurements to determine those factors (sales techs in our company) get it wrong and you're out of business.
Fox in the chickencoop.
No image available
Comment
13 of 32
May 23, 2007
I must have missed the part where base load coal is threatened by a small percentage of intermittent and variable wind. But Rahall also has constituents that are concerned about the rampant industrialization of the remaining forested mountains. It was not the coal -- or any other -- industry that testified before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans on May 1. Bird and bat conservationists described an urgent need for guidelines and enforcement.
No image available
Comment
14 of 32
May 23, 2007
The wind is "free", but harnassing it to produce electricity is not. The wind industry needs support-- not barriers-- to make a major contribution to the country's eneregy needs. The wind farm I manage ( going on line in December) cannot stand another harassing rule that makes no sense.
No image available
Comment
15 of 32
May 23, 2007
We as as country need to confirm our commitment to the development of renewable enery sources. And be a leader in environmental issues related to Energy Production and Consumption. A combination of oil,coal, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, biomass and other renewable energy sources will all be need to meet the growing demand for energy and technologies, and the economic development of the world. We need to work together to meet a worldwide economic and environmental agendas. This legislation needs to be stop and is not in the best interst of the country.
No image available
Comment
16 of 32
May 23, 2007
Coal need not be "dirty," and we need it! While solar, wind, and water can provide electricity or most of our needs, we still need carbon-based energy for our mobility needs. "Clean coal" gasification and liquefaction can help us keep moving in the next few years as oil reserves dry up. "Clean coal" gasification can also provide electricity without pollution. The sulphur and nitrogen are removed in the process, and sold as products; and carbon dioxide can be sequestered.
We need coal, and fortunately we've got lots of it.
No image available
Comment
17 of 32
May 23, 2007
He's gotten contributions from coal companies such as Peabody and over $23K from the coal miner's union, though he got a lot more from transportation concerns (see the complete list at http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H6WV04057). He's also gotten some environmental awards, so it's disappointing that he's being so short-sighted with this bill. I will contact my congressman...
No image available
Comment
18 of 32
May 23, 2007
Being totally disgusted by this legislation, I sent this note to Congressman Nick Rahall:

H.R. 2337 is exactly opposite of what we need in the fight against global warming. We need incentives for more renewal energy sources like more wind energy, not obstacles, fines, and red tape.

I guess I'm not surprised that a representative from a coal state is sponsoring this legislation. We all know that coal is creates toxic pollution and carbon emissions, and mining coal is extremely dangerous to coal miners.

As a resident of Maryland, every day I'm breathing the air pollution that drifts here from coal fired power plants. The Chesapeake Bay is absorbing tons of mercury and other pollutants. It is time to start phasing out the dirty coal industry in favor of clean renewal energy like wind.

Instead of trying to impede wind power, why don't you sponsor legislation that provides incentives that create jobs based on clean and sustainable energy? We need solutions - not more hurdles.
No image available
Comment
19 of 32
May 24, 2007
Eric, you should be smart enough to realize that demanding that all projects be certified by a government agency is not "environmental scrutiny." Rather it is a way to allow political appointees of our corrupt leaders to turn the whole industry into a bribe-fest.

Typical unfunded mandate, too.

Quite to the contrary the wind power industry has been very responsive to actual environmental scrutiny, and has adapted products and siting practices accordingly on the whole.

So repeatedly asking a question that frames this legislation at its face value only serves to prove you naive, as the rest of the posters talk over your head.
No image available
Comment
20 of 32
May 24, 2007
Another 'agenda' ostensibly is the fears of the 'birds and bunnies people'. Numerous domestic and European studies done at operating wind farms have shown NO...NONE...NADA...significant negative impact (what part of "No" don't we yet understand) of windfarms on local resident or migrating bird species. For heaven's sake, let's all READ the literature !! Afterward, if we remain concerned about bird strikes, then let's imbed flashing (replaceable) LED lights into the front and rear surfaces of turbine blades (for night avoidance) and put 24 x 7 omnidirectional ultrasound generators tuned to the frequencies of birds' hearing for localized warning systems around turbine farms into the turbine nacelles. It's certainly a simpler solution than trying to regulate private properties (and probably committing a "taking" illegally in the process). Boy, watch for the court challenges on THIS one if it ever passes !!
No image available
Comment
21 of 32
May 24, 2007
There are multiple 'agendas' here. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) grabbed the idea of leasing offshore areas for the production of windpower, even though it could logically be argued they have absolutely NO authority and jurisdiction to do so. The wind is NOT a 'mineral', nor is it a 'publicly-owned resource'(any more than coal or oil). I'm wondering why major offshore windpower developers like Cape Wind have not challenged this all the way up to the Supreme Court. Taken another way, it's just another 'tax' source for the bureaucray-building desires of the Federal Government. It's time citizens interested in more widely available and cheaper power source development say "NO !!!" to this kind of Federal largesse. (Comment continues below)
No image available
Comment
22 of 32
May 24, 2007
My opposition to industrial wind development doesn't answer why a "green" industry is so scared of environmental scrutiny.
No image available
Comment
23 of 32
May 25, 2007
If you've not read it, a pretty good book for an overview is: "Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future," by Jeff Goodell. Well written, easily digested with 60+ pages of notes and a thorough index.

Here's an excerpt germane to Rahall, et al.: "The X factor in electricity pricing, however, is global warming. How do you calculate into the price of power the risks associated with abrupt climate change. This is by far the biggest looming threat to the hegemony of cheap coal"....and "... it is precisely this threat of future regulation that is fueling the mad dash to throw up coal plants all over the country"... hence ... "If the plants aren't approved and built now, the reasoning goes, once a price is attached to CO2 emissions, costs will go up, and coal plants will find themselves being underbid by wind turbines, gas plants, and other forms of generation that have less carbon liability. What's going on now is not exactly a land grab -- it's an atmosphere grab."
No image available
Comment
24 of 32
Just in case you missed it above. Below is the link to the comments page for Congressman Nick Rahall

http://www.rahall.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=521&Itemid=162

Please take a minute to try to stop Rahall efforts to crush the wind energy. Ask him to drop H.R. 2337.
No image available
Comment
25 of 32
May 25, 2007
It is obvious that someone is lining Congressman Nick Rahalls pocket. Portsmouth Powers turbine design has built in bird protection which stops its 6 foot blades when migratory birds are detected. I wonder how long it takes to stop a 120 foot blade.
No image available
Comment
26 of 32
May 25, 2007
And I would expect a little more cynicism about the claims of industrial developers. The line that they have been "very responsive to actual environmental scrutiny" is ludicrous. Why isn't Altamont shut down? Why did FPL Energy kick out bat researchers? What's happening in Lewis County, NY, on the news of 3,000-6,000 birds and bats killed in the first year?

There are 2 problems with wind energy on the grid: 1) it doesn't provide useful energy to mitigate other fuels and emissions; 2) it has substantial negative impacts itself. Whether or not one is ready to disbelieve the company line that these are myths, one should at least be open to the debate. Who is the naive one here?

The posters that are alleged to be talking "over" my head are simply expressing other concerns, which are valid. My concern is indeed the face of the subtitle D protections, because the fear of such protection of wildlife exposes that the true concerns of the wind industry are not at all environmental.
No image available
Comment
27 of 32
May 26, 2007
Some of the items in the bill look okay only to provision on wind energy should be struck. What it looks like in addition to protect the coal industry and continue to line those pockets as well as Rahall's pockets, what it looks like is one of many attempts to assure the big business and the big grid control the access to wind. If passed, those people won't have any trouble getting approval, but the individual home owner or farmer won't have the resources to in effect remove himself/herself from that grid. These big companies are not against wind and or solar as such, what they are for more than anything is their ability to control your access to those sources of energy.
No image available
Comment
28 of 32
May 27, 2007
We like to think that we have a democratic republic. Too often, our government runs as a welfare state, run for the benefit of big, established businesses. That there is a current and future need for coal, oil and nuclear is hard to refute. That the companies involved should be able to dictate our government policies is bad for the country, and bad for the planet.
No image available
Comment
29 of 32
June 10, 2007

I strongly support HR 2337 Title II Subtitle D.  Wind towers kill birds in unacceptable numbers, especially when they are sited in migratory flyways; location, location, location as the saying goes. 

Government Accountability Office study in 2005 criticized FWS oversight of the wind industry and concluded that more research on the effect of the wind energy on wildlife populations was needed.

The Natural Resources Committee Chairman stated that “…wind projects are on a regular basis in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, yet no enforcement action is being taken."  

 By Chris Metinko, Inside Bay Area 4/24/07 

“According to a study released in 2004 by the California Energy Commission, an estimated 1,700 to 4,700 birds die each year by flying into whirling turbine blades or being electrocuted by transmission lines that thread through the 50,000-acre Altamont Wind Resource Area."

The fatalities: "116 golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls, the study found."

"A lawsuit filed against the county in October by the Golden Gate Audubon Society, Californians for Renewable Energy and four other local Audubon chapters challenged the county’s decision to renew permits for Altamont Pass wind turbines. A subsequent settlement forces the wind industry to commit to a 50 percent reduction in raptor deaths by November 2009, and remove the deadliest turbines and continuing winter shutdowns of the wind machines."

"That settlement assumes there are 1,300 golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels and burrowing owl deaths in that Livermore area each year.”


 
  


No image available
Comment
30 of 32
June 11, 2007
How many birds will die as a result of global warming?  How  much does  the emmisions  from coal affect  everything living and breathing?  How many jobs have gone away due to outdated technology only to be replaced by  cleaner and healthier technologies?  Is there a guarantee that sequestere gasses will not find a way to the surface?  What are the results to the earth if they do?  If they don't?  The arguments for the continued use of  coal seem to place it as a riskier prospect than harnessing the power of the sun in the form of PV  cells, wind, or wave turbines.  Th e technology exist for many options that  are cleaner than  coal in any form.
No image available
Comment
31 of 32
January 14, 2010
Nick Rahall must go !!!!!! Dreams never die, they are killed by Nick Rahall R-D WV !
No image available
Comment
32 of 32
January 14, 2010
Nick Rahall is so bad for WV.
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
 
OPEL Solar, Inc. Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC) Comment:Visions Canadian Solar Inc. Expansion Media Intertek
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters