Congress takes up debate on wind energy
By Anne Adams Staff Writer
MONTEREY Here in Highland, the wind has died down temporarily as residents await the July 14 vote by county supervisors on whether to allow Highland New Wind Development to construct an industrial scale utility atop Allegheny Mountain. But nationwide, the pro-wind lobby has gained momentum and the ensuing debate has stirred up considerable reaction, most recently on the Senate floor. And Highlands project was among several mentioned in the process. During the local public hearing on HNWDs proposal to erect 18-20 wind turbines here, opponents often quoted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) who had submitted legislation titled the Environmentally Responsible Windpower Act with Virginias Sen. John Warner as co-sponsor. When his bill was shot down in committee, Alexander then took his fight to the Senate floor as lawmakers debated on whether to include an amendment to require a national renewable portfolio standard in the federal energy bill now headed for approval.
Ultimately, the mostly Democrat-supported amendment passed the Senate last week 52-48.
That development is ominous for wind energy opponents who recognize these standards will add billions of dollars to the developers opportunities, making local control over them far more difficult.
Renewable portfolio standards are already mandated by about 20 states nationwide in some form. They require large utilities to purchase a certain percentage of their power from green energy providers. What constitutes green energy varies from state to state, but generally all include wind power, biomass, solar, and other forms of producing power without environmental degradation. The percentage of renewable energy utilities are required to buy varies as well. In some states its as high as 10 percent. Those opposed to wind energy development say these standards, or RPS, create higher prices for consumers. Power companies are forced to purchase green energy, and those selling it do so at a premium due to the demand.
Proponents of HNWDs project responded to this concern by pointing out Virginia has no such standards and isnt likely to set any, though among state supporters preliminary discussions about setting standards had already begun.
If the energy bill passes with the amendment as written, however, whether Virginia creates its own standards is largely irrelevant. The national standard will require all states to force large utilities to buy 10 percent of their power in the form of green energy by 2020.
Legislators who opposed the amendment called it a mandate, saying it would be unfair to regions of the country that have no natural renewable energy sources like wind or solar.
In his address to the Senate last Thursday, Alexander stated his reasons for opposing the national standard. The first reason is that it is an $18 billion tax. It is a new $18 billion rate increase on the electric rate-payers of America. The second reason is it is an increase in subsidy for a number of people, especially wind developers who already include a huge subsidy of a couple billion dollars over the next five years, which the Finance Committee has recommended we increase to $3.3 billion over the next five years just for giant windmills. Three, if not technically, it is at least in the spirit of an unfunded federal mandate the kind of thing that a lot of us were elected to stop the idea of coming up with a big idea here in Washington and imposing it on the rest of the country and then sending them the bill, he said.
The proposal, Alexander noted, would have the effect of increasing the number of wind turbines across the country from the 6,700 that exist today to roughly 45,000. Also, you have to take into account the fact that since these often are built in remote places or on top of scenic ridges, then you would build large transmission lines through backyards to carry the electricity to places. And you have to take into account the fact that you cannot close down your coal plant and nuclear plant and your natural gas plant when you put up windmills because people dont want to shut off their computers, stop working, or turn off their lights. They have to have their electricity all of the time and you dont store power from wind in these amounts to use later.
Alexander continued, If we really want carbon-free air, if we want to meet the Kyoto standards, stop the global warming that people are concerned about, you are not going to do it by building tens of thousands of windmills and spending $11 billion on solar panels. Here is how you will do it: conservation and efficiency. He pointed out several things in the bill that already do that, like appliance standards and hybrid car incentives.
Alexander supports technologies like coal gasification, solar, and nuclear energy. I think there should be a substantial increase for solar energy development, he said. The production tax credit, since 1992, has done nothing for solar power. It virtually all goes to wind.
One of the amendments sponsors, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), disagreed with Alexanders conclusions. This amendment is technology neutral, he said. We have been very specific about this. We have said that qualifying renewables include wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas and incremental hydro power. We have tried to talk about all of the different renewables and make it clear we are not specifying which of these renewables are used by particular utilities to meet this requirement … many utilities have chosen to pursue wind generation because they have found that that was the least costly way to produce energy from renewable sources.
Bingaman argued while its true his bill would cost taxpayers $18 billion in increased electric rates, it would result in the long run in a decrease of $22 billion because there would be less dependence on costly natural gas for power. So clearly the whole idea behind this legislation is that the people who are producing, the companies that are generating electricity in this country, will do less of that through use of natural gas, will invest less in natural gas production facilities … and will invest more in these other areas. That is the purpose of it.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), on the other hand, said one of the problems with the amendment is that it puts an unfair burden on states which do not have the capacity to produce renewable energy. This (amendment) says exactly what each state is compelled to do, he said, describing the legislation as a mandate. When you boil it all down, it means wind, for the time being. It means each state has to have it. And if they do not, they have to pay money to the Secretary of Energy or they have to buy wind-generated electricity from some other state. Domenici described some states as being wind poor.
What I am suggesting, if the amendment does not pass, we have not abandoned an American approach to pursuing the technology called renewables led by wind in these United States. What we are trying to say is that one shoe should not fit every state, he said.
Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho echoed those remarks, saying he supports using renewable energy, but he could not support the amendment because it raises consumers rates and is unfair to states without wind capacity. We have simply known in our country for a long time that energy has a state, if not regional, character. While there is some national value in tying it all together, the regional character of our energy production is still very real today and my guess is, will be tomorrow. The national Energy Information Administration estimates that wind energy would benefit most by the RPS mandate.
Craig said estimates of how much energy could be produced by wind utilities were overreaching because a wind turbine is just as vulnerable as any other energy facility to a localized disease in our country called NIMBYISM, or Not in my back yard syndrome. Craig listed a number of cases that when wind plants were proposed for certain areas, including Highland County, opposition was mounting. When a wind utility was proposed for Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts, even environmentalists opposed the project, he said. And he pointed to Vermont, where another plant proposal drew opposition, and to Maine, where a 29-turbine facility was opposed due to its proximity to the Appalachian Trail.
Well lets go to Virginia, then, he continued. What about Highland County in Virginia? They are strongly opposing a wind turbine project three years after it was proposed. The project proposes construction of 18 to 20 wind turbines. More than 500 people attended a May hearing on the project. About two-thirds of the Highland County residents signed a petition against the project. Again, that dreaded disease of NIMBYISM has struck in the heart of Virginia. Not in my back yard. No. Somewhere else. Not in my back yard. But what does the amendment do? It says that it better be in everybodys back yard or you are going to get taxed for it so it can be built somewhere else.
One amendment supporter was Sen. Byron Dorgan from North Dakota, a Democrat. We put up a wind turbine here and there and we like it because we are also a state that has more wind than almost any state in the nation, he said. We are dead last in trees, but we are first in wind.
Alexander replied, I am tempted to ask why we should have to raise electric rates in Tennessee to build windmills in North Dakota, even as much as they like them. I would prefer to send every single one of these gigantic public nuisances to North Dakota if they want them. What I object to is raising our electric rates to build them. That is what we are doing … The senator from North Dakota mentioned he had gotten a nice subsidy for his two big wind turbines. Well that is terrific. So now they have three subsidies to build these two giant windmills. We committed $2 billion of taxpayers money that is such a preposterous number for this purpose I can barely speak it $2 billion of taxpayer money over the next five years for windmills, he said.
Why dont we get the same amount of interest in conservation, nuclear power, coal gasification and carbon sequestration and really clean up the air?
Alexander also pointed to the problem of transmitting power. Proponents of a mandatory RPS say, Just buy wind power from wind generators in other states. Sounds easy enough, but how do we get that power to the state? Wind turbines obviously have to be built where the wind is. These locations are usually remote and far from our cities where the electricity is most needed. In most every instance, there is insufficient transmission capacity to move that power to where it is needed.
Sen. John McCain also opposed the amendment, saying the penalties for not complying with the standards are significantly lower than the incremental costs of bringing renewables on line. And, he said, in order to achieve the 10 percent standard, we would need to build almost 55,000 new wind turbines. That is an enormous number. I suspect that the potential adverse environmental effects of such a massive construction project have not been studied. In fact, it has already been suggested that in the rush to take advantage of the current tax credit for wind generation, analyses of potential long-term consequences have been neglected.
Notably absent from the Senate floor debate was Sen. John Warner, who is Alexanders co-patron on the Environmentally Responsible Windpower Act.
Those who have used proposed legislation to support their opposition to HNWDs utility locally may not get the support they hope for from their own state senator. The Recorder has made several attempts to reach Warner for comment during the last few weeks, but his staff has issued only a brief statement from Warner spokesman John Ullyot, who said, Senator Warner has not taken a position on the proposed wind farm project in Highland County. At the national level, Sen. Warner supports the responsible harnessing of wind energy as a way to diversify our energy supply and reduce Americas dependence on fossil fuels. However, he believes that the current framework of laws governing the placement of wind farms is inadequate and out of date. For this reason, he has co-sponsored a bill introduced by Sen. Alexander of Tennessee that would establish a more workable policy for wind-farm development, and would ensure that local authorities can participate in any decision on wind projects in their communities.
Warner will not issue an opinion on the project proposed in Highland because it has been made by a private company on privately held lands, according to his staff. The argument neglects the fact that virtually all wind power projects are currently being built on private lands.
So far, Highlands state representatives, Sen. Emmett Hanger and Del. Chris Saxman, have not taken a stand on this project, either. Both say they will wait until the wind energy debate reaches Virginias General Assembly in some form.
Its too early to tell what all this means for Highland County, but it appears likely the amendment to the energy bill would make it much harder for officials to remain in control of this decision at the local level.
If Virginia needs wind energy to meet federal standards, the mountain tops of the western Highlands are the only place where the wind blows strong enough for that kind of development.
| 
