Boston, MA – September 8, 2011- Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) issued the following statement in defense of the Cape Wind power purchase agreement, currently being disputed by opponents of the project. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on the case today.

Seth Kaplan, Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy at Conservation Law Foundation, said, “The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) left no stone unturned when it reviewed and approved the contract between National Grid and Cape Wind. The DPU’s conclusion, based on extensive testimony and other evidence presented by both Cape Wind supporters and opponents, was that Cape Wind’s long-term power purchase agreement is ‘cost-effective’ and reasonable, and will deliver net economic benefits for electric ratepayers and the Commonwealth. Opponents have thrown up every possible obstacle to Cape Wind’s progress and this obstruction has had delayed the day when residents of the Commonwealth can reap considerable economic and environmental benefits of the project. The public’s patience is, appropriately, wearing thin. These stall tactics are draining public resources while keeping Massachusetts from benefiting from the clean energy and green jobs that Cape Wind will provide.”

Conservation Law Foundation, represented by CLF Massachusetts Director Susan Reid, intervened with the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Clean Power Now in the case of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound vs. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, filing a full brief in the case in July.

To read the full statement, click here.

Salem News columnist Brian Watson presents a powerful case for moving forward with development of a wind turbine on Winter Island in Salem Harbor.   We can only hope that the good citizens of Salem, who are looking at a major transition as the coal fired power plant in their midst retires, will pay attention to his words and follow the leadership of Mayor Kim Driscoll, who has identified this project as (among other things) an important source of revenue for the City.  As the Mayor notes on Facebook regarding Watson’s column on the subject:

. . . While Brian doesn’t mention this in his piece, revenues from the proposed turbine will also directly help reduce the City’s +$1m annual electric bill, cutting those costs nearly in half and saving taxpayers substantial $.

It’s constant, it’s overwhelming, and it’s likely never to go away. What is it?  It’s information overload. We live in an age where everyone has an opinion, everyone wants a voice in the debate, and everyone thinks they’re right. With the Internet at our fingertips and the media hounding us with article upon article, it’s hard to know where to stand on hot topics like renewable energy.

We’ve probably all experienced that moment – eating our eggs and toast in our favorite diner, enjoying our cup of joe, and reading the morning paper – when we come across a letter to the editor arguing that wind power will improve energy security, energy prices, and climate change. Confusion sets in. You’re unsettled, perhaps even bothered. Didn’t yesterday’s article lambast wind power for its inefficiency, its price tag and its destructive scenic impact? Who has the facts right and who has the facts wrong? If wind is supposed to bring energy prices down, why is the electric bill creeping up month after month? If wind integration makes the grid more stable, why do you keep hearing that wind will only cause more power plants to be built? And if wind is so great, why are parts of the West disassembling their wind farms and halting project development? Why, wind proponents, why?

These are the right questions to be asking, and we’re glad you’re asking them.  These very same questions are being asked of wind project developers here in New England, most recently by the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) in connection with First Wind’s proposed Bowers Wind Project, a 27 turbine wind power project to be located in the Downeast Lakes area of Maine. Opposition to the Bowers Project stems almost exclusively from the visual impacts the project might have on a portion of the local economy, guided fishing. In all other respects, the project is commendable – Bowers will make use of existing logging roads and transmission lines and anticipated environmental impacts from the project’s construction are expected to be minimal.

CLF supports this project and, anticipating the confusion under which LURC might be working, submitted testimony from two experts to dispel some of the myths that the wind debate has generated. Specifically, Dr. Cameron Wake testified on the impacts of climate change on Maine and New England’s natural resources and how wind power is one tool to be used in addressing that challenge; and Abigail Krich testified on the systemic benefits of integrating wind power into the electric market.

After peppering Ms. Krich with questions, the Commission walked away with two major takeaways from her testimony:

• Wind power does result in cost-savings because it brings the costs of generating electricity down. Unfortunately, those savings are all but wiped out by the increasing cost of transmitting electricity.
• Increasing the amount of wind power generated and used in New England will not require the construction of additional power plants to balance wind’s variability. The New England Wind Integration Study, performed by ISO-NE, concluded that even if 12,000 MW of wind power were integrated into the system, no new power plants would be needed to balance wind’s variability.

While CLF appreciates that the scenic impacts of these projects are, at the end of the day, a highly personal matter (or as my Latin teacher would say, “de gustibus non est disputandum” or “taste is not a matter of debate”), it’s important that objective facts not be obscured by subjective, and ultimately misleading, ones.

In partnership with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), CLF Ventures recently released Land-based Wind Energy: A Guide to Understanding the Issues and Making Informed Decisions. (PDF, 1.6MB)

Wind energy has the potential to play a significant and beneficial role in an energy economy that seeks to rely less heavily on fossil-fuel based electricity production. For this reason, many communities are currently trying to learn more about wind energy development and determine whether it makes sense in their city or town.  Land-based Wind Energy provides municipal officials and other local decision-makers with clear overviews of wind energy siting issues as well as best practices for community engagement.

Specifically, the guide includes:

• Guidelines for how to assess the quality of available information and how to resolve conflicting points;
• Overviews, contextual information, and recommended reading on important topics like wind turbine sound, shadow flicker, health, property values, and energy project economics; and
• Recommendations on how to structure a robust local review process when siting wind energy projects. By this we mean a process with full participation by relevant stakeholders, transparent decision-making, and durable outcomes with public support.

Download the guide, and learn more about CLF Ventures.

CLF applauds the balance regulators struck in approving the Kingdom Community Wind Project in Lowell, VT. The order allows the controversial project to move forward while protecting wildlife habitat and ensuring restoration of disturbed areas.  The decision addresses all the concerns that were raised and provides some innovative means to manage the impacts.

All power supplies – including wind – have environmental impacts.   While the environmental harms associated with wind are less than most sources of generation, they need to be minimized and mitigated, not ignored. The Vermont order includes specific requirements from an agreement with Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources that permanently protects significant habitat and requires re-vegetation and restoration of disturbed areas both after construction and when the project is no longer used.  These measures go a long way to reduce the environmental footprint of the project.  The decision also calls for minimizing lighting while still conforming to FAA requirements.  Overall, the decision can be a model for how projects can move forward while responsibly addressing impacts. 

The project’s benefits are significant and weighed in favor of approval.  Powering 20,000 homes from this project will help Vermont meet it renewable energy goals, create jobs and tax revenue, avoid greenhouse gas emissions, and provide long-term, stably priced power. In an interview with VPR, GMP’s President Mary Powell described the project as, “incredibly cost effective for premium renewable electricity.”

The project, consisting of 20-21 400-foot turbines along 3 miles of Lowell Mountain ridgeline, is expected to break ground in August of this year. The turbines will power an estimated 20,000 households, making it the largest wind site in the state. The project is moving forward with the approval of the Lowell community, who voted in favor of the turbines during Town Meeting Day in 2010.  CLF is excited to support wind projects that bring the community to the table, are responsibly cited, and mitigate the impacts on the environment in exchange for clean, locally produced energy.

CLF is a proud founding member of Renewable Energy New England (RENEW) – a group that brings together renewable energy developers and technology companies with environmental advocates.

In a major milestone in the life of RENEW (a relatively new organization) ISO New England (ISO-NE), the operator of the region’s “bulk” power system and wholesale electricity markets, has elected to perform a regional economic study requested by RENEW.

The RENEW economic study will evaluate how much of the approximately 4,000 megawatts of wind energy projects that have applied to connect to the New England system (the technical phrase is, “in the interconnection queue”) could be developed over the next five years without significant transmission upgrades (that is, building new power lines or supporting hardware) and what the economic impact of making those upgrades would be in order to develop the remaining wind power projects.

ISO-NE performs annual economic studies drawing from requests submitted by stakeholders.  In recent years ISO-NE has undertaken studies at the request of the Governors of the New England states that looked at long-term scenarios for building wind energy resources and transmission for supporting such resources. In the past two years ISO-NE has studied high penetration renewable resource scenarios for the year 2030 in the course of doing a New England Wind Integration Study (NEWIS). RENEW hopes the 2011 study will inform development and transmission upgrade decisions over the next few years as the states work to meet their renewable portfolio standard requirements, address the climate imperative to reduce emissions from the power sector and work to build a new clean economy.

More information on NEWIS and the economy study can be found at the ISO-NE section on the RENEW website.

Special mention and recognition is due to Abigail Krich, the President of Boreas Renewables, transmission consultant to RENEW who was the primary representative of RENEW in the NEWIS process and in the development of the economic study request (and whose material I have shamelessly borrowed from in crafting this blog post).

The future? That's what MA Rep. John Keenan wants. (Photo credit: Marilyn Humphries)

Protecting dirty old coal plants. Whacking solar and wind. Sounds like the opposite of the clean energy revolution that is underway in Massachusetts, right?  Or perhaps a belated April Fool?  But no, sadly, these deeply troubling initiatives have been introduced by Representative John Keenan, the new House co-chair of the MA Legislature’s Energy Committee, through amendments to the state budget currently under debate on Beacon Hill.  All on the eve of Earth Day, no less.

These amendments are alarming, and would undo much of the enormous progress that has been made over the past few years with respect to reducing Massachusetts’ reliance on dirty and costly fossil fuels, most of which are imported from faraway lands and offer Massachusetts no economic development benefits.  And the use of the budget process, rather than stand-alone legislation with public hearings, adds insult to injury.   We strongly encourage everyone who cares about clean air and a clean energy economy to ask your Massachusetts state legislators to oppose the Keenan Amendments (# 594, 623 and 640).  For more detail:

Keenan Amendment # 594 would prioritize existing (and even mothballed) coal and oil plants over transmission alternatives – in other words, it would severely discourage upgrades to improve efficiency or capacity of existing power lines or new transmission that would connect to cleaner resources.  This amendment seeks to protect the dirty, obsolete energy generating sources of the past while standing in the way of cleaner alternatives.  Who would benefit?  Dominion Energy, the owner of the Salem Harbor Station coal and oil plant in Chairman Keenan’s District, would benefit more than anyone.  The rest of us would have to continue to pay the price in terms of dirty air.

Keenan Amendment # 623: This amendment would require Massachusetts to prioritize renewable energy that is the cheapest when viewed over a very short three year time period.  As such, it would promote facilities that can be cheaper to build, like biomass, at the expense of solar and wind, which have higher up-front costs but are powered by fuels that are free (unlike biomass).  The amendment would turn on its head the thoughtful balance struck by the legislature less than three years ago when the Green Communities Act was passed, requiring renewables to be “cost-effective” and “reasonable” to qualify for benefits such as long-term contracts.  If this system were scrapped in favor of prioritizing the “cheapest” resource, we probably would wind up with only one type of renewable energy – most likely biomass, possibly hydropower too – rather than the diverse array of clean energy solutions that we need.

Keenan Amendment # 640: The aim of this amendment is to take the MA Renewable Energy Trust’s limit of $3 million per year to support hydropower and convert that limit to a floor, or minimum, for annual investment of MA ratepayers’ dollars in hydropower.  The amendment has a fundamental technical flaw — it tries to adjust the language of a statute that was repealed last year — but otherwise it would guarantee investment in hydropower even if there are far more deserving solar, wind or other renewable energy projects available.

We hope that cooler heads will prevail and these amendments all will be rejected.  Otherwise, coal lobbyists and their clients will be dancing all the way to the bank (ka-ching!) while we face a major setback for Massachusetts’ nation-leading clean energy programs and the enormous environmental, public health and economic development benefits they bring.

Last week was a busy week for the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC).  First, intervention status was granted to CLF and several other organizations in the Highland Wind case, a 39 turbine project located in Somerset county.  In addition, the Commission was presented with a novel legal argument.   The issue revolves around what sort of scenic standard should be applied to “associated facilities” of a grid scale wind power development.  The various components that make up the physical characteristics of a wind development consist of two broad categories: 1) generating facilities (the turbines, towers and transmission lines) and 2) associated facilities (the roads, buildings, generator lead lines, substations, etc…).

Historically, the scenic impact of both sets of facilities were evaluated under the Wind Energy Act (WEA) that seeks to provide meaningful guidance on evaluating scenic impacts by providing a list of 6 criteria that the applicant must adhere to.  However, last week, Commissioners were asked to apply an exception provided for under the WEA statute.  The exception provides that if the Commission “determines that application of the [wind-power-specific standard] to the development may result in unreasonable adverse effects due to the scope, scale, location or other characteristics of the associated facilities” then the Commission can revert to the more general standard when assessing the effect of the associated facilities on the scenic character of the affected area.

One of the issues that the parties and the Commission will be struggling with going forward is how to comprehensively analyze scenic impacts.  Wind energy development, of necessity, includes associated facilities.  How exactly do you go about erecting the turbines without the roads to transport the turbines in the first place? Better yet, once there, how do you collect the power generated without lead lines and substations?  Should the various parts of a single, cohesive development be judged with two very different standards?

LURC was clearly in a difficult position when grappling with whether to apply the exception.  The language of WEA lacked guidance on what sort of fact based criteria should be considered in determining whether the exception applies.  In the end, in a decision of first impression, LURC opted to apply the exception so that associated facilities will be evaluated by a different scenic standard from generating facilities.    The decision was hailed by wind opponents but the ultimate result of the decision has to be determined.  What is needed, by either LURC or the legislature, is clear guidance and a meaningful standard on when the exception should apply so that all parties can move forward with a sense of consistency on what standard will be applied to a project.

Ipswich, Massachusetts received its first wind turbine this week!

Parts for the wind turbine, including three 132-foot-long blades were delivered to the Town Farm Road site on Wednesday March 30th.  The wind turbine is expected to be constructed and in operation by Memorial Day and it will supply power to the Ipswich High School/Middle School. Check out the enthusiasm displayed by kids as the blades passed by Ipswich Elementary School: