Last updated on 2011.07.24
Man bites dog: Congresswoman Kristi Noem does something I like! She has introduced a bill to make it easier to build wind power on federal lands:
The Utilizing America's Federal Lands for Wind Energy Act would cut up to two years off the process for some wind farms, Noem said, by delaying the need for an extensive environmental impact study until after test towers determine whether there is enough wind to proceed with a wind farm.
The law would apply only on land owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
It would also only give the exemption to test towers that met certain environmental criteria, such as disturbing less than an acre of ground at the site of the test tower and restoring the area to its original state within five years [David Montgomery, "Noem Proposes Shortening Permitting Process for Wind Farms on Government Land," Rapid City Journal, 2011.06.15].
Renewable energy advocate Matt McGovern says the proposal sounds reasonable. My conservative friend Michael Woodring agrees with Black Hills Power that a wind farm near Belle Fourche does not make good business sense. I wonder how he'll feel about wind farms on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land. (Memo to Forest Service: set those wind turbines above the tree line.)
Rep. Noem isn't taking too bold a step on wind energy here:
Steve Wegman, executive director of the South Dakota Wind Energy Association, said the bill as written is too limited to have a major impact on South Dakota where most of the best wind energy land is on private or tribal land.
Noem argued the proposal would have more immediate impact, but she also said she hopes the law can serve as a model for other federally owned land &ndash like tribal land [Montgomery, 2011.06.15].
I'm curious, Rep. Noem: if expanding wind energy on tribal land is a good idea, why not include tribal land in this bill?
Nonetheless, the bill looks pretty straightforward. It keeps reasonable environmental protections in place for the testing period. It doesn't touch environmental protections relating to the installation of wind farms. I don't even see any tricky clauses saying, "By the way, once you put up a wind tower, you can also drill for tar sands oil."
Dang: Kristi Noem proposes legislation I like. It's a first!
Transmission lines are the devils in the details. Here is what is looks like from our experience: http://helenair.com/news/article_7e6742b6-1d54-11e0-ae3d-001cc4c03286.html
http://helenair.com/news/opinion/article_5eb8b074-8827-11e0-aaec-001cc4c03286.html
More grid-based power transmission is the wrong approach. If the GOP wants this, it's bad for the environment and good for monopolies. Be afraid.
The feds could buy solar shingles or siding and wind systems for every house that this monstrosity would generate power for.
How many times will taxpayers pay to put new power lines in after ice storms in Indian Country?
Here loometh a few more devils in the details, gremlins in the gear box, or whatever, referenced at:
http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/article_140c7fc2-96a2-11e0-aa2d-001cc4c03286.html
I tend to agree with Larry on the issue of new, massive, grid-based systems.
A more distributed system might prove more robust and less susceptible to mass blackouts. It would also obviate the need for huge new transmission lines.
Legislation like Noem supports if passed will then be used as justification for similar speedup of mining and oil on federal lands. It is a camel's nose in the tent.
Here's how SHS moved the Corps to do real work while Noem racked up speeding tickets: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/article_26245a0f-99ff-59d3-85df-d6257f049522.html
Note over 12M for flood protection.
Sounds like this doesn't change things much. You can put up a test tower before the EIS, but the EIS will need to be done, eventually. For good reason--it's public land, and wind farms are a permanent industrial disturbance.
The "above the treeline" idea is a non-starter, at least in SD. There is no "treeline" in the Black Hills. It's all forested. The Rockies have a treeline, but it's awfully high up. Mountains in general don't have good wind resource, too much ground turbulence.
The main area of forest service land affected by this will be the national grasslands, such as Buffalo Gap NG from Kadoka to Edgemont. There are plenty of ridgelines where wind power would be a natural. Other NG's exist in ND, MT, WY, CO....
Or should I say it would be un-natural? What a shame to spoil some of the last best prairies in our state with the industrial development that wind farms are. And fouling public lands in the process. One of the plusses for wind development is that it has favored private land, just because there is no long and expensive EIS process. I suspect that won't change, if Noem's proposal becomes law.
People who really want environmentally friendly wind power should promote siting criteria that favor developed sites, e.g., farmland, over pristine sites like prairie coteaus.
You're right, Michael: it doesn't sound like a really bold pitch for wind power. This bill doesn't increase our national investment in alternative energy. And instead of focusing on tribal lands near communities that might benefit more from economic development, it sounds like one more way to chip away at the wilderness areas we're trying to protect and turn them into some private entity's profit center.
The Missouri River dams will never come out unless an integrated system of small hydropower below estuaries using trapped stormwater are built. Rewild the river.