Archive for March, 2010

Koch Industries Finances Climate Denier Factions

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

koch-report-cover-250pxThe work to achieve a climate and energy bill in the United States is moving with considerably slower momentum this spring than it did at the same time last year. A number of factors contribute, not the least of which is the time and focus that the White House and Democrats in Congress devoted to enacting a national health care bill, which passed earlier this month.  Another factor is the flagging U.S. economy and the meager appetite that many voters and lawmakers have for big new domestic initiatives, like the proposed climate and clean energy bill.

Still, the wearying health debate and the Great Recession do not fully explain the uphill struggle of climate activism. Another factor is at work. After years of swinging away at the climate action community’s formidable message of urgency and useful solutions, the fossil fuel industry’s rhetorical axes nearly four months ago found a soft spot in the scientific details of climate change.

The climate action community’s response has been double-barrelled. In December when the email conversations of climate scientists were stolen from East Anglia University, climate activists made a good case that nothing said between researchers damaged the foundations of the global consensus on the causes of climate change, its urgent consequences, and the opportunity for solutions that generated new industries and new jobs.

The second response has been to penetrate and uncover the full range, influence, structure, and interlocking relationships of the fossil fuel political infrastructure, which is actively involved in fostering the campaign of scientific deceit. The results of that work have emerged in the last couple of weeks.

Last week Greenpeace International published “Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science,” which documented the 20-year campaign led by ExxonMobil to exploit the space the mainstream media opened with its “let’s hear from the other side” principle of reporting.  Meanwhile in Europe, Danish newspapers picked up the story initially flagged by Pete Altman, a climate specialist and blogger at NRDC, who reported that  a Danish study critical of Danish wind energy was financed by an American activist think tank with financial ties to oil-rich Koch Industries.

This week Greenpeace advanced the story enormously with its new report, “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding The Climate Denial Machine.” The report makes clear that Koch Industries is, and has been for over a decade, a stalwart institution, financier, and strategic adviser for the fossil fuel industry’s political infrastructure aimed at one outcome: Blocking the advent of the low-carbon 21st century economy and wrapping its arms as snugly as it can around the 20th century drive-through, energy wasting, coal-gas-oil-fueled American way of life.

The Greenpeace report also describes how Koch Industries, with revenues of $100 billion annually, 70,000 employees, and operations in 60 countries can execute this goal with a shockingly low investment. The report identifies over 40 climate denial organizations that Koch funded from 1997 to 2008 for $50 million, roughly half of that from 2005 to 2008.

In addition, Koch Industries spent less than $6 million since 2004 on the campaigns of federal lawmakers, almost all Republicans, and $37.9 million from 2006 to 2009 for direct lobbying.

In other words for an investment of less than $10 million annually in the lawmakers, lobbyists, activist think tanks, communications shops, and other facets of the political infrastructure, Koch Industries has assured the rising revenues and profitability of its core climate changing businesses.

Koch and its sister companies in the fossil fuel industry are so wealthy they can devote a tiny portion of their total revenue – a fraction of a fraction of 1 percent – to finance an influential inter-connected political infrastructure at the state level and in Washington.

The extent and expanse of that investment reveals the tight coordination that the fossil fuel industry deploys in executing its progress-denying work. Along with some of the usual suspects expected to receive Koch money — American Enterprise Institute, Cato, Heritage, Reason — the company also finances some of the active and influential state-based groups committed to “sound” science that is anything but.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan, for instance, whose staff includes a former libertarian anti-science state director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality now dedicated to clouding the science of climate in Lansing, the state capital. And the Heartland Institute in Chicago, a free market “think” tank that isn’t doing much thinking about climate action that right thinking people would generally consider valuable.

More on this and other investigations as we move forward.
– Keith Schneider

Diving Deep for Geothermal Energy Finds Acceptance and Political Heat on Surface

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

Geothermal Power

One of the potential success stories of clean energy development on private and federal lands in the West involves NV Energy, which announced in February that it will purchase 32 megawatts of renewable energy from a planned Central Nevada geothermal plant. The Ram Power Corporation is developing the Clayton Valley Geothermal Project, which is scheduled to begin construction in 2012.  It is one of five geothermal leases that Ram Power has acquired from the Bureau of Land Management in Esmeralda County, Nevada where the developer hopes to generate as much as 160 megawatts of electricity.

Talk about clean energy that is capable of generating baseload power without climate changing emissions and at prices competitive with wind or coal. But geothermal development is slow going. Projects are expensive, and often located in places off the high-transmission path. And in some states rich in geothermal resources, Hawaii in particular, the high temperature resources are either located in sensitive environments or close enough to existing communities that people just don’t want to go there. So Hawaii still burns a lot of oil for its electricity, though the state is moving aggressively to succeed in clean energy development.

Nevada, which produces 300 mw of geothermal power annually, is the number two geothermal energy producer in the country, behind California. It has more future geothermal energy in the planning stages than any other state, potentially 200 mw to come between 2012 and 2014.  Ormat Technologies, which has gained $13 million in Energy Department funding, is planning to build a geothermal plant capable of generating at least 40 mw of baseload power in Nevada’s Independence Valley. Construction could start in 2012. It also has bought into a geothermal project in Elko County, which it will develop in phases, the first of which calls for generating 16 mw.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who represents Nevada, has been a big help to the state’s geothermal industry, the result of $90 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which could eventually add 1,000 state jobs. But Nevada also has much more geothermal energy it is capable of producing, perhaps 3,000 more megawatts, the equivalent of three big coal-fired power plants. The rub is the cost — $12 billion — and that most of the geothermal resources in Nevada are located in the northern portion of the state, meaning a new transmission line would have to be developed in order to move power to the southern portion of the state. And as we reported earlier this week public resistance to new transmission lines can be fierce.

Oregon is expected to receive $40 million for geothermal development, according to Senator Ron Wyden. And California, which has 46 operating geothermal plants generating over 2,500 mw of electricity, more than any other state and second only to the Phillipines, will receive $23 million in  federal investment, according to the list of projects made public last year by the Energy Department.

Hawaii, though, has only one project on the list because it has one operating 25-30 mw plant — Puna Geothermal Venture – and no others. Reason: Public resistance in a state with bounteous volcanic and hot spring activity and lots of underground heat. But the location of the geothermal resources has stirred lots of opposition over development, including from the influential Rainforest Action Network. The plant’s operations, largely due to a blowout of a well in 1991, also has raised safety concerns. The current plant, initially developed in the early 198os and shut down, was modernized, enlarged, and started in 1993.

Hawaii still generates a sizable portion of its electricity with expensive oil. Despite proposals by geothermal development companies and active interest by the state to promote the technology, which state officials view as clean, renewable, and safe Hawaii continues to burn oil for power because citizens discourage geothermal as a ready alternative. Hawaii is busy promoting biofuels to replace diesel fuel for electric generating plants, and a new generating station is expected to receive its fuel from a biodiesel plant in Grays Harbor, Washington, that converts canola from Canada into fuel, and that just restarted operations after an explosion late last year.

– Keith Schneider

.

New Transmission Lines Invite Public Uproar in 7 States

Monday, March 29th, 2010

powerline_sm

On March 2 more than 60 residents of Canyon City, Idaho appeared at a public hearing to consider a new 500-kilovolt transmission line that might run through their county. Most weren’t happy about it. “They brought us in late and they haven’t fulfilled their public involvement responsibilities,” said Ken Holliday, a rancher.

The public concern that residents displayed about Idaho Power’s 250-foot corridor, and the 150-foot tall towers that would command its route, is a microcosm of the fierce resistance that citizens are mounting in Idaho now, but also in seven more states. Idaho Power abandoned another route along I-84 because of even stiffer citizen opposition.

In February 2009 President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which included $10.9 billion to upgrade and modernize the electric transmission grid. The idea is to extend the grid to places it doesn’t reach now, and to make electric transmission much more efficient. The injection of federal funds has prompted a surge in proposals for new transmission construction projects. It’s also unnerved many communities because of the lands that would be disturbed and public concerns, none proven, that high energy transmission lines are a health hazard.

In Maryland earlier this month 80 people filled the Kemptown United Methodist Church in Frederick to express opposition to the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline, or PATH project. CAKES — Citizens Against the Kemptown Electric Substation – organized the meeting. Allegheny Power wants to build the substation near the end of a 275-mile, $1.8 billion joint project between Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power. The transmission line itself is the focus of an opposition campaign by the Sugarloaf Conservancy and other groups that view the line as unneeded, and an aesthetic intrusion.

In Minnesota, the a utility’s plan to build the Xcel Hiawatha powerline has run into a storm of public opposition, largely around potential health issues.

In New Jersey, PPL Electric Utilities in Pennsylvania and Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) want to build 500-kilovolt transmission towers along an already existing path of smaller 230-kilovolt towers that run through Warren, Sussex and Morris Counties, ending in Roseland, Essex County.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission have approved the project, but the National Park Service must also agree because the $1.2 billion corridor and towers would affect the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.Citizens, led by local chapters of the Sierra Club, are fighting the proposal, citing what they say is a questionable need for the project, and that other solutions were available. Many opponents says the construction of the towers, as well as their long-term use, would negatively affect air quality, water quality, and the safety of the surrounding wildlife.

In New York state, environmental activists are closely monitoring developments around a proposal to build a 300-mile transmission line from Quebec to New York City that would be buried under Lake Champlain and the Hudson River. Transmission Developers Inc., a Toronto-based company, also is trying to build a 150-mile underwater transmission line from Maine to Boston that has generated significant public attention and concern.

Residents near Bowie, Texas are raising a ruckus about a proposed 345-kV electric transmission line crossing Montague County, and have asked that county’s commissioners for help. The proposed transmission line would be 135-150 miles long depending on the route approved by the Public Utilities Commission and covers eight counties. The new line is a response to the Texas Legislature’s directive in 2005 to expand wind power in the state, the largest generator of wind energy in the U.S.

And as I noted in yesterday’s post, reporting on opposition to big solar projects in the West, Los Angeles has dropped plans for a big transmission line to carry renewable from the desert to the city. The line prompted fierce opposition, which also resulted in cancellation of some renewable energy projects.

– Keith Schneider

Resistance to Solar Energy in California, Southwest

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

brightsource-solar-mojave2

The Solar Energy Industries Association last week made public a national poll that found strong citizen support for adding the energy of the sun to the nation’s portfolio. The timing of the results was meant to coincide with the Federal government’s review of big solar thermal projects proposed on public lands in the West.

The poll, though, masks another emerging clean energy trend in the desert. A good number of citizen activist groups are pushing hard to stop solar development, as they’ve done for wind projects around the country, and other clean energy development.

How much influence could such protests generate? A lot. A year ago, the Bureau of Land Management, a unit of the Interior Department, received 199 applications for industrial-scale solar plants that would take up 1.7 million acres in the desert Southwest. Solar Millennium, Optisolar and Chevron Energy Partners, among others,  filed requests for nearly 1 million acres of land in California alone, the vast majority of it in the Mojave.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act calls for generating 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2015. Four days before the Bush administration left office in January 2009, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne authorized the BLM to create renewable energy offices in Wyoming, Arizona, California and Nevada. The offices are meant to speed permitting for wind, solar, biomass and geothermal projects, as well as transmission lines.

Let’s just say they’re busy. One developing struggle in the Mojave Desert is in Imperial County, where citizens are nervously watching a proposed 750-megawatt thermal array. Donna Tisdale, an activist with an impressive history of stopping big projects in the region over environmental issues, is revving up local opposition to the solar facility, along with a 200-megawatt wind farm in McCain Valley. “Some folks call me a NIMBY,” she told High Country News. “I’m protecting my community. Rural towns always take the brunt of these massive industrial projects. … We’re tired of it.”

“To knowingly run out and destroy pristine habitat in the name of saving the environment is ludicrous,” April Sall, the conservation director for the Wildlands Conservancy, told the Denver Post in September.

BrightSource Energy certainly got that message. Last September BrightSource canceled a solar thermal project in the Broadwell Dry Lake region of the Mojave, joining  Tessera Solar, which also canceled its plan to develop a 5,000-acre solar-thermal site nearby. Both plants faced significant citizen opposition and would have encountered even more because they would be located in the 941,000-acre Mojave Trails National Monument that Senator Dianne Feinstein has proposed. In all, 17 big solar thermal projects and a half dozen big wind projects proposed for the area have been halted by the proposed monument, which would link Joshua Tree National Park and Mojave National Preserve.

Clean energy developers are surprised by the push back. “I got into this business because I feel it’s the right thing to do for the future of this country,” said Paul Whitworth, co- founder of Lightsource Renewables, a company that has already put one solar project on the back burner because of a combination of lack of transmission capacity and Feinstein’s national monument proposal.

“It’s not ‘We’re either going to have a solar plant or we’re going to have this piece of desert left alone,’ ” Whitworth told the Denver Post. “It’s ‘We’re either going to have a big solar plant out here in the desert or we’re going to have brownouts and blackouts.”

In February, BrightSource made another move to quell public concern by announcing it would reduce the size of a proposed 400-megawatt solar thermal power plant that it initially said would cover five square miles of the Mojave. The new plan calls for reducing the area needed for the plant 12 percent. Reason: the company said it wanted to protect the habitat of the endangered desert tortoise.

The cord tying the solar development together was a 500-kilovolt $500 million transmission line that would have cut through Johnson Valley on its way to Los Angeles. Citizen opposition to the line was a big reason that Los Angeles city officials halted the proposal this month. The 85-mile project was criticized by conservationists because it would have cut through two wildlife preserves and the San Bernardino National Forest. David Myers, the executive director of the Wildlands Conservancy, said better routes were available, including using existing transmission corridors. “The bottom line was it was an ill-conceived project,” Myers told Reuters.

The competiton between wild lands and clean energy is dividing the environmental community in California, especially the Sierra Club. Last week California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger held a conference on renewable energy. Carl Zichella, one of the organization’s renewable energy experts, asserted that climate change jeopardizes many desert plants and animals that live at higher altitudes. Reaching the necessary emissions reductions can’t be achieved only through installing rooftop solar systems and conserving energy, he said. “No matter how we look at it, we need large-scale energy development,” Zichella said.

But Joan Taylor, of the Sierra Club’s Nevada and California desert committee, said many energy projects now moving forward would be on pristine, publicly owned land. She suggested building clean energy projects on private lands that have already been disturbed. “The disturbed-land alternative can be embraced by environmentalists and communities,” Taylor said.

More on opposition to transmission lines comes next.

– Keith Schneider

In Washington, Climate and Energy Moves A Bit

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

global_warming_by_captain_planet-450

Now that passage of health care legislation proved that Congress is still capable of acting on big ideas, Washington this week was aflutter with action on the climate and energy bill. White House Legislative Affairs Director Phil Schiliro, and the president’s energy and climate adviser, Carol Browner, met mid-week with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Topic: developing a strategy to corral the 60 votes needed to pass the measure in the Senate.

The same day the chairmen of several Senate committees with jurisdiction over climate and energy met with Reid. And Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman spent time with freshman Democrats on the proposal the three senior lawmakers are hoping to introduce in April.

Letters in support of comprehensive action on climate and clean energy also are flying around Washington. One of those freshman Democrats, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, drafted and sent to Reid a letter signed by 21 other Democrats that urged a vote before the end of the year.

“Our lack of a comprehensive clean energy policy hurts job creation and increases regulatory uncertainty throughout our economy,” wrote Udall. “Businesses are waiting on Congress before investing billions in energy, transportation, manufacturing, building and other sectors.” The letter came just a few days after the senator’s father, Stewart L. Udall, the Interior secretary for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and one of the 20th century’s greatest environmental leaders, died at age 90.

Another letter, signed by 23 climate action groups was sent to the White House, the EPA, and five cabinet secretaries urging the administration to make good on the commitments it made in Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Accord, negotiated in the climate summit’s final hours by President Obama and the heads of 20 other nations, calls for $30 billion in international aid over the next three years to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and to support adaptation, technology development, and capacity building. The accord also encouraged developed nations to commit to “mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.”

“As leaders in the Senate finalize a new approach to comprehensive climate and energy legislation,” said the letter, “we urge you to work to ensure that the Senate bill includes significant and predictable investments in international action to combat climate change and its consequences.”

There was new light focused this week on the dangerous campaign by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to discredit climate science and clean energy. Greenpeace published “Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science,” that reports on the 20-year effort to block progress with specious attacks on the science, and accuses ExxonMobil of being the ringleader.

And six months after NRDC blogger Pete Altman \reported that a Danish study critical of Danish wind energy was financed by an American activist think tank with financial ties to oil-rich Koch Industries, that revealing connection generated headlines in Europe.  (http://jp.dk/uknews/article2015323.ece)

Pretty good week for climate and clean energy action in Washington.

– Keith Schneider

Let Wind Energy Blow? Not In These Places

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

peace_wind_offshore

Next month Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is scheduled to rule on a proposal to build one of the most contentious clean energy projects in the country. It is a 420-megawatt offshore wind farm in Massachusetts called Cape Wind. Audra Parker, the young leader of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, has emerged as a local public interest celebrity as a result of her work to prevent developers from constructing 130 turbines five miles out in Nantucket Sound.

The long battle over Cape Wind, the granddaddy of citizen opposition campaigns to clean energy development, is a reflection of many other such battles across the country, and emblematic of the schism in the environmental community over clean energy development and climate action. This post documents grassroots activism opposing wind energy projects in 12 more states.

Many of my environmental friends are not that concerned, arguing that grassroots opposition represents the give-and-take, checks and balances that have always existed in the green community. My reporting indicates that it could be much more significant than that, and may invite criticism from environmentalism’s opponents.

On the one hand, said a letter this week in my hometown weekly, the Benzie Record-Patriot, environmental organizations have pushed hard for clean energy investment and action to solve global warming. On the other groups big and small assert this or that project is unfit for construction. I’m documenting that opposition in this and a number of other posts.

With wind the arguments generally focus around noise, viewsheds, light flicker, location, and a few more issues. But victory for wind opponents is no victory because the default position now and for the time being is almost always generating power with more fossil fuel, mostly coal. In the risk-benefit analysis how is that coal is seen as less risky than wind?

Nevertheless grassroots activists fighting clean energy are gaining fame and plenty of support. On Nantucket, Audra Parker counts the Kennedy family as allies, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s senior environmental attorneys, though the NRDC says the windfarm should be built. The state historic preservation officer also opposes the project because of its location in an area viewed as historically significant, as well as sacred to a number of native American tribes.

Greenpeace supports the project, which was initially proposed almost a decade ago, along with the World Wildlife Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. George Woodwell, the renowned ecologist and the founder of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

Many of the details of the opposition to the Nantucket Sound development — viewsheds, NIMBYism, scale of the machines, proximity to sacred ground — are consistent with another fight over wind energy nearby on Cape Cod. Wellfleet officials want to place one windmill on town land close to Cape Cod National Seashore, but neighbors are organizing to stop the project.

A year ago, authorities in New York and in Ontario identified Lake Ontario and Lake Erie as likely sources of offshore wind power. In mid-April 2009 the New York Power Authority unveiled big offshore projects for both lakes. Some of the windfarms would consist of 500 turbines towering 45o feet above the lake. Shoreline owners in  Jefferson, Oswego, Cayuga and Wayne counties in New York went to work to halt the idea, which they accomplished earlier this year.

The issues included scale, sediments, transmission lines, water quality, boating safety, fisheries, subsidies, efficiency, and aesthetics, loss of tax base. “The projects are bad community planning, especially in the water. People choose to live in and visit waterfront communities for the view and relaxation. These projects destroy the view, create noise and other pollution and devalue property,” wrote Robert E. Aliasso Jr. and Tom Bishop, co-chairs of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and 1000 Islands Region.

In Minnesota a proposal to build 52 turbines producing 78 megawatts of power over 32,000 acres in five townships near Red Wing, south of Minneapolis, is running into local opposition. Steve Groth, a rural landowner, has asked Goodhue County to amend the county’s zoning ordinance to establish a yearlong moratorium on wind development to study potential health and safety concerns. He also wants the PAC to increase setbacks between turbines and non-participating dwellings from the state-mandated 750 feet to 3,168 feet. He also wants to increase setbacks between turbines and homes from the state-mandated 750 feet to more than half a mile. The proposal has generated resistance from wind developers, who view Goodhue as a likely site for wind development.

In Michigan, wind development has prompted grassroots opposition in the Thumb region, near the Lake Huron coast, where landowners are objecting to noise and vibration. And on the other side of the state, where Lake Michigan lies, a proposal to build a large offshore wind farm near Luddington has prompted howls of protest from shoreline land owners. The French company that proposed the project has scaled back the number of windmills it wants to build. The state established a blue ribbon committee to develop siting guidelines and regulations.

In Vermont,  a wind project proposed for Herrick Mountain in Ira generated opposition from residents and an ecologist with the Fish and Wildlife Department who said in a letter to the developer that it would damage the Green Mountain ecosystem. The project, proposed by Vermont Community Wind Farm, has been repeatedly attacked, principally for the potential effect it could have of the  ridgeline, along with visual and noise issues.

Citizen opposition in Vermont also has  erupted in other communities, including over a 16-turbine project by First Wind Corp. in Sheffield. But Vermont residents also are supporting some big wind projects, among them a project by Green Mountain Power Corp. and Vermont Electric Co-Op to build up to two dozen 400-foot tall wind turbines along a three-mile stretch of Lowell Mountain ridgeline near Lowell. The windmills, built mostly on private land, would generate up to 63 megawatts of power – enough to power about 20,000 homes. Earlier this month the Kingdom Community Wind project was approved by residents 342-114.

Maine Governor John Baldacci has stirred a hornet’s nest of grassroots opposition with his campaign to speed wind farm developments on and offshore. Citizens in Penobscot County filed suit against a $130 million 40-turbine windfarm to be built on a ridgeline, and earlier this month lost the case in the Maine Supreme Court.

Maine’s Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power is pushing the governor and the state to issue a moratorium on industrial wind power projects until adequate noise regulations are implemented. Baldacci is resisting the effort, and he is supported by a number of the state’s editorial boards.

In Rhode Island, opposition is mounting to an offshore wind farm near Block Island. Eight wind turbines are proposed in the ocean three miles southeast of Block Island. They will rise 450 feet above the water from steel frames anchored to the ocean floor. And residents of New Shoreham aren’t thrilled.

In Oregon, a Texas company has stirred opposition to its proposal to build a wind project across 47,000 acres on the slopes of Craig Mountain that overlook two sides of Union. The Antelope Wind Power Project calls for 182 turbine. Union opposition focuses on spoiled views, and damage to wildlife habitat. The City Council declared its opposition to the project in December, and a hastily formed group papered the town with “Say NO” posters.

In Illinois, residents of Dekalb County have battled wind farm proposals for 7 years, arguing that they cause illness, nuisance, noise, and other problems.

In Pennsylvania, a wind farm proposal has sparked a fight in Butler Township.

In Wisconsin, Invenergy seeks state approval to build 100 turbines in four communities in what would be Brown County’s first major commercial wind farm. The Ledge Wind Energy Park would have the capacity to generate enough electricity for 40,000 homes. Critics are trying to stop the project and among its many arguments — most of which are consistent with other battles over wind farms — is a new one. They argue the turbines would interfere with nearby telecommunications towers, a point disputed by the county’s emergency safety officials.

In Wyoming, resistance to wind farms appears to come primarily from the fossil fuel industry, which doesn’t want the competition.

Three years ago billboards along I-70 in Kansas protested against the “industrialization” of rural parts of the state as large-scale wind farm development advanced. “Such opposition to wind farm development–and related transmission–threatens to slow growth in parts of the country where populations are small, viewsheds are wide and wind resources are robust,” wrote David Wagman, chief editor of Renewable Energy World Magazine, in February.

How significant is this push back on renewable energy development? Here’s what Gabriel Alonso, CEO, Horizon Wind Energy said recently: “We have 19,000 megawatts of wind energy under development throughout 22 states. We have run, in some specific cases, into opposition. But you need to differentiate between three people making a lot of noise or re opposition within the community. Normally when we peel back the onion, we always find out that we are talking about three people who have economic, real-estate or some sort of interests, and we are conflicting with those interests. So I do not consider ‘not in my backyard’ being a real fundamental issue for us to site projects.”

Is Alonso right? Instinct says he should know. But in so many states the fights over wind are fierce and driven in too many cases by personal sensibility and not keen grappling with the alternative, which is almost always more coal. It’s not like battling a Wal-Mart and winning a wetland and a downtown business association capable of keeping its members prosperous. It’s not like killing a highway and getting a beautiful river valley. Killing a wind farm generally means getting the same-old, which is coal.

– Keith Schneider

Grassroots Resistance to Clean Energy Projects

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

middlebury-vermont-biomass-plant

A few months ago I became a communications adviser working several hours per week with Traverse City Light & Power, a small municipal utility in my home region that has proposed to acquire 30 percent of its power by 2020 from local renewable resources.

In pursuit of that goal TCL&P has purchased 10 mw of wind power from a windfarm in McBain, Michigan 50 miles south. It also purchased 2 mw of landfill gas generation and is investing in new solar capacity.

TCL&P also has proposed building a 10 mw wood biomass gasification plant that also would generate heat energy for nearby industries and businesses. (The wood biomass plant in the picture above is in Middlebury, Vermont.) But the combined heat and power plant has encountered surprising resistance from a number of ardent environmentalists, including the grassroots Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council, this year celebrating its 30th anniversary, which worries about emissions, ash disposal, and the consequences to the region’s forests. If you read the TCL&P Web page, you’ll see that the plant would burn as cleanly as a natural gas plant, produce ash that is non-toxic, and that a sustainable forestry program is at the top of TCL&P’s priorities.

Resistance to Clean Energy Nationwide
The push back from the environmental community, though, prompted me to wonder how many other clean energy projects around the country are encountering similar grassroots resistance? I am concerned about a number of things, including the potential for a damaging schism to develop in the environmental community over clean energy and climate action.

I work in Washington now as media and communications director of the U.S. Climate Action Network. I know that on the one hand national organizations are pushing hard in DC to limit carbon emissions and for more money to finance the clean energy transition. National and state organizations also are pressing state governments and legislatures to enact or increase Renewable Portfolio Standards  and other clean energy and climate measures.

On the other hand, at the grassroots in more than 30 states, citizen opposition has developed to campaign against the renewable technologies that hold the most promise to replace coal. In some cases the opposition is led by local affiliates of national organizations we work with — Sierra Club in particular.

It’s important to note that my colleagues and friends in the environmental community are not nearly as concerned as I am. One colleague told me she views the grassroots opposition as part of the traditional checks and balances that have distinguished modern American environmentalism. A colleague here in Michigan, during a long conversation on the grassroots push back, said that in many cases the opposition was generated by local landowners and others who are not connected to the environmental movement.

State Projects in Play

Taking all that into consideration I’ll treat the reporting exercise in this post and others to follow with care, as I always do. Here in Michigan, along with the resistance to the TCL&P 30BY20 plan, grassroots campaigns also are active to block offshore wind energy development in Lake Michigan (shoreline owners are fighting viewshed issues) and to stem wind development in Michigan’s thumb
region (noise and vibration are issues.) The Sierra Club’s local chapter is active in the Traverse City fight. Citizens who’ve organized under local green banners are active in the other two.

I did some research over the weekend and documented the following:

1. Active grassroots campaigns opposing wind farms in 16 states.
2. Active grassroots campaigns opposing solar thermal plants in 4 states.
3. Active grassroots campaigns opposing geothermal development in 3 states.
4. Active grassroots campaigns opposing wood biomass plants in 11 states.
5. Active grassroots campaigns opposing new electrical transmission lines in 8 states.

In my mind this is one of the important and as yet untold stories of the clean energy transition. The default position for the projects that fail to get permitted or built because of citizen opposition is more coal or more natural gas. And I haven’t even addressed the nuclear issue.

There are a number of ways to cut at this but it’s critical, in my view, to start addressing it in some way. I have lots of ideas about how. I worry that ideology in our ranks is outflanking pragmatism and leadership. The politics of stasis that marred Copenhagen and have taken hold in DC aren’t just about Rush and the G.O.P. and the lack of White House moxie.

In this era of change, swift transitions occurring across all realms are making people so nervous they are more clear about accepting the risks they know than taking a chance with risks they don’t.

I’ll be writing more. Keep in touch.

– Keith Schneider

Stewart Udall, An American Statesman Passes

Saturday, March 20th, 2010

udallat2

I met Stewart Udall, and his wife Lee, in 1988 when I was a national correspondent for the New York Times and he was in the midst of seeking compensation for American victims of the nuclear weapons industry. It was the start of a friendship of 22 years that ended today with Stewart’s death.

Stewart, who was 68 at the time, and Lee were getting ready to move into a beautiful adobe-style house they were building in the hills above Santa Fe. He managed a law practice that represented Navajo uranium miners injured by radiation exposure, as well as the families of miners who’d died. They both were active in promotion of the arts, a facet of the expansive Udall interests that the couple brought to the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s.

I wrote several articles about Stewart in the Times and we got to know each other well. He invited me to get to know his children – Tom, now a United States Senator, Lynn, Lori, Denis, Scott, and Jay. And in June 1998, three years after I left the Times to launch the Michigan Land Use Institute, Stewart responded to my invitation to speak in northwest Michigan by spending the weekend and appearing at a fund raiser for the Institute, and at an emotional standing room only public gathering at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. He was the first Secretary of the Interior to ever visit the park, which he helped to establish. It was one of the most memorable weekends of my life. The picture above was taken that day by J. Carl Ganter.

President Obama honored Stewart today with this statement from the White House. “For the better part of three decades, Stewart Udall served this nation honorably. Whether in the skies above Italy in World War II, in Congress or as Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall left an indelible mark on this nation and inspired countless Americans who will continue his fight for clean air, clean water and to maintain our many natural treasures.  Michelle and I extend our condolences to the entire Udall family who continue his legacy of public service to this day.”

Stewart Udall made his life count for principles, especially the respect he and his family shared for the land, the arts, and justice that are now embedded in the nation’s culture and economy and way of life. It’s not much of a leap to note that the work he executed during his life, like the wild ground he preserved in national parks and refuges, will endure for as long as this nation endures.

In our many conversations, especially those over the last year, I often suggested how lucky he was to serve when he did. It was a golden age of policy making and Stewart was right at the center of it.

I still write for a number of desks at the Times and prepared the first draft of Stewart’s obituary. The edited piece that appeared in the paper on Sunday, March 21, 2010 was based on this draft, which appears here in its entirety.

—————————————————————

Stewart L. Udall, who as Secretary of Interior in the 1960s helped to invent innovative new safeguards for the nation’s natural treasures and added vast  holdings to the public domain with statesmanship and flair rivaled only by President Theodore Roosevelt, died today of natural causes. Mr. Udall, who celebrated his 90th birthday on January 31, was surrounded at his death by his six children.

Mr. Udall was 40 years old and a three-term Democratic congressman from Arizona when President John F. Kennedy asked him to become the first person from that state ever to serve in the cabinet. A resolute liberal from the conservative West, he was the last surviving member of Mr. Kennedy’s original cabinet.

In the more than eight years that he led the Interior Department, a tenure that also spanned the entire administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Mr. Udall was the federal government’s most tenacious advocate for environmental conservation. He forged strong personal ties with the small group of lawmakers, attorneys, conservation leaders, and writers then working in Washington who helped lay the foundation for a generation of landmark statutes to secure the nation’s air, water, and land.

Few corners of the nation were left untouched by Mr. Udall’s principled approach and his ability to work collaboratively with Congress. He added 3.85 million acres to the public domain, including four national parks – Canyonlands in Utah, Redwood in California, North Cascades in Washington state, and Guadulupe Mountains in Texas – six national monuments, eight national seashores and lakeshores, nine national recreation areas, 20 historic sites, and 56 wildlife refuges.

Mr. Udall also was the government’s primary advocate for the 1964 Wilderness Act, which permanently ensured that millions of acres of wild land would remain “untrammeled by man.” He was the intellectual force behind the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which directed fees and royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling to pay for wilderness protection and recreation. Mr. Udall also campaigned to preserve America’s historical heritage, and played a big role in saving New York’s Carnegie Hall from the wrecking ball. Among his rare missteps, which Mr. Udall readily acknowledged, was approving federal oil and gas leases off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, which led to a devastating 1969 oil spill.

Following President Kennedy’s assassination, Lady Bird Johnson urged her husband to retain Mr. Udall. The two had become close and worked together on a program to plant flowers and beautify Washington, D.C. Near the end of the decade he helped to write and actively promoted the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which protected some of the nation’s most beautiful rivers.

Although Mr Udall cultivated congressional allies, his most important friend on Capitol Hill was his younger brother, Representative Morris Udall, who succeeded him as an Arizona Congressman, rose to become chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and in 1976 ran for president in a campaign that his older brother managed. Most of the significant environmental and land protection statutes that became law in the 1970s and 1980s, including the Endangered Species Act, bore their stamp and influence.

“That was a wonderful time and it carried through into the Nixon administration, into the Ford administration, into the Carter administration,” Mr. Udall said. “It lasted for 20 years. I don’t remember a big fight between the Republicans and Democrats in the Nixon administration or President Gerald Ford and so on. There was a consensus that the country needed more conservation projects of the kind that we were proposing.”

President Kennedy’s murder in 1963, followed by Robert Kennedy’s assassination in 1968, were personal blows that marred his optimism. In many ways, though, Mr. Udall represented the most enduring legacy of the Kennedy administration’s promise and its attitude.

He engaged his work with a sense of adventure, dynamism, and sheer delight that reflected the administration’s youth and idealism. It was Mr. Udall who made the suggestion, embraced by President Kennedy, to invite Robert Frost to recite a poem at the young president’s inauguration. Mr. Udall accompanied Mr. Frost to the Soviet Union in 1962, a trip meant to foster better ties with Premier Nikita Kruschev. He held evenings at the Interior Department with poet Carl Sandburg and actor Hal Holbrook.

A man who prided himself on his fitness – he was an all conference guard on the University of Arizona basketball team – Mr. Udall climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa, and Mt. Fuji in Japan while heading U.S. delegations to both regions. When he was 84-years-old, at the end of his last rafting trip on the Colorado River, Mr. Udall hiked up the steep Bright Angel Trail from the bottom of the Grand Canyon to the south rim, a 10-hour walk that he celebrated at the end with a martini.

Mr. Udall, and his wife, Lee, were especially friendly with Jacqueline Kennedy, and were close to Robert and Ethel Kennedy, whose children were about the same age as Mr. Udall’s six children. Mrs. Udall, who died in 2001, once pushed the historian, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., into the pool fully clothed during a rambunctious party at Robert Kennedy’s Hickory Hill estate in Virginia, a moment that delighted her husband for years afterward.

But it was Mr. Udall’s sense of fairness, his allegiance to the land, and his admiration for those that spoke out in its defense that most distinguished his life and work. He invited Pulitzer Prize-winning author Wallace Stegner to be the department’s writer in residence. Mr. Stegner’s presence prompted Mr. Udall to write The Quiet Crisis, his best selling 1963 book on the new environmental ethic taking shape in the nation. Their friendship ended tragically in 1993 when Mr. Stegner was killed in an auto accident in Santa Fe, New Mexico while visiting Mr. Udall at his home.

In 1962, when Rachel Carson’s critical analysis of the risks of pesticides, Silent Spring, was denounced as specious by the chemical industry, Mr. Udall publicly defended Ms. Carson’s scholarship, personally introduced her to President Kennedy, and convinced Mr. Kennedy to appoint a presidential science advisory committee, which a year later confirmed her findings. In April 1964, Mr. Udall served as a pallbearer at Ms. Carson’s funeral at the Washington National Cathedral.

Mr. Udall applied the same doggedness and loyalty to his important work in the late 1970s and through the 1980s as a lawyer representing thousands of uranium miners, nuclear weapons industry workers, and citizens exposed to radiation from atomic weapons manufacturing and testing in the West. Operating on a scant budget, and with the assistance of his wife, three of his children, and a small team of lawyers, Mr. Udall filed class action lawsuits that pried open the government’s secret Cold War legacy of scientific deceit and mismanagement within the multi-state American nuclear weapons industry.

Though he won the first case in 1984 in federal district court, an appeals court overturned the ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court declined in 1988 to hear arguments. Mr. Udall then turned to Congress, working with lawmakers of both parties, particularly Republican Utah Senator Orrin Hatch and Democratic Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. In 1990 President George H.W. Bush signed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The law, administered by the Department of Justice, provided up to $100,000 for those sickened by radiation exposure, and issued a formal apology for the “harm” done to American citizens who were “subjected to increased risk of injury and disease to serve the national security interests of the United States.” In 1994, Mr. Udall published the sixth of his eight books, The Myths of August: A Personal Exploration of Our Tragic Cold War Affair With The Atom, a highly regarded account of the weapons program and the struggle for justice.

Stewart Lee Udall was born on January 31, 1920 in St Johns, Arizona during an era when the tiny settlement still bore much of its remote, tough, old West character. His grandfather, David K. Udall, helped to settle St. Johns, arriving there in 1880, seven years after its founding as a way station for wagoneers hauling U.S. Cavalry supplies from Santa Fe to Fort Apache. His father, Levi S. Udall, was a justice on the Arizona Supreme Court. His mother, Louise Lee Udall, was active in civic affairs and a gifted writer who instilled in her son the love for ideas and the words to express them.

Mr. Udall’s great grandfather was John D. Lee, who was convicted and executed in 1877, 20 years after 120 California-bound emigrants from Arkansas were slaughtered by Mormon zealots in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In 1989, at the urging of descendants of the Arkansas victims, Mr. Udall agreed to bring about reconciliation, helping to organize a memorial event in 1990 and erect a monument to what he called the greatest tragedy in the history of the West.

Mr. Udall served as a gunner for the U.S. Army Air Force during World War Two. In 1948 he graduated from the University of Arizona with a law degree and went into private practice for two years, then formed Udall & Udall, a joint practice with his brother. In 1954, Mr. Udall was elected to Congress.

He is survived by his son Tom Udall, a Democratic Senator from New Mexico and his other children, Lynn, Denis, Scott, Lori, and James. He also is survived by a nephew, Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, and eight  grandchildren.

One of Mr. Udall’s last essays was his “Letter to My Grandchildren,” which the Michigan Land Use Institute originally published in 2005, and has done so every December since on its Web site. It reflects his penetrating insight about grievous risks to the economy and environment from global climate change, and his judgment about the capacity of his heirs to respond. “Operating on the assumption that energy would be both cheap and superabundant, I admit, led my generation to make misjudgments that have come back and now haunt and perplex your generation,” he wrote. “We designed cities, buildings, and a national system of transportation that were inefficient and extravagant. Now, the paramount task of your generation will be to correct those mistakes with an efficient infrastructure that respects the limitations of our environment to keep up with damages we are causing.”