FRONT PAGE

Large commercial wind energy projects proposed for National Forest along Virginia-West Virginia border (Rockingham, Shenandoah, Hardy, and Pendleton Counties)

Spinning statistics to promote Virginia wind turbine project

Highland County officials face continuing legal problems with wind energy project

Forest Service proposal would minimize review of wind energy projects in National Forests

SCC Commissoner comments on Highand wind project

Bill would exempt Highland New Wind from SCC oversight

SCC "Approves" Highland Wind Project

At issue: Highland County wind project compliance with the Endangered Species Act

Developer Complains About "Bat Tax"

It's not the cost of monitoring wildlife impacts that presents the problem

Impacts of wind energy on wildlife

Raptors and wind energy development in the central Appalachians

Annual Bat Fatalities of Up to 111,000 Projected for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands

Wildlife Risk + Effective Monitoring = Investment Risk

Industry Spin on the Bat Mortality Problem

Wind Development Will Not Reduce Mountaintop Removal

---

Wind Turbine Projects Planned for George Washington National Forest

Two national forest projects have been proposed, one by FreedomWorks LLC and one by an unnamed developer represented by WEST, Inc.

Information on both projects is provided below.

FreedomWorks LLC project

Developer's Website

Site Map

The map shows the locations of 131 wind turbines proposed for Hardy County, WV and Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties, VA by FreedomWorks, LLC.  The locations are based upon the coordinates provided in applications filed with the FAA. It appears that all but one of these huge wind turbines (440 feet tall) are to be sited within the George Washington National Forest (GWNF).

The map's information can be verified by checking with the FAA's 7460-1 database. Each wind turbine has a separate 7460-1 application filed with FAA, and a detailed map showing the exact location of this planned wind turbine by clicking on "View Map" in the FAA application notice provided via the weblink. 

In the map, areas of the GWNF for which the pending management plan has identified as being "generally suitable" for wind energy development (gold colored) are based upon the  map of "Areas Generally Suitable for Wind Generation Sites" compiled Feb. 9, 2007 by the US Forest Service

An examination of Oct. 2006 aerial photos covering the entire 18-mile ridge length where this project is to occur reveals that - other than a powerline and one small road (public) which crosses between Hardy and Shenandoah Counties - the project area is completely undisturbed forest (with no sign of logging roads or clearcuts).  It appears that this project would destroy over 500 acres of forest and additionally will cause extensive forest fragmenation - likely wiping out over 2500 acres of forest-interior habitat (about 4 square miles!).

FreedomWorks Benefits Claim

Related newspaper articles:

News-Virginian, 032508
Northern Virginia Daily, 032608
Daily News Record, 032608-1
Daily News Record, 032608-2

Note: The spokesman for the development company, FreedomWorks LLC, is quoted stating that most potential wind project locations in Va are off limits. An examination of legal and management restrictions indicates that this is not correct.

WEST, Inc. project

Site Map

The map indicates the approximate location of a potential wind energy project in the GWNF in Pendleton, Hardy, and Rockingham Counties. The proposed project was discussed a 11/16/08 letter from the WV field office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to WEST, Inc, consultants for an unidentified developer. The location of the proposed FreedomWorks LLC project is also indicated. The USFWS recommended against construction of the WEST, Inc. project due to high risk to bird and bat species protected by the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter (11/16/07)
(0.9 mb)

Related newspaper articles:

The Recorder, 013108
Daily News Record, 011508

See also:

Forest Service Proposal to Minimize Review of Wind Energy Projects in National Forest

For additional information about forest impacts of wind energy projects, see: Using GIS to Evaluate Forest Habitat and Public Land Impacts of Wind Energy Development

[Top]

---

Lawyer Spins Statistics to Promote
Wind Turbine Project

John Flora is the attorney for Highland New Wind Development. Speaking at a January 22, 2008 Shenandoah Sierra Club forum, Mr. Flora stated that two-thirds of Highland County residents support the proposed project. He further stated that he obtained this information from Highland County’s Administrator and Board of Supervisors.

This remarkable claim has significance, given that:

• The Shenandoah Sierra Club Group is seeking objective information in order to develop a position on the project
• The project developer needs to convince potential investors that the turbine project is supported by Highland County citizens
• Additional wind energy developers are attempting to determine if Highland County ridges are a good target for their ventures

The information provided to Mr. Flora by Highland County officials was apparently not what Mr. Flora claimed. In response to questions posed at a recent meeting, the Chairman of the Highland County Board of Supervisors suggested that Mr. Flora may be basing his assertion on a petition that was circulated in opposition to the project. Signatures on the petition included 27% of registered voters in the county. It seems that Mr. Flora has made the specious assumption that everyone who didn’t sign the petition can be counted as a supporter of the project.

See Recorder article (discussion on page 4)

[Top]

---

Highland County supervisors face continuing legal action over wind
energy project

Although Highland New Wind has received a permit from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC), the permit is heavily conditioned upon additional agency review and strict wildlife monitoring and mitigation requirements (see SCC Conditions below).

Additional legal issues now confront the Highland County officials, who must issue a building permit before the project can go forward. Attorneys for a group of Highland citizens have reaffirmed their intention to sue if the project is permitted to go forward in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other environmental laws.

In a February 27th letter to the Board of Supervisors, the Roanoke based Woods Rogers law firm called attention to additional information presented in proceedings before the SCC that shows the project will violate the ESA unless an Incidental Take Permit is procured.

As described in the letter, experts testifying before the SCC indicated that endangered bat species would likely be killed by at the proposed facility. Wildlife biologists with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) stated that the “project clearly poses a risk of significant mortality to all species of bats using the site. This includes the [endangered] Virginia Big-Eared bat and the Indiana Bat.”

Both the DGIF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recommended that Highland New Wind obtain permits for incidental take of endangered species through the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan.

Note: although a spokesman for Highland New Wind has reportedly indicated that the firm may at some later time apply for an endangered species takings permit; there is no provision under the ESA for after-the-fact permitting of harm to endangered species.

In addition to warnings concerning violation of the ESA, the Woods Roger’s letter to the Highland Supervisors further warned that legal remedies may be sought if the project is allowed to go forward in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Projection Act. In submissions to the SCC, experts for Highland New Wind testified that eagles were not present at the site. However, additional testimony before the SCC demonstrated the presence of both bald and golden eagles in and around Highland County.

Finally, the Woods Rogers letter raised questions about County enforcement of Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Although the SCC explicitly relied on Highland County to implement sediment and erosion control requirements that apply to the proposed Highland New Wind project, the County has subsequently been found to be inconsistent in its enforcement of erosion and sediment control law by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. The Woods Rogers letter put the County on notice that private citizens and adjacent landowners have standing to enforce sediment and erosion control ordinances through court action.

The Woods Rogers letter requested that the County exercise its responsibility to address all of these issues through proper implementation of the Conditional Use Permit issued to Highland New Wind.

For more information, see:
Woods Rogers 022708 letter
Recorder article

[Top]

---

Proposed Forest Service Directive on Wind Energy Development

The Wilderness Society, along with other conservation groups and individuals, contends that the Forest Service has failed to follow proper procedure in proposing a wind energy program for the National Forests.

In comments to the Forest Service, the Wilderness Society argues that Wind energy projects should be treated the same as any other proposed use of federal lands, subject to thorough, programmatic and site-specific analysis, and public participation. "All laws and regulations applicable to other projects on the federal lands must be complied with, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other federal laws. The first steps in that compliance should be completion of a programmatic EIS and, as discussed below, formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service."

Comments submitted to the Forest Service:
The Wilderness Society
Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County

[Top]

---

Outgoing SCC Commissioner Morrison Comments on Highland Wind Project

“ . . . it’s beautiful country up there, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable for you all to want it to stay that way, without windmills on the skyline.”

Concerning wind energy’s potential contribution to the electricity supply

“ . . . I wish people would get realistic about the promise of renewables. . . . People shouldn’t think we can get away from large plants with these.”

“ . . . I looked at windmills in California. I was there 4-5 days and not a single one of them were turning. There were hundreds of them, and someone, somewhere had to be powering electricity elsewhere.”

Concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed wind energy project

“ . . . The controversy in Highland County really boiled down to how much environmental protection we should afford, and who pays for it.”

“  . . . This is definitely a laboratory project, a pilot project to see how many bats we can slay, if you will.”

“  . . . . The chances are good they will take endangered species. . . . if I were the developer, I would want to minimize risk as much as you can before you spend the whole bundle, $60 million, on the project.”

“ . . .  we weren’t sure whether the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries was going to be able to participate . . . . And they participated fully. That’s the first time that’s ever happened.”

Concerning Senator Frank Wagner’s efforts to minimize environmental review of wind energy projects

 “ . . . I don’t think it’s a good idea.”  (referring to Wagner’s S.B. 324; see topic below)

“ . . . Sen. Frank Wagner can talk all he wants, but he doesn’t know anymore about windmills than I do.”

Read Complete Interview: The Recorder

[Top]

---

"McBride Bill" Would Allow Highland New Wind To Dodge SCC Conditions

Senator Frank Wagner has introduced a bill in the Virginia General Assembly that will exempt from any State Corporation Commission oversight or approval, all electric generating facilities fueled by renewable resources, with a rated capacity of 50 megawatts or less.

S.B. 324 is known as the “McBride Bill” because it is clearly intended either to overturn or to supplant the SCC decision in the Highland New Wind Case. Lawyers for Henry McBride, the developer of Highland New Wind, have complained that wildlife monitoring and mitigation conditions attached to the SCC approval of the 39 megawatt project have made it unattractive to investors. (See the article below for a description of the SCC conditions.)

McBride must raise more than 60 million dollars to go forward with the project in the face of wildlife mortality issues and risks to endangered species.

Frank Wagner, State Senator from Virginia Beach, has testified against strict conditions on behalf of Highland New Wind before the SCC.

S.B. 324 has broad implications beyond the effect on the proposed Highland County wind project. It could, for example, result in a proliferation 50 megawatt or less wind farms with no real control other than local zoning laws. Given that the bill will also apply to generation fueled by any "renewable resource” there is no way to predict the mischief the bill could generate. Municipal waste, for example, is considered a renewable resource.

There is no comprehensive and reliable state level environmental review of wind energy projects other than that by the SCC, which may be minimal unless concerned citizens have the resources to hire the lawyers and experts needed to participate effectively as formal respondents. The Highland New Wind review by the SCC involved great expense on the part of concerned citizens.

It remains to be seen which, if any, “environmental” groups will support the “McBride Bill.”

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, for example, a Maryland based program with growing Virginia influence, is aggressively promoting commercial wind development in Virginia. CCAN promoted the Highland New Wind Project and was dismissive of both wildlife concerns and project opponents.

CCAN campaigned successfully in Maryland for legislation that prohibits the state wildlife agency from participating in the Maryland Public Service Commission review of wind projects.

S.B. 324

For updates see News and Commentary

[Top]

---

SCC Grants Conditional Approval to Highland New Wind

- imposes monitoring and mitigation requirements for the life of project

- includes elements that the developer claims will likely prevent project from becoming a reality

- affirms risk to project associated with Endangered Species Act noncompliance

The State Corporation Commission has granted conditional approval for the 39-MW Highland New Wind Development project that, if actually developed, will involve construction of twenty 400-foot turbines and associated infrastructure in the remote and ecologically unique northwest corner of Virginia’s Highland County.

The conditional approval imposes monitoring and mitigation requirements that Highland New Wind claims will cause “every potential investor in the wind market [to] lose interest in the Project . . . .”

Although the SCC asserted no authority to require the applicant to enter into a Habitat Conservation Plan and obtain an Incidental Take Permit attendant to the Endangered Species Act, the SCC did characterize Highland New Wind’s apparent refusal to do so as “a business risk voluntarily assumed by Highland Wind, which may impact the viability of the project. . . .”

The SCC acknowledged the significant risk to bats and birds that will result from the Highland New Wind project and refused to accept the “downsized” monitoring and mitigation plan proposed by the developer. The SCC instead adopted the plan recommended by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and further provided that limits on the cost of the plan may be adjusted if necessary. Despite objections raised by the developer, the DGIF has been assigned responsibility for implementing both the monitoring and mitigation portions of the required plan. Key elements of the plan include:

• Daily monitoring for bird and bat mortality at 10 randomly selected turbines from April 1 – October 30
• Daily monitoring for raptor mortality at 10 randomly selected turbines from November 15- March 31
• Unrestricted access to the project site by the DGIF or its designees to conduct research on wildlife passage rates, site utilization, and management of wind energy production impacts on wildlife
• Development of annual project mitigation or curtailment plans addressing seasonal migration and ensuring achievement of specified mortality thresholds for birds and bats
• Immediate notification to the DGIF and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the event that endangered bat species or protected raptors are killed at the project
• Additional species-specific fees for each raptor killed at the facility

Upper limits or caps to the cost of monitoring and mitigation are established by the order. In response to concern that the cost caps may not be protective if “bird and bat carnage continues to exceed target levels,” the SCC provided that the DGIF can request adjustment after three years. This provision prompted a dissenting opinion by one of the SCC commissioners, who argued that it creates untenable financial uncertainty, leaves the plan wide open for future modifications, and creates “a situation where potential investors simply will not know the limits to which operation of the project may be curtailed. . . .”

More information see
SCC Final Order
SCC Press Release
Developer Press Release
Roanoke Times
Associated Press
Daily News Record

For updates see News and Commentary

[Top]

---

Citizens argue that wind project
requires Endangered Species Act
(ESA) permit

"The [SCC Hearing Examiner's] report acknowledges that the project presents risks to endangered species but then ignores recommendations of state and federal wildlife agencies and other expert testimony by failing to require that HNWD obtain an incidental take permit. . . ."

"The record is replete with evidence that the project, if constructed, will result in a take of an endangered species. . . . "

"Throughout these proceedings HNWD has ignored the application of the ESA and the repeated warnings and recommendations of the wildlife agencies. It can no longer do so. . . ."

- from comments submitted to State Corporation Commission by attorneys for Highland Citizens

For more information see comments to SCC:

Highland Citizens
The Nature Conservancy
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
SCC Staff
Highland New Wind

and

The Recorder

[TOP]

---

Wildlife monitoring requirement may "scare away investors"

The Hearing Examiner for the State Corporation Commission has issued findings and recommendations concerning wildlife risks associated with the proposed Highland New Wind project. He found that the project represents "a significant risk to bats, and a lesser risk to birds." His recommendations include monitoring for the life of the project and unrestricted access to the project site for state and federal authorities.

The Hearing Examiner also recommended that the project obtain an "incidental take" permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and create a Habitat
Conservation Plan to avoid risk of shut-down and penalties.

The developer's attorney has objected to what he termed a "bat tax" and the possibility that the cost of monitoring and mitigation could "scare away investors." Energy industry spokesman, Frank Maisano, has expressed a similar concern: ". . . I'm saying it could threaten the viability of the project."

As described previously (see the "Front Page" topic below), the real problem for Highland New Wind and other Appalachian region wind projects is not the cost of monitoring wildlife impact. The real problem is that stringent monitoring will document unacceptable levels of wildlife mortality.

For more information, see:
Hearing Examiner's Report
The Recorder
The Roanoke Times
The Richmond Times Dispatch

[Top]

---

It's the monitoring data that may put
the project at risk, not the monitoring costs

Due to very high concentrations of birds and bats at the site of the proposed Highland New Wind project in Virginia's Highland County, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) has argued in testimony to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) that the project presents an unacceptable risk to wildlife --unless effective monitoring and mitigation requirements are imposed. The developer has countered with testimony claiming that the monitoring and mitigation recommendations of both the VDGIF and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) would put the project at financial risk. However, the SCC has released financial information for the project that suggests otherwise.

In a brief, which was unintentionally posted by the SCC on its website, TNC argued that "the cost of monitoring and mitigating the environmental risk this project poses to bats, even if continued at the maximum levels suggested by the Conservancy for the 20-year life of the project, would amount to approximately 2.5 percent of the project's annual revenues during the first three years of its operation and less than 1.5 percent of revenues thereafter."

This is covered in detail in an article and editorial in The Recorder, the weekly newspaper that serves Highland County (see the red text near the end of both).

Additional information on this topic is provided in an article in the Roanoke Times.

The TNC Brief

[Top]

---

Behold the giants: the potential impacts of wind energy on wildlife

Wildlife Professional, Summer 2007
The Wildlife Society

With the wind energy industry expanding rapidly to meet the world’s rising demand for energy, researchers are trying to move quickly to get a better grasp on how to minimize wildlife mortality and habitat impacts that seem to inevitably accompany wind facilities.

Complete article with annotations

[Top]

---

Raptors and Wind Energy Development in the Central Appalachians:
Where We Stand on the Issue

Authors: Todd Katzner, David Brandes,
Michael Lanzone, Trish Miller, Dan Ombalski

On migration routes of high ecological significance . . . wind energy facilities should be constructed only if replicated studies show conclusively that there will not be harm to natural resources - birds, bats, habitat, etc. In these cases there must be an especially high burden of proof to show that harm will not be caused.

Complete statement

[Top]

---

Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses

Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2007; 5(6): 315-324.

Authors: Thomas H Kunz, Edward B Arnett, Wallace P Erickson, Alexander R Hoar, Gregory D Johnson, Ronald P Larkin, M Dale Strickland, Robert W Thresher, and Merlin D Tuttle

Abstract:  At a time of growing concern over the rising costs and long-term environmental impacts of the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy, wind energy has become an increasingly important sector of the electrical power industry, largely because it has been promoted as being emission-free and is supported by government subsidies and tax credits. However, large numbers of bats are killed at utility-scale wind energy facilities, especially along forested ridgetops in the eastern United States. These fatalities raise important concerns about cumulative impacts of proposed wind energy development on bat populations. This paper summarizes evidence of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in the US, makes projections of cumulative fatalities of bats in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, identifies research needs, and proposes hypotheses to better inform researchers, developers, decision makers, and other stakeholders, and to help minimize adverse effects of wind energy development.

Complete Article

[Top]

---

Wind project developer seeks to avoid wildlife protection measures

The Virginia State Corporation Commission is hearing testimony on the proposed Highland New Wind project on Tuesday, July 17, at its Richmond office building. If the Highland County project goes forward, it will be Virginia’s first utility-scale wind project.

Highland New Wind is testifying that it cannot afford wildlife protections recommended by wildlife agencies, conservation groups, and citizen respondents in the case now before the Virginia State Corporation Commission.

Despite the prospects of government incentives, which would cover the majority of development costs, it remains a marginal project, promising negligible benefits and huge environmental costs.

“This project is simply a bad investment for the wind industry and a bad precedent for the Commonwealth,” says Rick Webb, co-manager of Virginia Wind and co-author of a National Academies report on environmental impacts of wind projects. “If it goes forward, it can only damage the concept of green energy.”

The proposed Highland New Wind project would involve twenty 400-foot turbines on two ridges in the Laurel Fork area of Virginia’s least populated county, an area noted for its high mountain scenery and wildlife abundance. Limited studies conducted by the developer indicate that the project site may have the highest numbers of migrating birds and bats among all wind project sites in the eastern United States.

Multiple agencies and organizations have presented testimony about the proposed project to the State Corporation Commission.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service : recommends that wind energy developers avoid wildlife concentration areas, and that development only occur after multi-year and multi-season study of wildlife use. Highland New Wind must obtain a Habitat Conservation Plan required by the Endangered Species Act.

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries : indicates that wildlife mortality at the proposed site may exceed that of all other sites in the eastern U.S. and that without effective monitoring and mitigation measures, the project presents “unacceptable risks.” Continuous monitoring for the life of the project should be required, with project curtailment when mortality thresholds are exceeded.

The Nature Conservancy : provides estimates that as many as 64,000 bats will be killed each year given the number of wind turbines projected for construction by 2020 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Unless solutions are found, the proposed Highland New Wind project will contribute to this “intolerable situation.”

Highland Citizens : argues that Highland New Wind “has tried to provide as little information as possible in an effort to manipulate and limit the review process.”

Virginia Wind : estimates that Highland New Wind will provide less than one-tenth of one-percent of the Commonwealth’s annual electricity needs, and even that small amount will not be available during the peak summer demand period when commonly the wind is not blowing.

This project clearly tests the limits of public support for wind development.

Virginia Wind takes the position that meaningful steps must be taken to solve our energy problem and address air pollution and climate change. The Highland New Wind project is a step in the wrong direction.

Virginia Wind New Release

Summary of Pre-Filed Testimony

[Top]

---

Open letter to Mr. Frank Maisano, spokesperson for Appalachian wind developers

Wind energy promoters assert that construction of wind turbines on Appalachian ridges will reduce or prevent mountaintop removal and the other destructive effects of our reliance on coal as an energy source.

For example, the Summer 2007 issue of UVA Magazine includes an article titled, Wind Chill, in which Mr. Alden Hathaway, a wind energy broker, is reported to estimate that each wind turbine offsets the need for 40 to 50 acres of coalfield.

We offered to publish any analysis that Mr. Hathaway could provide in support of this estimate.

Mr. Hathaway responded, stating that he does not recall making such an estimate, and he instead offered analysis showing that each wind turbine will potentially save 18 acres of coalfield.

We thank Mr. Hathaway for providing this clarification. However, he still presents an unrealistically high estimate of mountaintop removal offset. We have prepared a critique of his analysis.

The Hathaway analysis

The Virginia Wind critique

[Top]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agency Comments and Review Material

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
030106
073006

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
022406
052406
092006
061807

Virginia Department of Conservation

Virginia Department of Historic Resources
022306
022008

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2003 2005 2006

National Park Service

Army Corps of Engineers

Highland New Wind

Twenty 400-foot turbines would be distributed on high-elevation pastures in the Laurel Fork watershed, one of the most remote, undisturbed, and ecologically unique areas in Virginia. Concerns about potential adverse effects of the project have been raised by a broad range of agencies and organizations.

 

Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries:

“. . .  the Highland Project has passage rate indices ranging from 36-80% greater than comparable sites. These data demonstrate the importance of this site as migratory pathway for bats and birds . . . . We believe this may translate into the highest mortality rates in the east.”

Additional concerns about impacts to natural and cultural resources have been raised by:  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,  the Virginia Division of Historic Resources,  The Nature Conservancy,  the Virginia Society of Ornithology,  the National Trust for Historic Preservation,  the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Valley Conservation Council,  Scenic Virginia,  and others.

---

Highland County is known for its scenic beauty and unique habitat that supports a diverse animal population. From the outset of the SCC process, HNWD has tried to provide as little information as possible in an effort to manipulate and limit the review process. DEQ, DGIF and DCR have all stated that the information submitted by HNWD was not sufficient for them to determine the impact upon wildlife but that the information that was provided indicated that there is a likelihood of significant bat and bird mortality. - from Post-Hearing Brief, Highland Citizens, 01/19/07

Basis for estimation that
4317 turbines would be needed
to meet a 12.5% RPS in Virginia
in 2015

Estimated electricity consumption for 2015:

136,129,411 MWhs
 
This is based on projecting from 2001 consumption given 2.52% annual growth in demand (the average growth rate for 1992 through 2001).
 
The annual production for a 1.5 MW turbine:

  1.5MW x .30 (capacity factor) x 365 days x 24 hours/day = 3942 MWhs per turbine per year

Given that the annual capacity factor for turbines in the mid Appalachian region is 30%.

The number of turbines to supply 12.5% of estimated 2015 electricity consumption:
 
(136,129,411 MWhs x 0.125) / 3942 MWhs/turbine = 4317 turbines
 
4317 turbines at 8 turbines per mile of ridgeline
= 540 miles of ridgeline

To put this in perspective:
540 miles is more than 5 times the length of the Shenandoah National Park

---

Renewable
portfolio standard legislation would require industrial wind development in Virginia.

The Cart Before the Horse
The need for objective study.

Regional Projections
Turbines to satisfy RPS requirements in 2030.

Potential Contribution of Onshore Wind Development to
Virginia’s Projected Monthly Electricity Demand in 2015
Estimates indicate that onshore wind capacity is equivalent to 3.6% of Virginia's 2015 demand. Any additional requirement would need to be satisfied by development in the bay or offshore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

objectives of Virginia wind

• To provide access to a Landscape Classification System for environmentally responsible siting of utility-scale wind projects in Virginia.
  
  
• To provide a technical and policy oriented synthesis of available information on utility-scale wind energy development and associated environmental impacts in Virginia and the central Appalachian region.
  
  
• To promote awareness of the need for effective environmental assessment prior to utility-scale wind development in the region.

We are guided by the Precautionary Principle, wherein "if we have reasonable suspicion of harm, accompanied by scientific uncertainty, then we all have a duty to take action to prevent harm."

We remain hopeful that the wind industry will embrace the principle of precaution and stand as a role-model for other industries by taking strong and proactive steps to prevent environmental harm.  

We intend to continue work on the Landscape Classification System and to promote effective assessment of environmental issues related to wind energy development. We envision this website and the Landscape Classification System as works in progress, and we invite feedback and comments.

News Reports