Resisting the wind

Burlington Free Press, July 24, 2004

A civil war is raging within the nation's environmental community over the future of wind energy. Vermont is certain to be a major battleground in this bitter struggle between competing environmental values.

For some environmentalists, wind is a good way to reduce America 's dependence on fossil-fueled power plants, nuclear energy and other common means to generate electricity. Instead of pollution-belching smokestacks, gargantuan windmill farms clustered on open prairies, along mountain ridges and on ocean-bound platforms would supply a larger percentage of America 's energy needs.

Other environmentalists, however, see wind power as an assault on natural aesthetics, a threat to the tourist industry in rural areas, a mortal danger to wildlife and a huge government boondoggle that is enriching some of the world's largest corporations.

The controversy has become heated in recent months as several wind power projects began moving from the planning and design phases to actual construction. In Massachusetts , environmentalists have squared off over a plan to put the nation's first offshore windfarm five miles from Cape Cod . In Vermont , several wind programs are advancing, including proposals for facilities on Magic Mountain in Londonderry and the Lowell Mountain range in Orleans County .

Much of the impetus behind wind energy comes from state and federal governments, which have jointly given the industry attractive incentives -- including financial subsidies and favorable public policies -- to encourage its development. The 2003 Legislature enacted a renewable energy bill to promote wind and other power alternatives.

Aside from its mixed impact on the environment -- the Sierra Club describes windmills as "Cuisinarts of the air" because so many hapless birds fly into their rotating blades -- wind power faces heavy skepticism due to economics. Even with a variety of federal subsidies, notably a 1.7-cent tax credit for every kilowatt produced and an accelerated depreciation schedule, wind power is still generally more expensive than conventional energy sources.

A major worry is that wind power will become another version of the ethanol program, which has cost American taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars in the name of energy independence and helping the American farmer. While ethanol, a grain-derived fuel, has had minimal impact on easing oil imports or helping agriculture, it has been a financial bonanza for Archer Daniels Midland and other politically influential agribusinesses that make the gasoline substitute.

Likewise, such large corporations as General Electric are heavily invested in wind energy, and many of the utility industry's biggest players intend to benefit from its growth. In effect, environmentalists who support preferential treatment and government subsidies for wind power are abetting a massive corporate welfare scheme.

Over the next few months, wind energy will rise to the top of the state agenda. The Public Service Board is studying the financial viability of wind energy for Vermont . The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is drafting a policy on placement of wind turbines in the state.

The cost issue is especially relevant in Vermont , where utility expenses are high on the list of complaints about the state's business climate. Wind power also needs to be assessed to its potential damage to the state's natural beauty -- tourists do not come from highly suburban and urban states to see industrial equipment atop mountains. It's absurd for a state that bans billboards to embrace unsightly wind towers.

Based on current experience, Vermonters are right to doubt that the answer to reliable and affordable electricity is blowing in the wind.