Hi all --

As many of you know, I am on the MOS State Conservation Committee. One of the issues we have been following is the attempt to build wind-generating stations along mountain ridges in Maryland. There is considerable controversy about this as some very well-respected ornithologists, among them Chan Robbins, feel these structures present a serious danger to migrating birds. On the other hand, many environmental groups support the concept of wind energy as an alternative to fossil-fuel generated power. The compromise has been to insist that placement and construction of such wind farms be subject to appropriate environmental review, including possible impacts on migrating birds and bats, as well as to ridge-top forest habitat for species such as Cerulean Warbler. There are also land-value and scenic issues which are not directly of concern to MOS, although could affect public access and use of lands in the state.

Unfortunately, it appears as if two bills are now in front of the Maryland legislature which would exempt wind generating projects from public review and comment. An alert from Alex Eastman was sent to MOS committee Chair Maureen Harvey and she has asked me to forward it to MDosprey for your information, and action if you feel it is appropraite.

It is the opinion of the MOS environmental committee that exempting any project with the strong possibility of impacts on migrant birds should be subject to close scientific review by state agencies, and should also be done in the open, with appropriate public input by affected groups. This does not mean MOS opposes wind-power generation but has concerns about siting and project review. There will be hearings on February 27 in Annapolis.

Anyway, here's the information;

Gail Mackiernan
Colesville, MD 

 IMPORTANT ALERT:  
HB 1072 AND SB 566 WOULD EXPEDITE WIND PROJECTS WITHOUT PUBLIC REVIEW
     
    HB 1072 and SB 566 are really bad bills that exempt wind generating stations (read 450 foot turbines) from the obligation of obtaining a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN).  What that means is that all an applicant for a wind project has to do is request a construction permit from the Public Service Commission that doesn't require any public review or notification of the public or adjacent land owners whose property values will plummet.  Nor would there be any environmental review of such impacts as those upon wildlife, endangered species, or forest fragmentation.  The bills look innocent enough.  It is just a matter of adding some new language to the existing Public Utility Companies Article in the Annotated Code of Maryland and the wheels are greased for the wind industry. 
    Another reason to be alarmed is that by squashing any public input, the truth about the ineffectiveness of wind energy is never considered.  Wind power is generally accepted as a viable solution to global warming and those of us who oppose the projects such as those in Western Maryland's Allegany Ridges have been condemned as heretics.  My initial opposition was based on Chan Robbins' testimony about those ridges serving as major corridors for migrating birds.  Erecting 450 turbines has the potential to serve as gauntlets through which the birds and bats would have to navigate.  I also opposed the idea of creating large clearcuts and further fragmenting forests that are becoming rare, yet are necessary for successful breeding of interior dwelling creatures.  
    I have since learned more about the true nature of wind.  Because the winds are so variable and produce the least amount of wind in the summer when the demand for electrical power is the greatest, wind energy is simply not a reliable source of energy for the electrical grid that supplies power to Maryland and multiple other states.  In order to make up for the lack of wind generated power when the winds aren't blowing, substitute sources of energy must be added which would most likely be more power plants driven by fossil fuels. Why then, construct such an energy source in the first place?  Large tax incentives seem to be a driving force.  
    
Both bills are scheduled for hearings simultaneously in the respective houses on Tuesday, February 27 at 1 pm. Please come and testify against this egregious disregard of the public process.  If you cant come, please contact your legislators and oppose HB 1072 and SB 566. 
 
Ajax Eastman
February 22, 2007