A Windstorm’s A Brewin’
by John Weckerle
We here at New Mexico Central continue to be concerned about the process by which the Town of Edgewood is examining its stance with respect to wind energy. The Town’s various committees, subcommittees, and appointed officials who have dealt with this issue to date (this does not, in this case apparently include the Mayor) appear unconcerned with concerns raised by NM-Central.com and others regarding environmental and other effects associated with various wind-related energy strategies. Having reviewed the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance, we sadly find the Town’s approach to be unenlightened, inadequately inquisitive, and environmentally irresponsible – not to mention unresponsive to public concerns that have been expressed to date. The proposed legislation reads as if it were written by wind energy interests, and we begin to wonder what relationships some of the energy committee members may have with the wind power industry or whether there are other potential conflicts of interest involved. While we applaud the Town’s interest in renewable energy and support responsibly sited wind projects, we do not endorse the Town’s approach and have submitted a New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act request for all documents associated with this legislation in the hope of ascertaining just how this regrettable situation has come to pass. A public hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, October 7, and we hope that those who are concerned about wildlife impacts, effects on property values, and other potential problems that may result from this ordinance revision will attend and let their voices be heard. We also hope that the Town Council, when formally presented with this ordinance, will take the time to truly consider all the relevant factors – something that the committees involved have not done, in our opinion. In the meantime, we leave our readers with this article on building-integrated wind turbines, which contains some fascinating information on small wind turbine performance in general. Caveat emptor, Edgewood!
5 Responses “A Windstorm’s A Brewin’”
There is something dangerously seductive about the appeal of wind ~ the (false) promise of something for nothing ~ and renewable to boot, like the magical cauldron that never empties no matter how many servings … Imagine how tempting in this economy.
So in ten years when the population has doubled, what do we use for fuel? Do we want Nuclear reactors or Coal-fired electric plants?
Solar alone will not suffice. I recommend waiting for the latest data from the energy committee and pro or con, going with their recommendations. They have been working on this for a long time and John Abrams, their chairman, has no vested realator interests. Think about your grand children 20 years from now. Wind may just be the only answer?
Again, I support properly sited and configured wind projects. I do not, however, feel that we should simply do anything simply because some people think it feels right. In order to be an acceptable solution, wind projects should be configured so as not to threaten biodiversity or create other problems. Turbines should not be permitted in areas with a high probability of being raptor nesting areas or those where raptors frequently hunt, nor should they be permitted in areas that may be described as migratory flyways. I also feel that the interests of landowners surrounding proposed projects, residential or otherwise, should not be summarily dismissed as inconsequential.
The energy committee has ignored or summarily dismissed the legitimate issues of raptor fatalities and impacts to surrounding properties, and produced an ordinance that places few restrictions whatsoever on turbine height or tower design other than a requirement that towers be positioned 1.1 times their height from the property line. The attractive nuisance issue is partly addressed, but lattice-type towers should be specifically prohibited. If the Town is willing to place restrictions on sign size and height based on location, it surely recognizes that some things are appropriate in certain areas but not in others. That understanding should be carried into the process of developing this ordinance.
As for raising the specter of nuclear, coal, and so on, this seems to be a common response nearly every time questions are raised regarding renewable energy projects. I consider it a dodge. I acknowledge that solar can’t do everything (neither can solar and wind together), and that wind energy should be an important part of the future global energy portfolio. I also believe it should be done responsibly. Now what I’d like is a response to the concerns about potential environmental and other impacts.
I absolutely disagree with the thought that we should simply go along with a committee’s recommendations simply because they have been working on something for a long time and the chairman is believed to have no “vested realtor interests.” If one feels that the committee has not adequately considered the relevant factors, one has every right and responsibility to disagree – and if this ordinance is what the committee recommends, then I most vehemently disagree.
You wrote: The proposed legislation reads as if it were written by wind energy interests, and we begin to wonder what relationships some of the energy committee members may have with the wind power industry or whether there are other potential conflicts of interest involved.
I say that it would actually be most helpful if you could go beyond innuendo and identify who you believe might have undesirable relationships or conflicts of interest. Or,at the very least explain why and how you have come to state such.
While your link to the article at th3 “green” site might be helpful, I doubt that most will care to pay $12.95 to read several articles on the subject, much less a single article.
Oddly, that article was free when I read it. I’m sorry they now feel obliged to charge money for it, because it was very informative and easy to read. I certainly wouldn’t have paid $12.95 for it, though.
As to conflict of interest questions: There is no implication that any particular member of the committee is doing anything untoward, but the way this ordinance does raise, at least in me, some question as to why such an unbalanced piece of legislation is being proposed. Biodiversity and other environmental issues are legitimate and should be accounted for in the legislation. So should the legitimate concerns of current residents with respect to the quiet enjoyment of their own properties. This isn’t to say that a landscape dotted with wind turbines would be unattractive – but a wind turbine and associated tower at a distance are substantially different from one next door. Something in the middle of one’s view of South Mountain may not seem like a big deal to some of us, but problems like shadow flicker and noise can be real problems affecting property value and the right to quiet enjoyment of property by neighbors.
I believe that the energy committee’s purpose in developing this ordinance should have been to allow for properly sited wind projects, and I find it disappointing to see that it took a “one-size-fits-all” approach to what is a complex subject. With proper attention to details and inclusion of adequate provisions for wildlife protection and potential impacts to neighbors, this could have been an excellent ordinance. While I applaud the effort and willingness to serve on the part of the committee members, I do not feel that the proposed ordinance adequately addresses legitimate issues associated with residential wind power – and it could have. Perhaps I’m getting cynical in my old age, but to me this at least raises the question of industry involvement, activism, or advocacy in the development of the ordinance. That may or may not be appropriate, but I’d be more comfortable if I knew the specifics.
I’ve submitted a NMIPRA request to the Town and have asked for, as part of it, disclosure of any relationships on the part of the Town officials involved with advocacy groups as well as business or employment relationships with wind industry interests. The Town’s response has not included any such information. Neither have the materials provided to date included anything that suggests that the Town has conducted any serious studies or investigations on the issues I raised, nor does the Town appear to have consulted with any experts on those issues.
Perhaps my criticism has seemed a bit harsh at times, and I certainly apologize if anyone’s feelings have been hurt – but I have never received any response from the Town to the comments I submitted, nor have my concerns been addressed. Under the circumstances, a certain increase in the rhetoric is not uncommon. Ignoring concerns expressed by concerned members of the public is always a risky strategy.