Liberals block renewable energy

Typical Liberals, Democrats, anti-technology Greens, environmentalists and NIMBY's block wind generation and transmission infrastructure.

This article is from the Wall Street Journal August 18, 2008. Link to article : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901822110148233.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
All credit goes to WSJ.

Wind Jammers
August 18, 2008

In this year's great energy debate, Democrats describe a future when the U.S. finally embraces the anything-but-carbon avant-garde. It turns out, however, that when wind and solar power do start to come on line, they face a familiar obstacle: environmentalists and many Democrats.

To wit, the greens are blocking the very transmission network needed for renewable electricity to move throughout the economy. The best sites for wind and solar energy happen to be in the sticks -- in the desert Southwest where sunlight is most intense for longest, or the plains where the wind blows most often. To exploit this energy, utilities need to build transmission lines to connect their electricity to the places where consumers actually live. In addition to other technical problems, the transmission gap is a big reason wind only provides two-thirds of 1% of electricity generated in the U.S., and solar one-tenth of 1%.

Only last week, Duke Energy and American Electric Power announced a $1 billion joint venture to build a mere 240 miles of transmission line in Indiana necessary to accommodate new wind farms. Yet the utilities don't expect to be able to complete the lines for six long years -- until 2014, at the earliest, because of the time necessary to obtain regulatory approval and rights-of-way, plus the obligatory lawsuits.

In California, hundreds turned out at the end of July to protest a connection between the solar and geothermal fields of the Imperial Valley to Los Angeles and Orange County. The environmental class is likewise lobbying state commissioners to kill a 150-mile link between San Diego and solar panels because it would entail a 20-mile jaunt through Anza-Borrego state park. "It's kind of schizophrenic behavior," Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently. "They say that we want renewable energy, but we don't want you to put it anywhere."

California has a law mandating that utilities generate 20% of their electricity from "clean-tech" by 2010. Some 24 states have adopted a "renewable portfolio standard," while Barack Obama wants to impose a national renewable mandate. But the states, with the exception of Texas, didn't make transmission lines easier to build, though it won't prevent them from penalizing the power companies that fail to meet an impossible goal.

Texas is now the wind capital of America (though wind still generates only 3% of state electricity) because it streamlined the regulatory and legal snarls that block transmission in other states. By contrast, though Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Ed Rendell adopted wind power as a main political plank, he and Senator Bob Casey are leading a charge to repeal a 2005 law that makes transmission lines slightly easier to build.

Wind power has also become contentious in oh-so-green Oregon, once people realized that transmission lines would cut through forests. Transmissions lines from a wind project on the Nevada-Idaho border are clogged because of possible effects on the greater sage grouse. Similar melodramas are playing out in Arizona, the Dakotas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, West Virginia, northern Maine, upstate New York, and elsewhere.

In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don't have.

Typical anti-technology hypocritical libs. They are for renewable energy but it cannot be seen or heard. How will electricity be transmitted? Last time I looked, transmission lines are the ONLY way to do this. Do greenies know how electricity is generated and transmitted? Do greenies know that we are using the same electrical transmission lines that were built in the 1950's and hardly any new lines have been built to handle current day electrical loads?

You cannot bury high voltage transmission lines like your buried residential 220V lines that go to your house. It is too hard to maintain and the risks to the people and the grid is too high.

Electricity is the backbone of life here in America.

I guess the greenies do not remember the 2003 blackouts that California was struck with. Electricity from the Pacific North West goes down to California via two high transmission lines. If one of those lines go down, LA and probably the rest of southern California is screwed since the other line cannot handle the load. I doubt the power lines from Nevada/Arizona could handle the load.

In closing, improving an old infrastructure is great and once again the people who would rather let us sit in darkness of the 18th century reveal themselves as liberals. What was the name of that guy who uses 200+ kilowatt hours a month on his house...

"Washington stormwater rules hit state highway department; Department of Transportation permit will run about $16M to implement"

The out-of-control state bureaucracy is eating itself now. The headline should read, "Department of Transportation permit will cost taxpayers about $16M a year to implement," however, because WSDOT doesn't actually generate a profit. We pay the bills through our nationally-high gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. So who do you think will be picking up this new tab?

This stormwater monster needs to have a stake driven through its heart and fast, before it destroys the whole state.

From yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Washington State Department of Transportation soon will expand its regulation of stormwater runoff from state highways, park-and-ride lots, ferry terminals, maintenance facilities and rest stops.

The state Department of Ecology has drafted a stormwater permit specific to WSDOT that likely will go into effect in July.

The permit is equivalent to one issued to the city of Pullman in February 2007, designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge into waterways. Ecology also is pressing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue Moscow a similar permit because of its effect on area rivers and streams across the Washington border.

State Transportation Communications Director Lloyd Brown said how the pending permit will affect the Pullman area - and specifically the Pullman-Moscow Highway and the adjacent Paradise Creek - is unknown. The highway's recent widening project was constructed using best management practices and likely won't need to be retrofitted to meet the new permit's requirements.

"We're not new to stormwater management. We've had stormwater practices in place for two decades or more," he said. "We know the effect of stormwater on the local environment."

Brown said the new permit is expected to cost the transportation department nearly $16 million more per year to implement. Most of the costs will come from increased inspection and maintenance, along with the additional inventory and mapping duties to ensure stormwater runoff is managed and properly disposed of. The department has up to 24,000 discharge points into state waterways which will need increased monitoring.

Brown said the two state agencies are expected to work together with state legislators to find money to pay for the expanded permit program.

Bill Hashim, an environmental planner with the Department of Ecology, said most state highway infrastructure was built before the federal Clean Water Act was set in motion, which means that some older, existing highways may need to be upgraded to meet the requirements of new stormwater standards.

"A rule of thumb is if you own a place where water flows, whether or not you generate it, it's your problem," Hashim said. That means the stormwater that runs across the Pullman-Moscow Highway before it enters Paradise Creek "is their problem."

Brown said the new permit will replace the transportation department's existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Many cities on the state's west side are expected to meet similar regulations as part of Ecology's municipal stormwater permit Phase 1. Cities in the eastern portion of the state were issued similar permits during Phase 2 in 2007.

Hashim said it makes sense to issue the transportation department its own permit.

"Since their highway system is so unlike any municipalities and their facilities are so unlike a municipalities, we wanted to tailor a permit for them," he said.

Hashim said the department will be required to increase its testing of stormwater into area waterways for both the type and amount of pollution found in runoff and the effectiveness of best management practices. Whether or not this testing will occur along Paradise Creek has yet to be determined. He said the transportation department will choose five testing sites statewide and have been asked to choose an eastern Washington location where traffic counts are between 30,000-100,000 vehicles per day.

"The potential could be that the urbanizing corridor between Moscow and Pullman could be chosen," he said. "My guess is that it will be the Spokane area or the Pullman area that they pick."

A comment period opened Wednesday to allow for public input of the drafted permit. It is available online at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/wsdot.html.

Written and oral comments on the drafted permit will be accepted through 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24 to Hashim at bhas461@ecy.wa.gov, or by mail to P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA. 98504. Two workshops also have been scheduled to further explain the permit and answer questions from the public. The workshop for this region will be at 1 p.m., June 4 in Spokane at the Spokane Shadle Library.

After the workshops, Ecology will weigh public comment and concern and draft a formal permit, which likely will go into effect by July, Hashim said.

"Washington State Department of Ecology sets its sights on Moscow; Agency urges EPA to issue stormwater permit across state line"

It's always a bit weird to read a news story that I know I had a hand in making.

At a December 2006 Pullman Town Hall meeting, I spoke against the Department of Ecology's proposed stormwater permitting for Pullman. I said it would stop needed growth in Pullman and lead to development heading over to Moscow.

Afterwards, I spoke at length about my concerns with David Duncan and three other representatives of the Department of Ecology. One asked me if Moscow were subjected to the same requirements, would that be more fair and ease the pain a bit. Of course, at that time, Moscow had been egregiously interfering in the corridor, opposing James Toyota and the Hawkins development partially based on stormwater concerns. I figured what was good for the goose was good for the gander and said, sure, let Moscow be hoisted on its own petard. Since that time, Ecology employees have been regular readers of Palousitics I have logged somer 25 distinct IP addresses from DOE (it's the 39th highest source of blog traffic.) Has this had anything to do with their thoughts about Moscow? I don't know, but at least partially perhaps.

My stance was validated several months later when Moscow said it would actively oppose stormwater permitting by the EPA, in essence rejecting for itself the standards it was demanding for Whitman County. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

But, after last November's Moscow City Council election, things have changed dramatically. Moscow is now no longer opposing growth in the corridor, but is actively helping it. The Cold War is over.

On the one hand, I think that requiring stormwater permitting for Moscow will maintain a level playing field, reducing the temptation for businesses to locate or relocate there.

On the other hand, stormwater permitting for both cities will just drive all business away from the Palouse when its not necessary, either for us or for Moscow.

Ecology's offer to nail Moscow is nothing more than a bit of disingenuous sugar to make the castor oil go down better. I agree with Keith Bloom that the ultimate win/win is that NEITHER CITY should be forced to comply with the regulations.

From Saturday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Washington State Department of Ecology leaders believe Moscow should be held just as accountable for the quality of its stormwater runoff as in Pullman.

David Duncan, an ecologist with the Water Quality Program in Spokane, said the state supports the possibility of the Environmental Protection Agency's listing Moscow as a small municipal stormwater entity. The designation would force Moscow to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and develop a comprehensive stormwater management program.

Duncan said Moscow should be issued a permit out of fairness because of its proximity to Pullman and because the two cities share waterways. Pullman was issued a stormwater permit by the Department of Ecology in February 2007 as part of a mandatory, statewide program.

The requirements, which Duncan said could be viewed as more stringent than federal guidelines, are intended to help municipalities detect and eliminate illegal discharges, reduce contamination of downstream waters, create good housekeeping practices for existing systems and educate the public.

"We believe ... there should be fairness across the state line," said Duncan, adding that Lewiston was issued an EPA stormwater permit because of its proximity to the Washington cities of Clarkston and Asotin. "At the department, people all the way up to the top think Moscow is a significant stormwater pollutant contributor ... We're regulating Pullman, and we think there's a justification that Moscow be included too."

The Moscow City Council sent a letter to the EPA in August, requesting the city not be required to obtain a permit and citing a list of current and proposed steps it is taking to regulate its stormwater.

Misha Vakoc, EPA stormwater permit coordinator in Seattle, said a decision has not yet been made regarding Moscow's participation in the program. She is aware of the Department of Ecology's opinion on the issue.

The city of Pullman and other Washington municipalities are appealing the permits to the state's Pollution Control Hearings Board. Pullman city officials claim the area's unique topography, soil types and clay levels make permit compliance difficult. The hearings board has yet to render a decision on the appeal.

Duncan said Pullman was considered a "bubble city," meaning it was up to ecologists to determine whether the city emits enough pollutants into waterways to be issued a permit.

Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney said she isn't surprised that Washington state has expressed its concerns to the EPA.

"I think it's perfectly appropriate that the Department of Ecology weighs in with an opinion," she said. "If someone's fishing for animosity, it's not going to happen."

Pullman City Councilman Keith Bloom said he doesn't wish the regulations of a stormwater permit on his Moscow neighbors. Pullman may have to create a new utility to help recover the costs for the first cycle of the 5-year stormwater permit, which has been estimated to be more than $4 million to implement.

"I think that Ecology erred in applying it to Pullman and other smaller cities in eastern Washington," Bloom said. "It will hurt our economy ... Some people may say, 'If we have to clean up the water, sure, it should apply to Moscow, too.' But it's not, 'What's fair for us should be fair for them.' It's not fair for us and it's not fair for them.

"I really don't think one state's agency should be trying to influence the politics of another state ... If I was the city of Moscow, I would be a bit offended that the state of Washington is trying to (impose) their will on me."

Chaney admits an EPA stormwater permit likely would cause a financial hardship for the city, but added that the quality and quantity of water should be a consideration for all municipalities in the area.

"Something should be done," she said. "I think it's absolutely time that this become a regional conversation. We do need to be talking to each other and saying what we think."

Jim Carroll, a Department of Ecology ecologist, said he is deciphering water quality data taken from the South Fork of the Palouse River, Paradise and Missouri Flat creeks and other small tributaries in and around Pullman. The tests - conducted in 2006 and 2007 - will reveal the amount of a particular pollutant that a body of water can contain while still meeting state quality standards.

Test results are expected sometime this summer and will include the levels of bacteria, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pH, ammonia and temperature in the water.

Carroll said a testing site on Paradise Creek was set up along the Idaho border "to determine what's crossing the line into Washington." He added that the tests are not connected to the state municipal stormwater permits, but are conducted in areas that have historically not met water standards to ensure water quality throughout the Washington.

Red Stormwater Rising

Well, I hope the envirocrats at the Department of Ecology are happy. Their inane stormwater permitting is going to hurt Pullman's two most successful private businesses: Duane Brelsford, Jr.'s Corporate Pointe Developers and SEL. In fact, SEL now says it is reconsidering any further expansion in Pullman. Pullman immune from the national economic slowdown? Not for much longer....

The next time Dino Rossi is in Whitman County, we will have to plead our case to him and hope that he will provide some relief when he is (re)elected governor. It's for sure the Queen will never help us.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

PULLMAN: Stormwater costs discourage businesses

Corporate Pointe Developers, SEL among those who will have to pay the most

Duane Brelsford doesn't have much to say about Pullman's proposed stormwater utility ordinance.

The Corporate Pointe Developers president may be one of those hardest hit by the ordinance, which will charge stormwater fees to businesses and home owners within city limits.

"What can I say? We actually don't have a say," he said. "The state imposes it on the city and the city imposes it on people with impervious surfaces. No one has the money to handle this."

The fees are expected to be based on outdoor impervious surfaces, which means that Brelsford's more than 5 million square feet of property - which includes about 1,600 living units and retail spaces such as the Pullman Athletic Club and Fireside Grille - could cost him as much as $100,000 a year in fees.

Pullman leaders are drafting the ordinance that likely will be implemented by Oct. 1. Stormwater Services Manager Rob Buchert said the new utility is the city's most realistic option to recover the costs associated with the Washington State Department of Ecology-issued municipal stormwater permit. The permits were issued to municipalities throughout the state in 2007 and are designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge into area waterways.

Buchert said the city needs to bring in about $800,000 per year to pay for costs associated with the five-year permit, estimated at about $4.4 million. The utility fees will help create a new arm of the city maintenance department to oversee the nearly 1,000 stormdrains and roughly 80 pipes that discharge stormwater into area waterways and will help create a savings account to pay for costs associated with the second permit cycle, which is to begin in 2012.

Consultants aiding the city in drafting the ordinance have taken aerial photographs to calculate an estimated fee structure. They have estimated that single-family homes in Pullman have about 3,500 square feet of impervious surfaces on average, and that figure has been determined to be one equivalent billing unit at a cost of a proposed $7 per month.

For developed nonresidential property, the square footage of impervious surface would be divided by 3,500 to determine the number of billing units. Impervious surfaces include the asphalt in parking lots and roofs on structures, which do not allow water to penetrate, causing untreated runoff to stream into area waterways.

Susan Fagan, director of public affairs for Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, finds the proposed ordinance discouraging, considering the company takes measures to prevent stormwater pollution and employs the best management practices for every construction project on its Pullman campus.

"We have done a lot of stormwater pollution prevention. We care about the environment in which we operate and we care about the environment in which we live ... but this seems like overkill," she said.

Fagan said SEL owns 800,000 square feet of impervious surface, and the company could have to pay an annual stormwater utility fee of about $20,000. That additional cost could mean the company may rethink ideas to build further facilities on the campus. SEL's most recent plans included construction of a hotel to complement the SEL Event Center built in 2006.

The proposed ordinance "certainly causes us to pause and question whether we would expand in Pullman," she said. "Expansion means growth and jobs and investment in our community. And when it becomes unreasonable ... responsible businesses are going to give a lot of thought to whether or not they should expand. Every square foot you pave or put a building on, or create some impervious surface, you'll be punished."

Fagan said the costs likely will be passed on to consumers of the company's high-tech products.

"How does any company recover its costs? Either you suck it up and absorb it, or you pass it on to your customers. And anytime there's added expense, it's obviously going to impact our customers," she said.

Brelsford agreed. He said rental rates on his dwelling units likely will go up, and he'll also have to charge more to his retail renters, which will likely result in increased costs to their customers.

"All the costs will be passed on. It'll increase the cost of living in Pullman, which is already high," he said. "Will the market support that added debt? That's the challenge."

Living Faith Fellowship Administrator Tom Weaver said the church doesn't have the convenience of passing the cost onto customers. He estimates the church may be required to pay roughly $6,500 per year in stormwater utility fees for its worship facility and private Pullman Christian School.

"We're a nonprofit," he said. "It would be a tremendous burden. We're all for clean water and all for being responsible citizens ... but the fees and taxes will be a huge burden that we didn't plan for."

Weaver said the congregation has been financially supportive of the church, but asking more of them would be tough. Raising tuition at Pullman Christian School is a last resort.

"We have to face it when it comes," he said.

Buchert said credits on stormwater fees likely will be available, though they're limited for now. The draft ordinance allows a 20-percent credit to entities that have a National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System, which is a permitting system under the federal 1972 Clean Water Act. Only four entities qualify for the credit - the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport, UPS and the city transit and sewer treatment plant. Washington State University, which was issued a municipal stormwater permit as a secondary permittee, also will receive a 20-percent credit.

Credits of as much as 20 percent will be granted to commercial or industrial businesses that harvest rainwater, most commonly used for landscape irrigation. The credit will only apply to impervious surfaces the water is harvested from, such as rooftops, and does not apply to home owners at this time.

Buchert said schools throughout Pullman - both private and public - will be eligible for credits of as much as 20 percent for participating in stormwater or surface water education.

"To get there, we have to justify to the other ratepayers and pretty much the state auditor that the schools are providing services that are equal or greater than the fees," he said.

Buchert added that not only home and business owners in Pullman will be responsible for utility fees. The city itself will also fork over money for its impervious surfaces, though streets are exempt since they'll be considered part of the stormwater facility.

"It's very important that everyone pays, even the city," he said. "We're asking every community member large and small to help us participate in this and participate in being in compliance."