Wind Farms in
This web site is owned and operated by Jed Margolin to post documents and discuss the issue of wind
farms in
I live in the Virginia City Highlands, in
Virginia City Highlands
February 20, 2009
The BLM Web site for Great Basin Wind's proposed New Comstock Wind Energy
Project is:
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/carson_city_field/blm_programs/planning/new_comstock_wind.html
Index
1. BLM News Release: December 1, 2008, BLM to Prepare an EIS on New Comstock
Wind Energy Project
2. Story County
Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting on February 19, 2009
3. Presentation
graphics for BLM's
presentation to the Storey County Planning Commission on February 19, 2009.
4. Federal Register Notice Announcing Notice
of Intent to Prepare EIS (11/26/2008)
5. Project Informational Handout (December 2008)
6. Instruction Memorandum
No. 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy
7. H-1601-1 LAND USE PLANNING
HANDBOOK – (Public)
8. Project Map (Initial Map
for Scoping - December 2008)
9. Minutes
from the Storey County Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2009.
10. The Laws that the BLM
operates under.
***************************************************************
11. Great Basin
Wind Application and Plan of Development (POD)
***************************************************************
12. My Analysis of the Great Basin Wind
Application and Plan of Development
14. The Washoe County Planning Commission meeting
on March 10, 2009.
15. New posting on BLM’s Web site - New Schedule
Documents
1. BLM News Release: December 1, 2008, BLM to Prepare an EIS on New Comstock Wind Energy
Project
From
BLM Web site: (Click here)
Mirrored copy (PDF, Click here)
2. Story County Planning
Commission Agenda for the meeting on February 19, 2009. (Click Here)
It includes:
PRESENTATION:
by Daniel Jacquet of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) on
proposed New Comstock Wind Energy Project
3. Presentation graphics for BLM's presentation to the Storey County Planning Commission
on February 19, 2009. The presentation was given by Jane H. Peterson, who
is the Renewable Energy Project Manager for the Carson City District BLM
Office. (The actual presentation added "Storey
County Planning Commission, February 19, 2009" on the front page.)
From BLM web
site: (Click
here)
Mirrored copy: (Click here)
4.
Federal Register Notice Announcing Notice of Intent to Prepare
EIS (11/26/2008)
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 229 /
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 / Notices
From
BLM Web site: (Click Here)
Mirrored copy: (Click here)
5. Project
Informational Handout (December 2008)
From BLM Web
site: (Click here)
Mirrored copy: (Click
here)
6. Instruction Memorandum No.
2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy
|
From BLM (html): Wind Energy Development Policy (Click
here) 1 – BLM
Wind Energy Program – Policies and Best Management Practices (19 pp) (Click
here) |
|
1 – BLM
Wind Energy Program – Policies and Best Management Practices (PDF: Click
here) 2 – Wind
Energy Plan of Development (4 pp) (Click here) |
7. H-1601-1 – LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK –
(Public)
{mentioned in Wind Energy Development
Policy}
From
BLM: (Click
here)
Mirrored copy (PDF, Click here)
(html, Click
here)
8. Project Map (Initial Map for Scoping - December 2008)
From BLM: (Click here)
Mirrored copy: (Click here)
The BLM map is not very legible so I have
scanned the paper map in sections. The red square sections are one mile per
side.
1.
Turbines closest to
2. Turbines closest to Gold Hill (Click here).
3. BLM Map Legend (Click here).
4. BLM Map Scale (Click here).
5. Turbines closest to Geiger Summit (Click here).
Although the land North of Geiger Grade may be
Terra Incognito to BLM, some of us live here in the Highlands which includes
the
Here is a map of the
http://www.nevadadot.com/traveler/maps/areamaps/pdfs/VirginiaHighlands.pdf
Mirrored copy: Click here.
I have reproduced a section of the map and placed a red dot to indicate the
location of the turbine closest to the
The map scale is the same as the BLM map with the red square sections being one
mile per side.
Finally, I have put the maps together in one file. The file size is
smaller and the resolution is lower than the individual maps. (Click here)
9. Minutes from the
At the end of the presentation:
"Commissioner Kiechler asked why the public meeting after the scoping was supposed to already be done. Jane Peterson said that the scoping was still open and that all comments would be taken into consideration."
This meeting was held on February 19, 2009. According to the BLM presentation:
• Scoping December 2008 - January 2009
Apparently, Ms. Peterson was not listening to
herself when she gave the presentation.
The following is the entire part of the
meeting devoted to the BLM presentation.
PRESENTATION: by Daniel Jacquet of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Great
Basin Wind’s proposed New Comstock Wind Energy Project
Planner Osborne explained to the audience that this was just a presentation and
that no action would be taken tonight. The intention of tonight’s meeting,
Osborne explained, is for BLM to present this phase of their Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). He also explained that BLM would be given the floor
tonight, Great Basin Wind’s President Rich Hamilton would be here to provide technical
support, and that there would be time allotted after the presentation’s
conclusion for questions and answers for the attending public.
Linda Kelly, Sierra Front Field Manager, gave a brief description of the split
into two office of the BLM in
Jane Peterson, Renewable Energy Project Manager, gave the following power point
presentation:
INTRODUCTION
• Carson City District Office
• Sierra Front Field Office - Linda Kelly, Field Office Manager
• NEPA Process - Jane Peterson, Energy Project Manager
• Cooperating Agencies
• Next Steps
• Project Overview - Rich Hamilton,
PROJECT OVERVIEW
• Approximately 71 turbines
- 210' to 330' tall ..•
- Blade length - 115' to 170'
• 20 miles underground electrical
lines
• 5 miles of 120 kV transmission line to substation
• Access roads
• Miscellaneous storage buildings and yards
RIGHT-OF-WAY PROCESS
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act – BLM authority for granting ROWs on public lands
- Authorization to use a specific
piece of public land for a certain project for a term appropriate for the life
of the project
- Specifies authority to grant ROWs for systems to
generate, transmit, and distribute electric energy
• Further authority in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
- 10,000 MW of renewable energy projects located on public lands by 2015
ROW PROCESS - NEW COMSTOCK
• Great Basin Wind LLC submitted an SF-299
Right-of Way application to construct and operate a commercial wind turbine
facility and an initial Plan of Development
• BLM to prepare Environmental Impact Statement
• Decision on to be made on the ROW after completion of EIS is based on:
- Outcome of EIS
- Determination if proposal is in the public interest
- Consistency with Federal, State, or local laws
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
• A public, interdisciplinary process to ensure informed decision-making
by federal agencies
• Requires agencies to follow a particular process
• Requires agencies disclose the information used to support those decisions
EIS COMPONENTS
• Scoping .
• Purpose and Need
• Alternatives Development
• Environmental Impact Analysis
• Draft EIS
• Public Meetings
• Public Review Period
• Final EIS
• Record of Decision (ROD)
SCOPING ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE EIS
• Visual Resources • Socioeconomic
• Cultural Resources • Wildfire
• Noise • Invasive Species
• Wildlife • Erosion
• Recreation Access • Safety
• Tourism • Emergency services
• Vegetation • Travel management
• Electromagnetic Interference • Transportation
COOPERATING AGENCIES
• Objectives:
- Gain early and consistent
involvement of CA partners
- Incorporate local knowledge of economic, social, and environmental
conditions, as well as state and local land use requirements
- Address intergovernmental issues
- Avoid duplication of effort
- Enhance local credibility of the planning review process
- Encourage CA support for planning decisions
- Build relationships of trust and cooperation.
COOPERATING AGENCIES
• Eligibility:
• State, local, tribal and federal agencies with:
• Jurisdiction by law and/or
• Special expertise
• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes roles and responsibilities
COOPERATING AGENCIES
• Cooperating agencies participate in various steps of the EIS process as
feasible
- Collect data
- Identify interest groups/organizations
- Help identify alternatives
- Assist in analysis
- Assist in responses to comments
• All NEP A decisions remain
responsibility of the BLM
SCHEDULE
• Scoping December 2008 - January 2009
• Draft EIS Late 2009
• Final EIS mid-2010
• Record of Decision (ROD) Late 2010
The following representatives were present representing New Comstock Wind
Energy: Rich Hamilton, Great Basin Wind; Ed Duggan, Oak Creek Energy Systems;
Stuart Smith, Oak Creek Energy Systems; and Phil Tousignart,
Kleinfelder. They would provide any technical support
needed.
Commissioner Tyler wanted to know why this particular location rather than in
TRI. Mr. Duggan answered that it had to do with the wind and the studies that
they had done.
Commissioner Kiechler asked who decided on the
qualifying agency and if the BLM intended to invite
Chairman Bucchianeri expressed his feelings in a
comment that the BLM would have the final say and that
Vice-Chairman Hammack was interested in the sub
groups such as home owner associations in this process. The sub groups would
inform the county and the county would advise BLM.
Commission Prater volunteered to be a staff member or point of contact for the
county on this project as part of the cooperating agency or be a part of a
sub-committee to work with county staff and the BLM. Commissioner Tyler said he
would also like to be part of the people representing
Jed Margolin, who lives in the Virginia City
Highlands, wanted to know how the wattage was gauged: was it during peak or
usual wind? How many homes would be supplied with electricity? With the BLM
having the final decision and the cooperating agency only having input, he
objected in the strongest terms.
Jim Watson of the Virginia City Highlands was interested in the other uses of
the federal land and how this would affect them. There are seven applications
in for wind farms and only one is for private land. Will the BLM be receiving
money for the use of its land and would
Ken Nelson answered that there would be an annual rent determined by the watts
produced by the turbines which would amount to approximately $637,700.00 per
year.
Ron Engelbrecht of the Mark Twain Estates brought
Senate bill 114 which has just come out of committee that will not allow any
local or county ordinances to prohibit or be too restrictive on either Solar or
Wind Energy. Chairman Bucchianeri suggested that the
Planning staff keep an eye on this legislation.
Joe Curtis, Virginia Convention & Tourism Authority, commented on the
complaints that had been received over the past couple of summers in regards to
a “significant noise” which was discovered to be the small test wind turbines
placed by Comstock Wind Energy to gather information. The BLM is using the
first person which means that they have already made their decision which is
evident from published comments in the media – “…they’ll just have to get used
to it”. He stated further that the visual impact would be significant to
tourism and would be the future demise of tourism in
Caroline Lowman,
Bob Fredlund,
Ron Reno,
Ralph Arista, Virginia City, commented that for two
years the residents of
Christy Ann Strange, Virginia City, explained her story of having to live with
over 100 wind mills along a ridge line in
Geri Baker, Virginia City Highlands, is a breast cancer survivor and has spent
a lot of time looking for a place for herself and her children. The noise of
the turbines would destroy the peace and quiet that she looked so hard for.
Tom Purkey,
Tom Gray, Virginia & Truckee Railroad, commented on the historical
significance of the project that has cost millions and what the visual effects
will do to the drop in tourism. Wind mills are not attractive to look at and
spoil the landscape.
Commissioner Kiechler asked why the public meeting
after the scoping was supposed to already be done. Jane Peterson said that the
scoping was still open and that all comments would be taken into consideration.
10. The Laws that the BLM operates under.
From the BLM web site (PDF): Click
here.
Converted
to html. I have added active links to some of the laws: Click here.
Some of the laws that may apply to the current issue are:
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as
amended (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)
The Electronic FOIA Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-231)
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315), as amended by the Act of August
28, 1937 (43 U.S.C.1181d)
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901-1908)
The Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C. 461)
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470)
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 U.S.C.
470a, 470cc and 470ee)
Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended by the Public Rangelands
Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340), and by P.L. 108-447, Division E,
Section 142
The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715) and
treaties pertaining thereto
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)
March 18, 2009
11.
Application For Transportation and
Utility Systems and Facilities in Federal Lands, Form SF-299, dated April 18, 2008.
Scanned from a paper copy obtained from BLM:
(Click here)
The document uses a small font size and
is difficult to read, even the paper copy. I have used OCR to convert it to
text to make it easier to read and to quote from: (Click
here)
I was given two pages by
BLM. Page 2 says: "continued on page 3." The standard SF-299 form
contains 5 pages. Page 3 contains General Information and Specific
Instructions. Page 5 is Notices. That leaves Page 4 (Supplemental)
in which the Applicant is required to give business information. Either the
Applicant failed to file Page 4 or BLM did not give it to me. For the standard blank SF-299 form:
Click here.
New Comstock Wind Energy Project Plan of
Development - Draft, dated August
25, 2008.
Scanned from a paper copy obtained from BLM:
(Click here)
Converted
to text using OCR to make it easier to read and to quote from: (Click here)
If you came here just for the Great Basin Wind Application and POD and are not
interested in my comments you can stop now.
12. My Analysis
of the
Some of
the items in the Great Basin Wind Application SF-299 have caught my attention.
Section 15:
The proposed project would be able to supply up
to 192MW of renewable energy. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission requires
regulated utilities in the State to supply a certain percentage of their energy
mix from wind generated sources. The Governor of Nevada has provided direction
to make
On March 19, 2009 I talked to Ms. Anne-Marie
Cuneo, the Manager for Resource and Market Analysis for the Public Utilities
Commission of Nevada (http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PUCN/PUCHome.aspx)
I asked her if the statement is true. Are
regulated utilities in the State required to supply a certain percentage of
their energy mix from wind generated sources?
The answer is, “No.”
They are required to supply a certain
percentage of power from renewable energy sources (some of which must be
solar), but there is no requirement for wind.
This is contained in Nevada Revised Statutes
(NRS) 704.7801 - 704.7828 .
This link (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Nrs/NRS-704.html#NRS704Sec7801)
contains CHAPTER 704 - REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERALLY in its entirety
so I have put 704.7801 - 704.7828 in its own page. (Click here)
NRS 704.7821
establishes the requirement of a portfolio standard. There is a schedule that
Utilities must follow for producing energy from renewable sources with a
minimum percentage from solar. Part of the portfolio standard may include
energy efficiency measures.
Not less than 5 percent must come from
solar. Not more than 25 percent may come from energy savings measures. (I have
underlined those parts.)
Wind energy is one of the forms of renewable
energy sources (NRS 704.7811 “Renewable
energy” defined), but there is no requirement for wind.
NRS 704.7821
NRS 704.7821 Establishment of portfolio standard; requirements; treatment of certain solar energy systems; portfolio energy credits; renewable energy contracts and energy efficiency contracts; exemptions; regulations.
1. For each provider of electric service, the Commission shall establish a portfolio standard. The portfolio standard must require each provider to generate, acquire or save electricity from portfolio energy systems or efficiency measures in an amount that is:
(a) For calendar years 2005 and 2006, not less than 6 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by the provider to its retail customers in this State during that calendar year.
(b) For calendar years 2007 and 2008, not less than 9 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by the provider to its retail customers in this State during that calendar year.
(c) For calendar years 2009 and 2010, not less than 12 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by the provider to its retail customers in this State during that calendar year.
(d) For calendar years 2011 and 2012, not less than 15 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by the provider to its retail customers in this State during that calendar year.
(e) For calendar years 2013 and 2014, not less than 18 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by the provider to its retail customers in this State during that calendar year.
(f) For calendar year 2015 and for each calendar year thereafter, not less than 20 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by the provider to its retail customers in this State during that calendar year.
2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, in addition to the requirements set forth in subsection 1, the portfolio standard for each provider must require that:
(a) Of the total amount of
electricity that the provider is required to generate, acquire or save from
portfolio energy systems or efficiency measures during each calendar year, not
less than 5 percent of that amount must be generated or acquired from solar
renewable energy systems.
(b) Of the total amount of electricity that the provider is required to generate, acquire or save from portfolio energy systems or efficiency measures during each calendar year, not more than 25 percent of that amount may be based on energy efficiency measures. If the provider intends to use energy efficiency measures to comply with its portfolio standard during any calendar year, of the total amount of electricity saved from energy efficiency measures for which the provider seeks to obtain portfolio energy credits pursuant to this paragraph, at least 50 percent of that amount must be saved from energy efficiency measures installed at service locations of residential customers of the provider, unless a different percentage is approved by the Commission.
(c) If the provider acquires or saves electricity from a portfolio energy system or efficiency measure pursuant to a renewable energy contract or energy efficiency contract with another party:
(1) The term of the contract must be not less than 10 years, unless the other party agrees to a contract with a shorter term; and
(2) The terms and conditions of the contract must be just and reasonable, as determined by the Commission. If the provider is a utility provider and the Commission approves the terms and conditions of the contract between the utility provider and the other party, the contract and its terms and conditions shall be deemed to be a prudent investment and the utility provider may recover all just and reasonable costs associated with the contract.
3. The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection 2 do not apply to a provider of new electric resources pursuant to chapter 704B of NRS with respect to its use of an energy efficiency measure that is financed by a customer, or which is a geothermal energy system for the provision of heated water to one or more customers and which reduces the consumption of electricity or any fossil fuel, except that, of the total amount of electricity that the provider is required to generate, acquire or save from portfolio energy systems or efficiency measures during each calendar year, not more than 25 percent of that amount may be based on energy efficiency measures.
4. If, for the benefit of one or more retail customers in this State, the provider, or the customer of a provider of new electric resources pursuant to chapter 704B of NRS, has paid for or directly reimbursed, in whole or in part, the costs of the acquisition or installation of a solar energy system which qualifies as a renewable energy system and which reduces the consumption of electricity, the total reduction in the consumption of electricity during each calendar year that results from the solar energy system shall be deemed to be electricity that the provider generated or acquired from a renewable energy system for the purposes of complying with its portfolio standard.
5. The Commission shall adopt regulations that establish a system of portfolio energy credits that may be used by a provider to comply with its portfolio standard.
6. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7, each provider shall comply with its portfolio standard during each calendar year.
7. If, for any calendar year, a provider is unable to comply with its portfolio standard through the generation of electricity from its own renewable energy systems or, if applicable, through the use of portfolio energy credits, the provider shall take actions to acquire or save electricity pursuant to one or more renewable energy contracts or energy efficiency contracts. If the Commission determines that, for a calendar year, there is not or will not be a sufficient supply of electricity or a sufficient amount of energy savings made available to the provider pursuant to renewable energy contracts and energy efficiency contracts with just and reasonable terms and conditions, the Commission shall exempt the provider, for that calendar year, from the remaining requirements of its portfolio standard or from any appropriate portion thereof, as determined by the Commission.
8. The Commission shall adopt regulations that establish:
(a) Standards for the determination of just and reasonable terms and conditions for the renewable energy contracts and energy efficiency contracts that a provider must enter into to comply with its portfolio standard.
(b) Methods to classify the financial impact of each long-term renewable energy contract and energy efficiency contract as an additional imputed debt of a utility provider. The regulations must allow the utility provider to propose an amount to be added to the cost of the contract, at the time the contract is approved by the Commission, equal to a compensating component in the capital structure of the utility provider. In evaluating any proposal made by a utility provider pursuant to this paragraph, the Commission shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the rates paid by the retail customers of the utility provider.
9. As used in this section:
(a) “Energy efficiency contract” means a contract to attain energy savings from one or more energy efficiency measures owned, operated or controlled by other parties.
(b) “Renewable energy contract” means a contract to acquire electricity from one or more renewable energy systems owned, operated or controlled by other parties.
(c) “Terms and conditions” includes, without limitation, the price that a provider must pay to acquire electricity pursuant to a renewable energy contract or to attain energy savings pursuant to an energy efficiency contract.
(Added to NRS by 2001, 2528; A 2003, 1866, 1876; 2005, 22nd Special Session, 82; 2007, 414)
NRS 704.7811
NRS 704.7811 “Renewable energy” defined.
1. “Renewable energy” means:
(a) Biomass;
(b) Geothermal energy;
(c) Solar energy;
(d) Waterpower; and
(e) Wind.
2. The term does not include coal, natural gas, oil, propane or any other fossil fuel, or nuclear energy.
3. As used in this section, “waterpower” means power derived from standing, running or falling water which is used for any plant, facility, equipment or system to generate electricity if the generating capacity of the plant, facility, equipment or system is not more than 30 megawatts. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the term includes, without limitation, power derived from water that has been pumped from a lower to a higher elevation if the generating capacity of the plant, facility, equipment or system for which the water is used is not more than 30 megawatts. The term does not include power:
(a) Derived from water stored in a reservoir by a dam or similar device, unless:
(1) The water is used exclusively for irrigation;
(2) The dam or similar device was in existence on January 1, 2003; and
(3) The generating capacity of the plant, facility, equipment or system for which the water is used is not more than 30 megawatts;
(b) That requires a new or increased appropriation or diversion of water for its creation; or
(c) That requires the use of any fossil fuel for its creation, unless:
(1) The primary purpose of the use of the fossil fuel is not the creation of the power; and
(2) The generating capacity of the plant, facility, equipment or system for which the water is used is not more than 30 megawatts.
(Added to NRS by 2001, 2527; A 2003, 1875)
The next item that caught my attention in the Great
Basin Wind Application is Section 17:
There could be a long-term impact to visual
resources resulting from the presence of turbine structures located on the
ridge top, The turbine units could be visible from much of
The term “50 mhtz”
has no scientific meaning.
People sometimes make a typo and write 50 MHtz when they mean 50 MHz, but saying “Noise levels will
be below 50 MHz” would be irrelevant.
Since noise levels are involved, the Applicant might
have meant “Noise levels will be below 50 dBA” but 50
dBA is loud and bothersome relative to the ambient
noise in a rural community. In addition, noise levels produced by machines must
specify the distance. If you get far enough away from a jet engine you will
measure only 50 dBA.
Note that ‘dB” is a relative measurement. When it is
relative to a standard, that standard is incorporated into the unit. The term “dBA” means “dB Acoustic.” Unfortunately, the “A” is usually
left off, which is why hardly anyone understands what a “dB” is.
For sound pressure level, the reference level (for
air) is usually chosen as 20 micropascals
(20 µPa), or 0.02 mPa. This is very low: it is 2
ten billionths of an atmosphere. Nevertheless, this is about the limit of
sensitivity of the human ear in its most sensitive range of frequency.
Thus, 0 dBA is considered
the threshold of human hearing in someone with normal hearing.
And, Applicant mentions that the towers could be
visible from much of
Section 16:
The proposed project could result in tax
benefits to both Washoe and
Applicant does not mention the potential for loss of
tax benefits for
Some of the proposed turbines will be less than a
mile from
Applicant does not seem to be aware that
Applicant’s map ends just North of Geiger Grade.
People live within a mile of the Northern-most turbine. Their roads are not
shown on Applicant’s map.
Section
6:
In Section 6, Rich Hamilton (the authorized
agent for Great Basin Wind Energy, LLC) is asked if he is a
However, in Section 12 we learn that Oak Creek Energy Systems (OCES) is a
majority partner in Great Basin Wind, and that Marubeni Corporation of
Great Basin Wind possesses both the financial and technical capabilities
required to develop and operate wind power generation projects through majority
partner Oak Creek Energy Systems (OCES). OCES has an experienced team of 50
employees with extensive project development, permitting and operations
experience on both public and private lands in
There do not seem to be any laws prohibiting
foreign ownership of electric generating capacity and distribution (unlike in
Broadcasting) so the point is simply that Great Basin Wind is not a small local
Here are some of the things Marubeni does (from the web site of their
A. Chemicals (http://www.marubeni-usa.com/our_business/chemicals.html)
MAC's business in this area is wide-ranging, as we handle agrochemicals, petrochemicals, plastics, specialty chemicals and electronic materials.
Our commodity chemicals Department is based in
B. Energy (http://www.marubeni-usa.com/our_business/energy.html)
We are expanding our trading portfolios in the oil
and gas businesses in the
C. Food (http://www.marubeni-usa.com/our_business/food.html)
MAC buys and exports grain, meat and other foodstuffs from the
and
MAC's largest subsidiary,
Helena Chemical Company, is one of the largest formulators of crop inputs and
services in the U.S. Helena offers a variety of crop protection products,
agricultural chemicals, seed, fertilizer and related products. For more
information about
D. Forest Products (http://www.marubeni-usa.com/our_business/forest_products.html)
Through our subsidiary, Marubeni Pulp & Paper North America, we import, export and distribute pulp, wood chips and paper; meanwhile, our affiliate Pan Pacific Fiber collects various waste papers from local markets and sorts, bundles, and ships them worldwide.
Another of MAC's
subsidiary companies, Intragrated Resources Holdings,
sells printing paper to catalog houses and publishers in the
A.T.
Clayton and Company, Inc.
Paper distributor and printing consulting
E. New Business (http://www.marubeni-usa.com/our_business/new_business.html)
MAC always targets growing industries for early or
mid-stage investment. Our specialty is facilitating the bi-directional flow of
technology and business between the
Wherever MAC invests, our strategy is to promote growth by connecting the acquisition to the global network of business alliances that we and our parent, Marubeni Corporation, have cultivated. We seek sound opportunities whether in private equity funds, in strategic direct investment, or in middle-market acquisitions.
F. Power Products & Infrastructure (http://www.marubeni-usa.com/our_business/pp_infrastructure.html)
MAC is involved in business development related to
the power industry in
MAC also partners with other North American
companies to develop and commercialize new energy technologies and business
models in Asia together with our parent company in
Marubeni Caribbean Power Holdings, Inc.
Holding company for power plants and power
companies in the
Marubeni Power International, Inc.
Marketing and development of power projects
Marubeni Sustainable Energy, Inc.
Owner and operator of renewable generation plants
Wind energy development in the
Global service provider to the power generation industry
While these activities probably don’t
disqualify Marubeni from building a project on BLM land, Marubeni has no right
to claim the Moral High Ground in this matter.
I have a question about water.
Aircraft are washed periodically in order to
maintain the efficiency of their aerodynamic surfaces. (Dirt increases drag.)
Is Great Basin Wind planning to periodically
wash the turbine blades to maintain their aerodynamic efficiency?
If so, how much water do they expect to use
and where do they plan to get it?
Will they be trucking the water in?
Will they be drilling wells?
If they will be drilling wells, how many do
they plan to drill? Have they bought water rights? How will their use of water
be monitored?
How do you wash blades that are on 330 ft.
towers?
March 22, 2009
14. The Washoe County Planning Commission had a
meeting on March 10, 2009.
Here is the web page for the
Washoe County Planning Commission:
http://www.co.washoe.nv.us/comdev/boards_commissions/pc/pc_agenda_minutes_index.htm
The members of the Washoe
County Planning Commission are (according to the minutes of the 1/6/09
meeting):
Christy
Magers, Chair
Dian
A. VanderWell, Vice Chair
Neal
Cobb
Roger
M. Edwards
Roy
H. Hibdon
Keith
Lockard
William
Weber
On the agenda for the March
10 meeting was the New Comstock Wind Project.
(Agenda: http://www.co.washoe.nv.us/comdev_files/bc/bc_pc_2009_agendas/031009ag.pdf)
5. NEW
COMSTOCK WIND PROJECT – Information regarding the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) being developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Carson
City District-Sierra Front Field Office for the New Comstock Wind Energy
project, which will analyze the potential impacts resulting from construction
of the project. This project is being proposed for the
BLM
Staff Representative: Dan Jacquet, BLM,
Staff
Representative: Bill Whitney, Planner, 775.328.3617
The Washoe County Planning Commission
has posted a recording of the March 10 meeting:
http://www.co.washoe.nv.us/comdev_files/bc/bc_pc_2009_minutes/031009.MP3
It is a 47 MByte mp3 file and the audio level in the file is very low,
so:
1. I converted it to a .wav file;
2. Selected out the section of the meeting
devoted to the New Comstock Wind Project;
3. Boosted the volume level;
4. Converted it to a Microsoft wma file,
specifying “mono” instead of stereo and reducing the bitrate
to less than CD quality.
The resulting file is 5.6
MB. Click
Here for the New Comstock Wind Project discussion.
If you cannot use wma files, you can download the County’s mp3 file.
The following is not a
summary of the meeting, just what caught my ear.
The following times are
referenced to the wma file.
00:36 Start of the discussion of the New Comstock Wind
Project. The Chair gives the floor to Bill Whitney, Department of Community
Development. (44: 27 of the
Mr. Whitney gives a brief
description of how BLM’s Carson City Office is
organized, the numerous projects BLM has already done with
6:00 The Chair introduces Linda Kelly, Sierra
Front Field Office Manager.
Linda Kelly points out the
other members of her office who are at the meeting:
Ken
Nelson - Realty Specialist
Jane
Peterson , who will be giving the presentation
Dan
Jacquet - Community Relations Liaison
Mark
Struble - Public Information Officer
She also points out Rich
Hamilton, President of Great Basin Wind.
07:50 Jane Peterson begins the presentation
10:20 - The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (NEPA) requires that, “10,000 MW of renewable energy
projects will be located on public lands by 2015.”
[My observation: There are
several types of renewable energy sources, like solar. Renewable does not
automatically mean wind.]
21:30 Questions from the Commissioners
One Commissioner had a
question about power transmission lines where only a portion went through
public land and the other part was on private land.
Jane Peterson: It’s a
difficult question to answer; we look at the actual impacts that would occur.
24:40 Commissioner Edwards: They have already done
Environmental Impact Statements for other projects. Why does every Developer
have to go through it? Why can’t they streamline the process? Doing an EIS for
each project causes the project to be pushed off and more costly to the
Developer.
27:40 Linda Kelly responds: BLM has to identify
impacts and address public comments for each project.
31:17 The Chair explains to Commissioner Edwards
that BLM is following the steps required by law and if he wants the law changed
he should work through Congress
32:00 Commissioner Lockard
says there are also ways around it.
Commissioner Edwards says BLM
(since they are on the inside) should be the ones to say to Senator Harry Reid
that the process should be streamlined. He then repeats his statements that,
although he does not want to ignore community input, he wants BLM to streamline
the process.
36:08 Jane Peterson: The steps are very well established and moving away from that
process is probably the best way to make the document vulnerable to litigation.
36:38 Commissioner Lockard:
How much wind energy will be produced, how it will meet the Community’s needs,
and where will the project be located?
37:18 Jane Peterson has Rich Hamilton answer the
question: The project will produce 200 MW. 1 MW will produce power for 300
homes. Gives location of project.
39:10 A Commissioner asks where the wind turbines
will be produced. Are they American made?
Rich Hamilton responds: Most
are foreign made. Great Basin Wind is looking at two American manufacturers.
40:20 Commissioner Lockard:
Will the project require a Special Use Permit from
40:50 Bill Whitney from Community Development: Each
County (Washoe, Carson, and Storey) will see the project as [needing] an
individual Special Use permit.
41:42 The Chair reads a letter from Linda Bisset (Government Affair Division, Nevada Energy): NV
Energy strongly supports the development of renewal energy resources such as
wind, solar, and geothermal. NV Energy maintains a confidential RFP contract
process with potential Developers. They do not share information about any
particular project or Developer.
[It sounded diplomatic and
non-committal to me.]
43:39 Request to speak from a member of the public:
Stewart Smith
(1:27:38 of the
[Then the mic seemed to go dead. Either Mr. Smith was not there or
his remarks were removed from the recording.]
44:10 Request to speak from Danny Costello with the
Iron Workers. He is for the project even though he lives in
44:49 Commissioner Lockard
quoted from a document containing a section Help Identify Alternatives. He
asked, “What kind of alternatives are there to windmills?”
Jane Peterson discussed
alternatives to the project in terms of different turbine sizes and locations.
[My observation: There are
different types of alternative energy. She did not discuss them.]
46:12 End of discussion of New Comstock Wind
Project.
(1:30:05 of the
If someone has a good speech
recognition program and wants to make a transcript I would be happy to post it.
- Jed Margolin
15. New posting from BLM’s
Web site for the project (September 24, 2009):
(http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/carson_city_field/blm_programs/planning/new_comstock_wind.html)
Initial Public
Scoping December
2008-January 2009
Supplemental Scoping Fall 2009
Draft EIS
(DEIS)
Late 2010
Final EIS
(FEIS)
Early 2011
Record of Decision (ROD) Mid-2011
As of September 2009, BLM still considers this
project proposal by Great
Basin Wind, LLC (GBW), to be in the scoping phase.
GBW is in the process of revising their right-of-way application by
altering the specific BLM-administered lands proposed to be used for the wind
energy development and the number/location of specific wind turbine
towers - this is being done primarily to address concerns raised by the
public during early project scoping in late 2008-early 2009.
This revised proposal (including a revised project map) will be presented to the public and cooperating agencies during fall 2009 (meeting sites/locations are yet to be determined).
What I think (Jed Margolin)
1. The original schedule called for the Draft
EIS in late 2009. (Click here: New
Comstock Wind Proposal, PDF Page 14). The new schedule calls for Late 2010.
2. There will be more meetings (Fall 2009).
3. It looks like BLM listened to the public
comments.
Thank you, BLM.
BLM’s new schedule contains a link to Great Basin Wind’s
Web site: http://www.greatbasinwind.com/
Great Basin Wind has a page
showing proposed views from various places, none of which are Virginia City or
the
http://www.greatbasinwind.com/projects/new-comstock/
Presumably, these are the views
for the original proposal.
June 21, 2009
Nevada Legislation
Nevada SB114 - Makes various changes relating
to systems for obtaining and using solar energy and other renewable energy
resources. (BDR 58-380)
It says it will have no fiscal impact on local government.
Nevada Senate homepage for SB114: Click
here.
Here it is as approved by the Governor: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/SB/SB114_EN.pdf