H. R. 2337 - To promote energy policy reforms and public accountability, alternative energy and efficiency, and carbon capture and climate change mitigation, and for other purposes. Click here for a link showing changes made to the original bill.

(This bill is in the first step of the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. H. R. 2337 has been reviewed by the House Committee on Natural Resources and is currently scheduled for general debate. A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.)

The Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007 (see H.R. 2337), introduced on May 16, 2007 and now before the House Committee on Natural Resources, the House Agriculture Committee, and the House Science and Technology Committee , includes a provision (Title II, Subtitle D) on wind energy that represents an important first step in enforcing necessary protections for the natural environment impacted by industrial wind energy development. The bill was introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall (D - WV), and co-sponsored by Rep. Joe Baca (D - CA), Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D - GU), Del. Donna Christensen (D - VI), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D - AZ), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D - NY), Rep. Jay Inslee (D - WA), and Rep. Grace Napolitano (D - CA).

To view H.R. 2337, specifically Title II, Subtitle D, please click here.

This provision will put into law what the wind industry and its proponents already profess to support, that is, the proper siting of facilities in order to “avoid impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds, bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent practicable based on data gathered during preconstruction surveys.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Academies National Research Council are all on record stating that there is a need for more site-specific information to properly assess the impacts of industrialized wind production on wildlife. Reports generated by the wind industry represent not an independent view, but rather a view strongly biased toward the industry itself.

Others opposed to the wind portion of this bill state that the damage done to wildlife by wind turbines is negligible compared to mercury emissions from coal power plants, radioactive waste and thermal pollution from nuclear energy, and other hazards associated with fossil fuel and other energy usage. They urge that H. R. 2337 be reconsidered or vetoed as the effect of wind energy on wildlife is negligible compared to our conventional power sources, stating that "outlawing wind power will hamper our country's ability to remain modern and support itself economically in the future."

Opponents of the bill say it will make wind energy projects harder to build and add more uncertainty to the projects. Given that up until now, industrial wind turbine projects have enjoyed a virtually regulation-free ride, we think that's exactly what it should do - tighten up regulations and make the people who build these projects accountable for the havoc they're creating.

Please note that the bill does NOT call for the cessation of development of wind energy - only for more responsible development of wind energy. Don't be fooled by those against this bill when they say it will paralyze the production of energy in this country. They have everything to lose, and you have much to gain, by demanding responsibility in the generation of wind energy. The rush to produce MORE should be tempered by the demand to produce responsibly.

Remember! Just being upset about what's going on isn't enough. You need to let your legislators know how you feel. You elected them, and it's up to you to let them know what you want done.

We are asking you to join in supporting the passage of this important piece of legislation. If one (or more) of your state representatives sits on the Committee on Natural Resources, it is vital to send a letter or e-mail highlighting your support for this provision in the bill. Emails with the letter attached should have a subject line that reads, "Support for HR 2337 Title II, Subtitle D". For a list of committee members, please click here.

WRITE, E-MAIL OR CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS TO TELL THEM YOU DON'T WANT WIND FARMS, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOOD FOR THE STATE, AND TO STOP PANDERING TO BIG BUCKS LOBBYISTS. WIND ENERGY IN ILLINOIS IS SIMPLY NOT EFFECTIVE! Click here for contact information!


INDUSTRIAL WIND ACTION GROUP WELCOMES RELEASE OF NAS REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF WIND ENERGY PROJECTS. Organization calls for more thorough cost-benefit analysis prior to the permitting and construction of commercial-scale wind projects

NEW HAMPSHIRE (May 18, 2007). Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group today welcomed the release of the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) report on the environmental impacts of wind energy projects. Although this report focused upon the Mid-Atlantic Highlands [1], it provides detailed information and recommendations relevant to the entire country.

The NRC found that "Because wind energy is new to many state and local governments, the quality of processes for permitting wind-energy developments is uneven." The report also stated that there is "little anticipatory planning for wind-energy projects, and even if it occurred, it is not clear whether mechanisms exist that could incorporate such planning in regulatory decisions."

Lisa Linowes, Executive Director of Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group, agreed, stating that "most rural communities and state-level permitting boards have little experience dealing with the breadth of issues involved in erecting 400-foot structures along miles of new roads built in areas typically undisturbed by human activity."

She added that the impacts on the local environment, the cumulative impacts on wildlife, and the health, welfare, and safety risks to nearby residents all need to be assessed and measured against a proposed project's promised benefits. "Unfortunately, what we're finding is a rush to approve applications on the grounds that any wind generated power - no matter how nominal - is believed to reduce atmospheric emissions and, thus, offset adverse impacts."

But the NRC report found that the environmental benefits of wind power were not certain, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic area. The report states that due to regulatory limits already in place, wind energy development will provide no reduction in emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides, the pollutants responsible for acid rain and ground-level ozone.

Regarding carbon dioxide, industrial wind turbines will offset national emissions by only 1.2-4.5% from the levels that otherwise would occur from electricity generation. [2] Consequently, wind power will not reduce carbon emissions of the U.S., but merely will slow the increase by a small amount.

The NRC report also makes clear there is insufficient information to assess the potential for population impacts on birds in the eastern U.S. And, while wildlife mortality research at wind energy facilities is limited and not standardized, the report concludes the potential for impacts on bat populations in the eastern U.S. appears significant. Linowes echoed the NRC's call for more, credible research, but added the wind industry is dismissive of the need for pre-construction wildlife studies claiming such studies have proven poor indicators of post-construction impacts.

"This argument is more self-serving than fact-based," she said, and added that the lack of well-designed studies hindered the ability of land-use decision makers to determine whether a project is well sited. "It's much more difficult, legally and practicably, to mitigate for adverse effects after the turbines are operational," she said.

Based on the NRC's projection that 72,000 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity will be built in the U.S. by 2020, owners of wind projects could reap $40-billion [3] in federal tax credits alone (excluding adjustments for inflation). "Add to this federal accelerated depreciation, and state and local tax subsidies, and we begin to understand the enormous cost of wind generation in terms of public dollars," Linowes said, adding that the environmental and public costs will not reduce our reliance on traditional generation nor will it provide meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. IWA firmly asserts the public deserves to see quantifiable benefits to wind development before any project is granted a green light.

[1] The mid-Atlantic Highlands include elevated regions of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

[2] Electricity generation is responsible for only 39% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy use.

[3] Assumes an average 30% capacity factor and production tax credit of .020 cents per kWh.