New Hampshire, USA --
Duke Energy Renewables and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have
reached a settlement on charges levied under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) for 14 golden eagle mortalities within the past three years
at its Top of the World and Campbell Hill wind farms near Casper,
Wyoming. It's the wind industry's first such penalty for a topic that's
become an increasing point of debate.
Under the agreement,
Duke will pay $1 million in federal fines and restitution, spread among
the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the Wyoming Game &
Fish Department, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and The
Conservation Fund. Duke also has pledged to take some "proactive steps"
to help mitigate future incidents: use new radar and field biologists
to detect eagles in the area, and curtail the turbines during busy eagle
activity; remove rock and debris that attract eagles' prey; institute
training programs for staff and develop a reporting system to track
avian population on the sites. The company also pledges to work with the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on plans for migratory bird compliance
and eagle conservation.
The issue of wind farm bird deaths -- and the lack of any fines being
levied for allegedly the same violations as other industries such as
fossil fuels -- got headlines this fall thanks to reports by the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal.
It's not an easy balance between wind energy and environmental advocates. Wind industry group AWEA points out
that this agreement "will help advance the knowledge of wind wildlife
interactions to further reduce the industry's relatively small impacts."
Both wind and environmental camps have worked hard to find common cause
against less clean energy sources and the growing specter of climate
change -- ultimately a carbon tax would be an ideal middle ground.
Earlier this summer the National Wildlife Federation (NFW) called for more renewable energy options
to fend off climate change, but with specific safeguards to protect
birds. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC), acknowledging its "pro-wind
and pro-alternative energy" stance, applauded the ruling
as a judgment that project siting needs to be more careful about its
avian impacts. "All wind projects will kill some birds," stated Michael
Hutchins, coordinator of the group's National Bird Smart Wind Energy
Campaign. "It is sadly unavoidable, but some areas are worse than
others, and we can predict where many of these will be."
Part of the debate is a matter of weighing what's harmful to the
environment in an overall context. A 2009 study from the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) emphasized how
non-renewable electricity generation sources, and most especially coal, are much more harmful to wildlife
than renewable energy options. Widely ranging estimates of annual avian
deaths by wind turbines are frequently held up for comparison (and
criticism) against similar or larger numbers attributable to power
lines, high-rise buildings, and even cats.
In fact the D.O.J has specifically prosecuted other cases under the same MBTA law involving power lines, fossil-fuel reserve pits and wastewater storage facilities. The Union of Concerned Scientists' Elliott Negin offers a lengthy analysis,
noting that decrying a lack of penalties against the wind industry
ignores the industry's youth vs. decades of fossil fuel operations under
scrutiny far longer. Another aspect to these comparisons is that it's
fairly straightforward to solve a mitigation concern for an oil
operation's waste pits by putting a net over it (or neglecting to). Once
a building or a turbine is up and operating, there's no similarly easy
fix -- he notes that "prosecution is a last resort" especially for a
resource-strapped FWS.
To its defense, Duke points out these two Wyoming wind farms were put
in between 2007-2009, before much was known about eagle impacts at wind
farms and prior to the USFWS' own wind energy guidelines put in place
in 2012. The Altamont Pass wind farm in California, one of the
industry's earliest projects, similarly has become lightning rod for
debate about impacts to birds. The logical carry-through is that the
industry is becoming more knowledgeable about where it sites and
develops wind farms and thus is becoming more successful in addressing
environmental impacts and mitigation. In its statement, though, the ABC
also warned that "flagrant violations of the law seen in this case are
widespread," accusing the wind industry of continuing to plan and
develop projects against advice from biologists, "pay[ing] lip service
to bird protection laws and then largely do[ing] what they want."
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/11/duke-accepts-wind-industrys-first-bird-death-fine
No comments:
Post a Comment