DOCSLIB.ORG

The Political Ecology of Wind Energy Opposition in Wyoming

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Political Ecology of Wind Energy Opposition in Wyoming POWER POLITICS: THE POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF WIND ENERGY OPPOSITION IN WYOMING by Shawn Keating Olson B.A. The Evergreen State College, 2003 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment Of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science Program of Environmental Studies 2013 This thesis entitled: Power Politics: The Political Ecology of Wind Energy Opposition in Wyoming Written by Shawn Keating Olson has been approved for the Program of Environmental Studies _______________________________________________________________ Maxwell Boykoff, Ph.D. _______________________________________________________________ Lori Hunter, Ph.D. _______________________________________________________________ Emily Yeh, Ph.D. _______________________________________________________________ Suzanne Tegen, Ph.D. Date______________________ The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards Of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. IRB protocol# 12-0764 (University of Colorado) ABSTRACT Olson, Shawn Keating (MS, Environmental Studies) Power Politics: The Political Ecology of Wind Energy Opposition in Wyoming Thesis directed by Maxwell Boykoff This study investigates growing opposition to industrial-scale wind farms in the United States (US). Opposition groups are often successful in halting or delaying turbine construction, which significantly impacts the feasibility of meeting the US Department of Energy’s “20 percent wind energy by 2030” goal; the US now generates 3.5 percent of electricity from the wind. Because wind farms require large tracts of open land and are mostly built in rural areas, this research focuses on the US West and examines opposition underway in east-central Wyoming. Wyomingites embody politically conservative and culturally individualistic ideologies that pose unique challenges for wind developers. Wyoming’s historic dependence on coal mining and other fossil fuels industries also means that the wind industry is often perceived as a threat to jobs and the state’s economy. However, a declining agricultural market and vulnerability from boom-and-bust extractive industries may well position rural communities to benefit from wind farms’ steady economic outputs. To deepen understanding beyond the typical ‘NIMBY’ (Not In My Back Yard) explanation, this research uses a political ecology framework. Political ecology examines environmental conflicts with particular attention paid to relations of power between stakeholders and with concern for equitable distribution of harms and goods. Findings in this study highlight two emergent narratives. First, wind energy is perceived as an imposition on local communities iii that may not have a voice in siting decisions and that may suffer disproportionate burdens. Second, a discourse of support for wind farms also emerges and characterizes opposition as a privileged effort to protect vacation property values, uphold an elitist construction of ‘nature’, and wage ideological war on renewable energy. Through two case studies, this research provides textured insights into wind farm opposition that may help mitigate future contestations as well as anticipate networks of support in the US context. This work also poses larger, critical questions interrogating the logic of developing industrial-scale renewables in rural areas, far from the urban centers driving ‘green’ electron demand. Narratives articulated foreshadow future responses to wind farms, particularly in the US West, and lay a foundation for more equitable decision-making processes that designate wind energy landscapes. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank the residents of Converse and Natrona Counties, who were so gracious as to meet with me, take me into their homes, and express their views on this emotional subject. Additionally, steering committee members of the Northern Laramie Range Alliance were so generous as to drive me around the stunning foothills of the Northern Laramie Range, feed me pie at truck stops, and provide me with years of relevant newspaper clippings and personal writings. Employees of Wasatch Wind were extremely helpful and their insights into the legal and social aspects of wind farm development were critical to this research. I feel incredibly privileged to have had the opportunity to present my ideas before my talented thesis committee: Max Boykoff, Lori Hunter, Suzanne Tegen, and Emily Yeh. I respect thoroughly the research and personal character of each of these scholars, and I feel that I could not have selected a more intelligent and caring group of people. I also owe special thanks to my advisor, Max Boykoff, whose admirable academic mettle is always so well balanced with expansive enthusiasm and kindness – if there is a way to stay sane and human in the world of academia, Max has discovered it. I would also like to thank the Center to Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences at the University of Colorado in Boulder for the financial support that allowed me to undertake this fascinating field research. Additionally, the ever-dutiful attentiveness of the Echo SmartPen recording device made the fieldwork portion of this project feel almost like cheating. It also made for great party tricks. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents. Mom and Dad: you’ve always supported me through life and a winding academic career, even though my choices may have been exasperating at times (i.e., the Mexico incident and the Alaskan bush winter). Your support of my ventures – academic, outdoors, and political – has been crucial. Thank you also for raising us in the country – my passion for rural environmental issues comes undeniably from my upbringing at the farm on Kelly Rd. v Financial support was provided by The Center the Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences (CARTSS), University of Colorado at Boulder. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. THE POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF WIND ENERGY DEBATES…………………………….1 1.1 Introduction to Project Objectives…………………………………………………………….1 1.2 Using Political Ecology ………………………………………………………………………3 1.3 Justification for Case Study and Research Methods………………………..……………..…12 1.4 Thesis Layout………………….…………………..……..……..…………..……………..…21 2. BEYOND ‘NIMBY’: COMPLEXIFYING WIND ENERGY OPPOSITION..……..………..23 2.1 The Rise of Wind Energy (and opposition to it) ………………………..……..…...….….…23 2.2 Scholarly Explanations for Wind Energy Opposition………………………..…….….….…30 2.3 Conceptualizing Power and Marginalization in Wind Energy Development….….….……...35 2.4 Wind Farms and the Social Construction of Nature….…………………………...….……...44 2.5 Situating Wind Energy Opposition in the US West….…………………………...…..……...51 2.6 Conclusion……………………..…………………..……..……..…………..…………….…58 3. LOCALIZING THE ANALYSIS: WIND ENERGY CONTESTATION IN WYOMING..…61 3.1 Community, Policy, and Wind Energy in the ‘Saudi Arabia of Wind’……………………...62 3.2 Wind Farms as Burden: Power Dynamics in Wind Energy Development …….………....…75 3.2.1 An ‘illegal’ siting? The case of the Chevron Casper Wind Farm……………….…76 3.2.2 ‘What jobs? What taxes?’ Examining wind energy’s economic impact……..……81 3.3 Wind Farms as Benefit: Power Dynamics in Wind Energy Opposition …...…………......…86 3.3.1 Ranchers and Turbines: The Case for Turbines in the Northern Laramies………..87 3.3.2 The NLRA: “Fighting this industrialization of our pristine mountain country”.….96 3.3.3 Private interests and power relations in wind energy opposition………………...101 3.4 Conclusion……………………..…………………..……..……..…………..……..……….113 4. CONCLUSION: ETHICS AND WIND ENERGY LANDSCAPES……………………......117 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………...…….124 vi Appendix A: Interview Guide – Landowners………..………………………………...……….138 Appendix B: Interview Guide – Converse County Commissioners…..…………..………...….139 Appendix C: Interview Guide – Employees of Wasatch Wind…………………..….……...….140 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Individuals interviewed, by type………………………………………………….……19 Table 2: Comparison of Wise Use and Wind Opposition Arguments………………….…....55-57 Table 3: County, state, and federal events and policies relevant to wind development in Converse County..…………………………………………………………………….………….67 Table 4: Timeline of events pertinent to the Wasatch Wind proposal for Pioneer Wind Parks I and II.…………………………………………………………………………………….………71 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's 80-meter wind map, showing Wyoming's high wind energy production potential……………………………………………...14 Figure 2: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's map of average annual wind speeds in Wyoming, with author’s additions showing approximate location of Converse County and Natrona County…………………………………………………………………………………..62 Figure 3: Map showing the southern half of Converse County, with Glenrock and proposed Pioneer Wind Parks I and II marked. (Map generated with permission from Google Maps: Imagery ©2013 TerraMetrics, Map data ©2013 Google)……………………………………….65 Figure 4: Sign posted by an upset landowner whose property is less than 800 feet from turbines in the Chevron Casper Wind Farm. Author’s own photo………………………………………..78 Figure 5: The historic Grant family barn, over 125 years old. The barn is located within a few miles of the site of the proposed Pioneer Wind Parks I and II project. Author’s own photo……95 Figure 6: A visual representation of the proposed wind farm created by the Northern Laramie Range Alliance. (NLRA, 2010:2)………………………………………………………………108 ix 1. THE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustainable Communities and Wind Energy Project Acceptance in Massachusetts
    Sustainable Communities and Wind Energy Project Acceptance in Massachusetts Maria A. Petrova, PhD* I. Background ..................................................................... 530 II. Study Context ................................................................. 534 III. Literature Review and Research Questions .................. 539 IV. Methods ........................................................................... 543 V. Results............................................................................. 544 VI. Discussion and Conclusion ............................................. 551 The State of Massachusetts is one of the most progressive U.S. states in advancing sustainability through energy conservation and renewable energy. The Green Communities Act,1 signed into law by Governor Deval Patrick in 2008, has awarded 110 communities with the title “Green Communities” in the last five years.2 The title is earned after communities achieve “five clean energy benchmarks,”3 two of which are the provision of “as-of-right” siting for renewable/alternative energy generation and the adoption of an expedited application © 2014 Maria A. Petrova, PhD * Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 160 Packard Ave, Medford, MA 02155, [email protected]. This work was done as a Postdoctoral Scholar at the Energy, Climate, and Innovation (ECI) Program in the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy (CIERP) at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. Financial support was provided through a grant to ECI from BP Group and Barbara Kates- Garnick. I am grateful for the review assistance of Professor Kelly Sims Gallagher and the research help of students Allison Thompson, Elena Nikolova, and Chantal Davis. 1. An Act Relative to Green Communities, 2008 Mass. Acts 308–80. 2. Press Release, Mass. Exec. Office of Energy & Envtl. Affairs, Patrick- Murray Administration Energy Officials Present Green Communities Award (Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Powering America FY07 Activities Summary
    Wind Powering America FY07 Activities Summary Dear Wind Powering America Colleague, We are pleased to present the Wind Powering America FY07 Activities Summary, which reflects the accomplishments of our state Wind Working Groups, our programs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and our partner organizations. The national WPA team remains a leading force for moving wind energy forward in the United States. At the beginning of 2007, there were more than 11,500 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed across the United States, with an additional 4,000 MW projected in both 2007 and 2008. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that the U.S. installed capacity will exceed 16,000 MW by the end of 2007. When our partnership was launched in 2000, there were 2,500 MW of installed wind capacity in the United States. At that time, only four states had more than 100 MW of installed wind capacity. Seventeen states now have more than 100 MW installed. We anticipate five to six additional states will join the 100-MW club early in 2008, and by the end of the decade, more than 30 states will have passed the 100-MW milestone. WPA celebrates the 100-MW milestones because the first 100 megawatts are always the most difficult and lead to significant experience, recognition of the wind energy’s benefits, and expansion of the vision of a more economically and environmentally secure and sustainable future. WPA continues to work with its national, regional, and state partners to communicate the opportunities and benefits of wind energy to a diverse set of stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Wind Energy
    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
    [Show full text]
  • GWEC Global Wind Report 2016
    GLOBAL WIND REPORT ANNUAL MARKET UPDATE 2016 Opening up new markets for business: Mongolia 8TH NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY FORUM Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 5 May 2017 Mongolia’s wind has the technical potential of 1TW. GWEC is paving the road to that potential. www.gwec.net TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . 4 Foreword from our sponsor . 6 Corporate Sourcing of Renewables – A New Market Driver for Wind . 8 Global Status of Wind Power in 2016 . 12 Market Forecast 2017-2021 . 20 Argentina . 26 Australia . 28 Brazil . 30 Canada . 32 Chile . 34 PR China . 36 Denmark . 40 The European Union . 42 Finland . 44 Germany . 46 India . 48 Japan . 50 Mexico . 52 Netherlands . 54 Norway . 56 Offshore Wind . 58 South Africa . 66 Turkey . 68 United States . 70 Vietnam . 72 About GWEC . 74 GWEC – Global Wind 2016 Report 3 PREFACE verall, the wind industry fi nished up 2016 in good installations of 8,203 MW were about the same as 2015’s, and shape, with solid prospects for 2017 and beyond. The despite the political goings-on, seem to be on track for a strong O economics of the industry continue to improve, with 2017, with 18+ GW either under construction or in advanced record low prices for the winning tender in Morocco last year stages of development. So far so good – fi ngers crossed! of about $30/MWh, and very competitive prices in auctions Europe’s numbers were surprisingly strong, actually sur- around the world, while more and more companies’ P&Ls have passing 2015 for Europe as a whole on the strength of Turkey’s come out of the red and into the black.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development and Improvement of Instructions
    COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUNDS AND WIND POWER: A SCOTTISH CASE STUDY Dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN WIND POWER PROJECT MANAGEMENT Uppsala University Department of Earth Sciences, Campus Gotland Adam Christopher Mathers COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUNDS AND WIND POWER: A SCOTTISH CASE STUDY Dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN WIND POWER PROJECT MANAGEMENT Uppsala University Department of Earth Sciences, Campus Gotland Approved by: Supervisor, Dr Sanna Mels Examiner, Dr Heracles Polatidis Oct 2018 iii ABSTRACT The Scottish government’s aim of deriving 100 per cent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources is dependent on the utilisation of wind energy. Social barriers, however, have continued to threaten these targets. Community benefit funds have often been paraded as the most common way of improving public attitudes towards wind farms in the United Kingdom, although little empirical evidence exists to support this notion. Using the proposed Ourack wind farm, approximately three and a half miles north of Grantown-on-Spey in the Scottish Highlands, this case study, consisting of a sequential explanatory research design comprised of an initial close-ended survey followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews, sought to explore the community’s perceptions of community benefits, identify the type of fund that the community wanted, and investigate the role of such benefit provisions in altering perceptions of wind farms. The key findings indicated that the majority of participants were in favour of benefits being provided, they preferred funding to be directed towards community organisations, and approximately one third of research participants (31.6 per cent) perceived the proposed wind farm in a more positive light after considering the possible benefits the region would accrue.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Wind Farm Pilot Agreements Per Mw
    Kansas Wind Farm Pilot Agreements Per Mw Askance Nathaniel sometimes paddles any whine misapplies perennially. Lyndon still clangs mother-liquor while eloquent Emile euhemerized that tranquilization. Refined Agustin censors, his leapers stapled revile isometrically. Easements for market value in kansas, energy farm will. Probably choose renewable energy farm is per mw were primarily utilityscale wind farms are agreements being developed a windmill pump installed. Wind-rich states-North Dakota Texas and Kansas-could accomplish this. Nysted offshore farms much is per mw from empirical and kansas to. Installing and Maintaining a secure Wind Electric Energygov. Mw be a pilot agreement between sites that in mw than texas wind farm project uncertainty in efficiency in most per mw. Project various construction is FGE Power's 5004-MW Goodnight Wind Energy farm in Armstrong. Only a pilot? Unfortunately, its prominence often corresponded to its myriad challenges. The supply curves described earlier are based on switch type of transmission and the GIS optimization described here. What is OPC's position transfer the vessel Wind Project 14 A. Power development impacts on electricity market supported by analyzing its name from wind is wind industry would complicate wind. Involving affected remained opposed after random project was communities early is critical to identifying constructed. Mw marena renovables wind turbine setbacks from kathleen sebelius, nyiso system operations will be installed. Be pushed it might have. In AC electricity, the current flows in width direction from zero to a maximum voltage, then back afraid to zero, then sentence a maximum voltage in the plate direction. Kilowatt-hour MW megawatt NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory RPS.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Sample 1
    Appendix M Draft EIS Comment Responses Appendix Table M-1 – General Comment Responses Appendix Table M-2 – Volume I Comment Responses Appendix Table M-3 – Volume II Comment Responses Volume II June 2012 Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Final EIS Appendix M M.1-1 Appendix Table M-1 General Comment Responses GCR Number Category General Comment General Comment Response We believe that the VRM amendment was meant to be done at the Field According to the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, pp. 42), in those instances when activity-level or project-specific EISs (or EAs) are being used to Office level instead of at the Project level. The draft VRM Plan analyze an action that may not conform to the current land use plan, the BLM has several options: adjust the actions or condition the authorization to conform to Amendment needs to visually address the Field Office as a whole. We the plan or achieve consistency with the terms, conditions, and decisions in the approved RMP; or prepare the EIS (or EA) as a RMP amendment, as described do not support the "piecemeal" process. in Section VII. If the BLM determines that a plan amendment may be necessary, preparation of the EIS (or EA) and the analysis necessary for the amendment may occur simultaneously (43 CFR 1610.5). As discussed in Volume I Section 1.2.1, land use plan decisions are made according to the procedures of BLM’s planning regulations in 43 CFR 1600. Plan amendments (see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) change one or more of the terms, conditions, or decisions of an approved land use plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Document.Pdf
    CONFIDENTIAL OFFERING MEMORANDUM This Investment Memorandum (“Memorandum”) is furnished to prospective purchasers solely to facilitate the purchaser’s consideration of the property known as Smokey Trail Apartments (510 Smokey Trail Drive) located in Limon, CO (“Property”). The Memorandum contains proprietary information and was prepared by Olive Real Estate Group, Inc. using information compiled from sources we consider to be reliable. However, the Seller makes no representations or warranties herein and the building is being sold in an “as is, where-is” condition. By receipt of this Memorandum, you agree that: (a) the Memorandum and its contents are of a confidential nature and that you will hold and treat it in strictest confidence; (b) you will not reproduce, transmit or disseminate the information contained in the Memorandum through any means, or disclose this Memorandum or any of its contents to any other entity without the prior written authorization of Olive Real Estate Group, Inc. nor will you use this Memorandum or any of its contents in any fashion or manner detrimental to the interests of Olive Real Estate Group, Inc. or seller; and (c) upon request you will return the Memorandum without retaining any copy or extracting any portion thereof. This Memorandum does not purport to be all-inclusive or to contain all the information which prospective purchasers may desire. Certain documents, including leases and other materials, are described herein in summary form. The summaries are not complete descriptions of the full agreements. Interested parties are expected to review all such documents independently. Financial projections are provided for reference purposes only and are based on assumptions relating to the general economy, competition and other factors beyond the control of Olive Real Estate Group, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments Cares Supports Local Renewable Energy Generation
    ScottIsh Government Good practIce prIncIples for CommunIty benefIts from Onshore renewable Energy developments CarEs supports Local renewable energy generatIon Contents 1 Foreword ................................................................ 3 2 Introduction and overview ....................................... 4 3 Basic principles of community benefits ...................... 6 4 Community investment ............................................ 8 5 Other forms of community benefit ........................... 10 6 Identification of the community ............................... 12 7 Public consultation on community benefit schemes ... 16 8 Supporting effective fund spend .............................. 20 9 Fund administration and governance....................... 24 10 Ongoing role of developer .................................... 26 11 ANNEXES ............................................................ 28 This document is available alongside the shared ownership annex at: www.localenergyscotland.org/goodpractice Revised September 2015 for accuracy. 2 1 foreword winter 2013/14 and we are grateful for the work Renewable energy in Scotland presents an uprecedented opportunity for communities of the informal stakeholder group, as listed in to share in the benefits of their local energy Annex 11.5, convened under our Community and resources. Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES). We think this has produced a very helpful national reference to The Scottish Government has no powers to guide what is a voluntary local process, and we oblige developers
    [Show full text]
  • Usa Wind Energy Resources
    USA WIND ENERGY RESOURCES © M. Ragheb 2/7/2021 “An acre of windy prairie could produce between $4,000 and $10,000 worth of electricity per year.” Dennis Hayes INTRODUCTION Wind power accounted for 6 percent of the USA’s total electricity generation capacity, compared with 19 percent for Nuclear Power generation. A record 13.2 GWs of rated wind capacity were installed in 2012 including 5.5 GWs in December 2012, the most ever for a single month. The total rated wind capacity stands at about 60 GWs. Utilities are buying wind power because they want to, not because they have to, to benefit from the Production Tax Credit PTC incentive. The credit has been extended for a year to cover wind farms that start construction in 2013. Previously it only covered projects that started working by the expiration date. Asset financing for USA wind farms was $4.3 billion in the second-half compared with $9.6 billion in the first six months of 2012. Component makers are the General Electric Company (GE), Siemens AG, Vestas AS, Gamesa Corp Tecnologica SA and Clipper Windpower Ltd., which is owned by Platinum Equity LLC. Equipment prices for wind have dropped by more than 21 percent since 2010, and the performance of turbines has risen. This has resulted in a 21 percent decrease in the overall cost of electricity from wind for a typical USA project since 2010. From 2006 to 2012 USA domestic manufacturing facilities for wind turbine components has grown 12 times to more than 400 facilities in 43 states.
    [Show full text]
  • (For Official Use Only) PUBLIC PETITION NO. PE1188 Should You Wish to Submit a Public Petition for Consideration by the Public P
    (For official use only) PUBLIC PETITION NO. PE1188 Should you wish to submit a public petition for consideration by the Public Petitions Committee please refer to the guidance leaflet How to submit a public petition and the Guidance Notes at the back of this form. 1. NAME OF PRINCIPAL PETITIONER Nick Dekker 2. TEXT OF PETITION Nick Dekker calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate the circumstances whereby it agreed that 60 hydro-power stations could be accredited for subsidy under the Renewables Obligation scheme and that generation capacity could be cut to below the 20megawatt qualification threshold at others to enable accreditation and whether, in the interests of electricity consumers, it will rescind these accreditations. 3. ACTION TAKEN TO RESOLVE ISSUES OF CONCERN BEFORE SUBMITTING THE PETITION I have contacted and have been in correspondence with AuditScotland, OFGEM, Scottish & Southern Energy PLC and ScottishPower PLC. Alex Neil MSP also corresponded with Scottish & Southern Energy. 4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION See— “The war on climate change – A licence to print money?” “Subsidies and Subterfuge – Hydro-power and the Renewables Obligation” (also on www.swap.org.uk) “ROCs earned by Alcan, SSE and ScottishPower from 'old build' hydro, April 2002 to December 2007” (a report by the petitioners); “Renewable Energy Data for Scotland (Hydro), May 2008” Correspondence generally pertinent to the petition but esp to Question 3 OFGEM’s “Annual Reports on the Renewables Obligation” 2004 to 2008; Press releases and other material referred to in “The war on climate change – a licence to print money?” and elsewhere 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum Submitted by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (WIND 01)
    Energy and Climate Change Committee The Economics of Wind Power written evidence REF: Page WIND 01 Department of Energy and Climate Change 5 WIND 02 Maureen Beaumont 9 WIND 03 D E Simmons CEng; MIMechE; CMIOSH; RMaPS 11 WIND 04 Galloway Landscape And Renewable Energy (GLARE) 12 WIND 05 Dr. Ian Woollen 15 WIND 06 Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) 16 WIND 07 Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 18 WIND 08 ABB 21 WIND 09 Roland Heap 24 WIND 10 David Campbell 29 WIND 11 The Renewable Energy Foundation 31 WIND 12 Brian Skittrall 34 WIND 13 Sir Donald Miller 37 WIND 14 Hengistbury Residents' Association (HENRA) 40 WIND 15 Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy ‐ UK 43 WIND 16 REG Windpower Ltd 46 WIND 17 Adrian J Snook 52 WIND 18 Montgomeryshire Local Council Forum; Welshpool Town Council 55 WIND 19 Ian W Murdoch 57 WIND 20 Mrs Brenda Herrick 60 WIND 21 Mr N W Woolmington 62 WIND 22 Professor Jack W Ponton FREng 63 WIND 23 Mrs Anne Rogers 65 WIND 24 Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) 67 WIND 25 Derek Partington 70 WIND 26 Professor Michael Jefferson 76 WIND 27 Robert Beith CEng FIMechE, FIMarE, FEI and Michael Knowles CEng 78 WIND 28 Barry Smith FCCA 81 WIND 29 The Wildlife Trusts (TWT) 83 WIND 30 Wyck Gerson Lohman 87 WIND 31 Brett Kibble 90 WIND 32 W P Rees BSc. CEng MIET 92 WIND 33 Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management 95 WIND 34 Councillor Ann Cowan 98 WIND 35 Ian M Thompson 99 WIND 36 E.ON UK plc 102 WIND 37 Brian D Crosby 105 WIND 38 Peter Ashcroft 106 WIND 39 Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) 109 WIND 40 Scottish Renewables 110 WIND 41 Greenpeace UK; World Wildlife Fund; Friends of the Earth 114 WIND 42 Wales and Borders Alliance 119 WIND 43 National Opposition to Windfarms 121 WIND 44 David Milborrow 124 WIND 45 SSE 126 WIND 46 Dr Howard Ferguson 129 WIND 47 Grantham Research Institute 132 WIND 48 George F Wood 135 WIND 49 Greenersky.
    [Show full text]