May 22, 2012

Clean Energy’s Environmental Problem: The Need for Planning and Consensus Among Unlikely Foes

With increased focus on how to jump-start the economy, commentators have focused attention on a traditional debate that pits the “clashing priorities of jobs versus the environment.” However, when clean energy projects are actually proposed, the irony is that “pro-environment” groups are often the loudest critics. For example, when Cape Wind (a 130-turbine wind farm scheduled to be built in Nantucket Sound) was first proposed in 2003, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound was filing lawsuits, mounting political pressure in Boston and Washington, and espousing harsh “environmental” critiques: The turbines will break up and the oil inside will spill into the sound; birds will be torn apart in “pole-mounted Cuisinarts”; and “whales will bump their heads.” Even Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a well-known environmentalist and President of the Waterkeeper Alliance, voiced his own peculiar opposition: “People want to look out and see the same sight the Pilgrims saw.” (Apparently these concerns do not apply to the not-so-pilgrim yachts and diesel-powered motorboats sailing across the Sound).

In Washington State, the same contradictory “clash” occurs. Klickitat County, for example, created a so-called Energy Overlay Zone (EOZ) in 2004 that serves to ease the red tape involved in siting new generation facilities, including wind. The first of its kind in the country, the EOZ involved a county-wide environmental review as a means to streamline the conditional use permitting process so developers know where they are welcome. The results have exceeded expectations: Klickitat County has already generated more than one gigawatt of wind generation, at least 90% of the landowners in the community have contracts with wind developers, and the wind farms employ roughly 5 to 10 operations and maintenance workers per 100 MW of capacity. This translates to over 100 new jobs for a county that watched 600 of its best paying jobs disappear in 2001 when an aluminum smelter was shut down. As one county official noted: “People were really struggling with how to get started again, and that’s where this renewable energy — particularly the wind energy — is changing the whole dynamic.”

Despite the positive economic news, environmental groups, such as Friends of the Columbia Gorge (FOCG) and Save Our Scenic Area (SOSA), believe the EOZ zoning is too broad. Detractors have raised wildlife concerns—including reports of a golden eagle killed by a wind turbine—as well as wind’s perceived negative aesthetic impacts. These arguments are raised in the media, at county planning commission meetings, and debated before administrative tribunals, such as the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. This rather puzzling debate between “clean energy” and the “environment” underscores an important point: development of clean energy will require creative planning, political and administrative solutions, just as it will require technological innovations. In fact, in many instances, the technology is already there. What is needed are tools to build consensus, address community opposition, and increase political will.

© 2002-2012 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Associate

Jim Robenalt is an associate in the Seattle office. His practice is focused on general litigation, commercial litigation, environmental law, insurance and Indian law & gaming.

206-628-6646

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.