In the volatile debate on wind power permitting in North Carolina (SB1068), it seems that the only versions of the story being told are utility-scale wind farms and anti-wind. In other words, it’s a polarized, “all or nothing” framing of the issue as shaped by the media and the over-simplified public rhetoric. Here’s a closer look at both “sides” and at a third way, community-based renewable energy, toward a sustainable energy future that few seem to consider. Wind has to be a part of a multi-element energy strategy. Don’t ban wind. Let’s change the debate.

The anti-wind rhetoric makes sweeping claims. Here are the significant ones and AIRE’s response to them:

• (1) The “mountains are pristine and windmills will mar the landscape.” Some environmentalists and real estate developers alike share this refrain. Clearly, other forms of rapacious development have a long history of inflicting environmental damage. This isn’t to excuse unregulated wind energy development though. Responsible and appropriately scaled and sited wind can help preserve our ridges.
• (2) We should use more “traditional” energy sources like coal and nuclear because they are cheaper and more reliable. The counter-response is first, just because something is traditional doesn’t mean it is good. Coal is dirty, unsustainable, and inefficient.
• (3) Anti-wind voices also claim wind is heavily subsidized, ignoring that coal and nuclear are massively subsidized. True, wind is subsidized, however, coal’s generous subsidy by comparison is off the charts. The externalized costs of mining, public health effects, air quality and climate change render the subsidy claim moot.
• (4) Some argue, that yes, wind is great as long as the turbines are “somewhere else” and connected to smart grids. But if we ship off our energy production we ship off local jobs, local tax bases, and we disempower communities. It relegates us to being consumers, when we should be producers too.
• (5) Because of our excessive consumption, wind’s contribution to the grid would be insignificant. This admission ought to be most embarrassing. Translated, this is like saying, “if we (‘other people’) used less, maybe wind would be important.”

The pro-wind arguments center on environmental claims of necessary and rapid transition to renewables and efficiency, and the possibility for greening the economy, especially the green jobs such a transition would create. This is also a sweeping claim. Within pro-wind circles there are several distinct positions including a far less controversial version called community wind. Community wind in WNC would not be the same as a “wind farm” a pejorative term in the current debate. This is completely glossed over in the media coverage of SB1068. Yet the original version of the bill did recognize the important distinction. Unfortunately, a few senators want to foreclose on community wind.

AIRE advocates community-based renewable energy including wind, solar, micro-hydro, energy efficiency and conservation. Wind has to be a part of the energy mix! In other words, lets employ a diversity of technologies at community-scale, including wind, to help our state become more energy self-sufficient. Wind and solar alone could make us 40% energy self-reliant (1), and with twenty billion dollars a year hemorrhaging out of NC annually, we have, in essence, an economic stimulus that we can fund ourselves! What’s more, a recent Rocky Mountain Institute (2) report reveals that North Carolina ranks a sub-par 27th in the United States on energy efficiency. In other words, we generate $3.34 of state GDP for every kilowatt hour of electricity consumed compared with New York, which reaps $7.18 for each kilowatt consumed. Translation– we are throwing money away in North Carolina.

We want distributed power that can use existing transmission and distribution lines, not massive centralized corporate wind farms. More importantly, we want to keep more dollars in our strapped local economies and make the electric grid more reliable. With community-owned energy, we can invest in our communities rather than send our hard earned dollars elsewhere. And we can do this with wind as part of the mix. Community-scale wind projects are not “as tall as the Bank of America in Charlotte” even though the mythology has led us to believe it unquestionably. We can do this without wind farms, or “industrial wind” as the anti-winders exhort. And we can even do this while prohibiting development of our vast federal lands, state parks, and lands in conservation easements. In fact, only a small percentage of WNC’s windy land would be “permitted” under SB1068. Wind farms will not be “everywhere” as opponents claim. This diversified energy approach can help heighten public awareness, and lead to a more resilient economy and a better quality of life.

Governor Purdue’s transition team reported that communities need a direct role in their energy futures. To ban wind power from the resource mix would be a very costly choice. It would be like banning solar energy in Tucson. Let’s not be bound by old thinking. Leave community wind in SB1068!

• 1. Ferrel, John; Morris, David. 2008. Energy Self-Reliant States: Homegrown Renewable Power. Institute for Local Self Reliance. Policy Brief. November 2008. Minneapolis, MN.
• 2. Mims, Natalie; Bell, Mathias; Doig, Stephen. 2009. Assessing the Electric Productivity Gap and the U.S. Efficiency Opportunity. Rocky Mountain Institute. Snomass, CO. Note: these figures are adjusted for a variety of biases inherent in differing state economic composition.

We should keep in mind that U.S. Forest Service lands are designated “multi-use” and have been the site of massive clear-cutting, mineral extraction, hydroelectric damming, communications infrastructure, and other damaging uses. USFS Wilderness Areas or National Recreation Areas deserve rigorous protection from all development including wind, and AIRE would concede all such federal lands as well. Also, AIRE does not advocate wind development in the Blue Ridge Parkway or the Great Smoky Mountain National Park viewsheds. As for lands in conservation easements, AIRE recognizes the dedicated work, vision, and success of the conservation movement and agrees that these lands should be explicitly off-limits to wind development. AIRE has held that the provisions in SB1068 would be sufficient to effectively eliminate wind development on federal lands. However, it is a reasonable and productive concession to make this explicit in the bill’s language in order to move wind development forward in a controlled fashion.