Lame Ducks Can't Be Brought Down by Windmills

[XLFD]

The following op-ed article was recently put out by representative-elect Ray Franz regarding a bill introduced in the Michigan Legislature by Dan Scripps on 11-10-10.  This also ran ( with slight editing)on p. 4 of black friday's Ludington Daily News.  Some relevant links are provided along the way in case you wish to check out his facts/opinions.  Are his concerns valid? 

 

“Lame duck” used to refer to the relatively quiet transition of governance. Obviously that is not the case this time around. There’s talk of all the rush through bills that may come out of Washington, D.C. and on Tuesday November 10^th, Representative Dan Scripps introduced House Bill 6564 and got it on the fast track to approval before he and the democrat majority leave office.  http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/Ho...

 

HB 6564 is a lengthy 60 page bill ( http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/Ho...) that would allow for the leasing of the bottomlands of the Great Lakes and industrial windmills to be placed into all of the Great Lakes. It also puts the DNRE in charge of the whole process.

 

Like so many other controversial bills this one is being pushed through as quickly as possible. And Scripps has garnered support from Rep. Jeff Mayes, a Bay City democrat, and from two Republican Senators: Patty Birkholz (Saugatuck) and Gerry VanWoerkom (Norton Shores). That makes it a bipartisan effort and supposedly wonderful – but it is not. As reported in the Muskegon Chronicle, Birkholz said “Time is of the essence” and “If we fail to act before the end of the year, Michigan will miss its opportunity…” (Muskegon Chronicle 11/16/2010). It should be noted that all four legislators are done at the end of the year and do not need to answer to the voters — who in most area polls reject wind towers in the Great Lakes. Obviously, they know that the will of the people as expressed in the last election would not support such action.

 

So what is HB 6564? Besides placing all regulatory powers in the hands of the DNRE, it details the process to identify areas of all the Great Lakes that gigantic wind towers could be placed. It prescribes the process to lease the bottomlands to industrial wind developers and also lays out the permit process for “site assessment”, construction, and decommissioning. It also prescribes rents and royalties and where the monies should go (hint — it does not go to the general fund to pay bills).

What are some of the problems? Let’s leave aside the obvious and most important issue of even putting these monsters into the Great Lakes. I’m no lawyer, but I did notice a few questionable issues that we need answers to.

First, “The Department shall approve (my emphasis) a parcel for lease…” if they meet four basic requirements, none of which involve input from the public (Section 32413). Once approval has been granted, then it goes to public auction. Section 32421 says “The Department shall award leases … to the highest bid” (emphasis added). But what if there is only one bidder? Must a bid of one dollar be accepted?

 

Second, the bill spells out a lengthy notice process and comment period to get a site assessment permit. However, Section 32429 (6) requires the Department to approve the application based on the requirements of Section 32413. In other words, the public input was meaningless and merely for show.

 

Third, the bill talks of all the potential hazards (noise levels, electromagnetic fields, pollution from lubricants and chemicals) but is vague on action to mitigate or prevent and there are no penalties prescribed.

 

Finally there is the decommissioning process, it calls for a plan that meets requirements for removal under Section 32427 (5) (j) which merely calls for a plan. In other words, it appears to be political doublespeak. The plan to have a plan does allow, however, for a structure “that has a continuing beneficial use to remain in place …” In other words, it wouldn’t take much to have these cement foundations to be left in the Lakes forever. That’s hardly what I would call decommission and removal.

 

There are other issues, but you get the picture. This bill should be given the appropriate time for consideration and reasonable debate, not just rushed through like so many other bad policies over the last few years.

 

I don’t care if someone wants to put a windmill on their property if it meets local zoning requirements. However, with all due respect, I’d like to question Representative Scripps on industrializing the Great Lakes. Throughout all of our debates, he claimed to protect our water against the evil corporations. These corporations provide hundreds of good paying jobs and the tiny fraction (.025%) of water that is withdrawn is easily replenished by Mother Nature. Yet now he proposes hundreds of enormous industrial windmills as close as three miles from shore. And parts of those structures may permanently scar our bottomlands. The late Paul Harvey used to call that “selective indignation”. Regardless of where you stand on wind energy, we must not make this “mistake in the lake”.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

News story about the bill:

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/11/state_wind_cou...

 

Advocates for alternative energy perspective:

http://exploringourenergyfuture.org/2010/11/18/hb-6564-looks-like-b...

 

Dan Scripps justifications/explanations of bill:  { }  (empty set-- at least on the web)

[Willy]

Thanks for posting this information. Not long ago on the LDN forum someone opened a topic titled "Dan Scripps" and stated they were sorry to see him go because he was a politician with integrity. Now we see that he is just another A-hole who is imposing his will on the citizens of Michigan.

[Edie Lindsey]

I noticed in one of the links to the bill, that Mr. Scripps introduced the bill about a week after the election. A 60 page bill... that equals about 10 pages a day if he started on it after the election. Remember this two years hence. What a weasel. Van Woerkam too. Van Weaselcam more like.

[Mary A.]

I can't believe they have the audacity to do this! Does anyone know whether the residents in the towns along the southwest coast are in favor of wind farms in the lake?

[XLFD]

Earlier this year someone in Grand Haven started up a web initiative that was very pro-wind power in the lake at that area. Several hundred pro-wind supporters responded (from who knows where and with what motives) via the worldwide web, and Scandia tried to sell their product there. Don't know the status of that, but if all the facts are put out (and all the fallacies too) by both sides, and the public is given a say, the residents are likely to do exactly what we did here.

Here is a recent mlive article on the topic which I think was a bit biased for a news story. The only people who are quoted are the pro-wind developers and state university intellects who are in line for funding by those developers. A fact also noted by the first replier in the comments. The comments are a more interesting read than the article itself.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/11/west_michigan_...

[Willy]

What people don't seem to realize is that there will be thousand upon thousands of these towers in Lake Michigan if this bill passes. Even the folks that are in favor of wind will see such a drastic change in the visual impact of the Lake that they will have second thoghts about the decision to plant these monsters in the Lake bottom.

[charlemagnetism]

its nice to see that ray franz is more of a populist than danny scripps. danny wants to quiet the voices that stopped skandia from ruining our lake. the people. whip off an e-mail to danny and tell him you live here and see nothing positive in his bill for us. i plan to.

[Mary A.]

So much for being fairly and honestly represented by our elected officials. It always boils down to money for a greedy minority.

[XLFD]

Some good news on this front, if you're worried about this bill getting railroaded through. An article on Mlive 18 hrs. ago chronicles some of the most recent committee work on this bill. Looks more and more like a no-go, and a good start for Mr. Franz:

"Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Mayes, D-Bay City, opened the hourlong hearing emphasizing that his committee will not be voting on the offshore wind legislation, making it unlikely the House of Representatives will vote on it before the scheduled adjournment Thursday... Apparently, the complex offshore wind legislation will have to wait until new legislators take office at the first of January, along with Gov.-elect Rick Snyder’s new administration.
“This is a first-time hearing on a 60-page bill,” the Michigan Chamber’s Doug Roberts testified in opposition. “I’m concerned in trying to force this through in the final three days of the session.”

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/11/offshore_wind_...

[Mary A.]

Whew!