Wind Could Generate 40 Times Current Worldwide Consumption of Electricity

A paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that a global network of wind turbines could supply more than 40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity. See Xi Lu, Michael B. McElroy, and Juha Kiviluoma, "Global potential for wind-generated electricity," PNAS 2009.

Here is the executive summary from that paper:

The potential of wind power as a global source of electricity is assessed by using winds derived through assimilation of data from a variety of meteorological sources. The analysis indicates that a network of land-based 2.5-megawatt (MW) turbines restricted to nonforested, ice-free, nonurban areas operating at as little as 20% of their rated capacity could supply greater than 40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, greater than 5 times total global use of energy in all forms. Resources in the contiguous United States, specifically in the central plain states, could accommodate as much as 16 times total current demand for electricity in the United States. Estimates are given also for quantities of electricity that could be obtained by using a network of 3.6-MW turbines deployed in ocean waters with depths depths less than 200 m within 50 nautical miles (92.6 km) of closest coastlines.

This study pushes wind power to its maximum capacity, doing away with reasonable assumptions such as limits imposed by manufacturing capacity and the current electric grid. See Ars Technica (providing a technical review of the paper). However, this does not make the study less reliable since it is looking at maximum potential wind energy not technological or economically feasible wind energy. For policy makers the hope is that technology will catch up with potential.

For wind energy developers, Hawaii is well on its way to increasing wind power capacity. See Maui Wind Energy Producer Proposes Expansion and High Resolution Wind Resource Maps Show 92 MW Energy Potential for Oahu. Hawaii has adopted several laws to ease land use decisions and encourage investment in wind power facilities, for example:

• HRS Section 235-12.5, which provides a tax credit for wind-powered energy systems;
• HRS Sections 205-2 and 205-4.5, which allows wind generated energy production for public, private, and commercial use and wind machines and wind farms on state classified agricultural lands;
• HRS Section 269-101, allows wind turbines to participate in net energy metering programs, which allows utility users to sell net electricity they generate back to the electric grid; and
• HRS Chapter 201N, providing a renewable energy facility siting process.

For more on energy related issues, see Energy.

Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al.

The US Supreme Court will consider putting constitutional limits on Florida’s authority to restore storm-eroded beaches along the ocean or lakeshores, when such action modifies private property boundary lines in Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida (08-1151).

The Court granted certiorari on June 15, 2009, with the following questions presented:

The Florida Supreme Court invoked “nonexistent rules of state substantive law" to reverse 100 years of uniform holdings that littoral rights are constitutionally protected. In doing so, did the Florida Court's decision cause a ''judicial taking" proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

Is the Florida Supreme Court's approval of a legislative scheme that eliminates constitutional littoral rights and replaces them with statutory rights a violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

Is the Florida Supreme Court's approval of a legislative scheme that allows an executive agency to unilaterally modify a private landowner's property boundary without a judicial hearing or the payment of just compensation a violation of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

The opinion issued by the Florida Supreme Court, which is the subject of the appeal, is an excellent primer for littoral property rights, some of which may apply to Hawaii.

Other related documents and pleadings are posted courtesy of SCOTUS Wiki.

Maui County Council Proposes Anti-Mixed Use Zoning Bills

The Maui County Council recently proposed two bills that would remove mixed use zoning from the hotel and industrial districts.

According to Wikipedia, "[t]hroughout most of human history, the majority of human settlements developed as mixed-use environments. [...] This historical mixed-used pattern of development declined during industrialisation in favor of large-scale separation of manufacturing and residences in single-function buildings." The idea of mixed use zoning has come full circle. Today, mixed use planning has made a comeback in the form of smart growth. For example, the American Planning Association has developed various smart growth model zoning codes with the aim of "encourag[ing] a mix of uses, the preservation of open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas, a range of housing types and transportation options, and predictable development review processes."

The Maui bills depart from the current smart growth trend. The first bill eliminates residential and apartment uses in hotel districts. The second bill eliminates business and apartment uses in the industrial district.

The Maui Planning Commission must make a recommendation to Council before Council may act on the proposed bill. Resolution No. 09-21 containing a Draft Bill to Amend Section 19.14.020 of the Maui County Code relating to eliminating the stacking of Residential and Apartment uses in the Hotel District will be heard by the Maui County Planning Commission on June 23, 2009. See agenda.

HUD, DOT and EPA Partner Up for Sustainable Communities

Federal agencies DOT, HUD and EPA are partnering up to coordinate policy for sustainable communities. The agencies have identified six livability principles as the foundation for their cooperation:

1. Provide more transportation choices
Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.

2. Promote equitable, affordable housing.
Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation.

3. Enhance economic competitiveness.
Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers as well as expanded business access to markets.

4. Support existing communities.
Target federal funding toward existing communities – through such strategies as transit-oriented, mixed-use development and land recycling – to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works investments, and safeguard rural landscapes.

5. Coordinate policies and leverage investment.
Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy.

6. Value communities and neighborhoods.
Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods – rural, urban or suburban.

Read more at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot8009.htm.

Wind Energy Facilities Permitting Handbook Could Serve as a Template for Most Projects

The Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A Handbook (2002), prepared for the the Midwest Research Institute, National Renewable Energy Laboratory is a practical guide for navigating land use regulatory issues related to wind energy facilities.

The Handbook's general concepts and road map could also be used for other types of land use projects. The Handbook's key recommendations are:

• Early, significant, and meaningful public involvement
• Taking an issue-oriented approach to help focus the debate, educate the public and decisionmakers, and ensure an analytic basis for decisionmakers
• Ensure that decisionmaking criteria is clear and consistently applied, and made known from the outset to all participants and interested parties
• Encourage and facilitate agency coordination so that project review can proceed simultaneously to avoid redundant, conflicting or inconsistent requirements, standards and processes
• Establish reasonable time frames
• Developers and agencies should know as much as possible about the project, the process, the participants, and the issues prior to commencing the formal permitting process
• Systematically narrow the issues of concern and produce factually-based decisions with the goal of limiting any administrative or judicial appeals and allowing them to proceed more efficiently
• Ensure that conditions of approval are specific, measurable, agreed upon by all parties, realistic, set within reasonable time frames, enforceable, and actually enforced

These recommendations are equally applicable to land use projects generally, and are discussed in detail in the Handbook.

Of course, the Handbook also addresses its intended purpose by discussing common terms and issues applicable to seeking land use entitlements for wind energy facilities.  In that regard, the Handbook is useful and relevant considering the expansion of wind facilities on Maui and the wind project in the pipeline for Lanai.  Some of the wind energy facility concepts are also applicable to other proposed alternative energy projects for Hawaii including solar photovoltaic and  geothermal energy.

The Handbook is a good read and can be downloaded from the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) Web site at www.nationalwind.org.

More Unrest at the Environmental Council

Today's Honolulu Star Bulletin reports that three more state Environmental Council members resigned under protest. 

This follows the resignation of Robert A. King, former Chair of the Council in April. See Environmental Council Member Resigns Under Protest. According to the Star Bulletin, members resigned primarily because of "inadequate funding and staffing inside the state bureaucracy," and because "the Governor's Office ignored the council's proposals to revise the state's rules for environmental impact statements."

The Environmental Council was established by Act 132, Session Laws of Hawaii 1970 (codified as, HRS Chapter 341).  The Council consists of up to fifteen volunteer members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Each member serves staggered four year terms. The Director of the Office of Environmental Quality Control serves as an ex-officio voting member of the Council.  

Under the Act, the Council must consist of a "balanced representation of educational, business, and environmentally pertinent disciplines and professions, such as the natural and social sciences, the humanities, architecture, engineering, environmental consulting, public health, and planning; educational and research institutions with environmental competence; agriculture, real estate, visitor industry, construction, media, and voluntary community and environmental groups."

The primary duties of the Council pursuant to HRS §§ 341-6 and 343-5 (Hawaii's EIS law) include:

• Serving as as a liaison between the Director and the general public
• Soliciting information, opinions, complaints, recommendations, and advice concerning ecology and environmental quality through public hearings or any other means
  
• Publicizing such matters as requested by the Director
  
• Making recommendations concerning ecology and environmental quality to the Director
• Monitoring the progress of state, county, and federal agencies in achieving the State’s environmental goals and policies
  
• Preparing an annual report with recommendations for improvement to the governor, the legislature, and the public no later than January 31 of each year
  
• Hearing appeals regarding the nonacceptance of a final statement by an agency
• Adopting, amending, or repealing necessary rules for the purposes of Hawaii EIS law under HRS Chapter 343

Hawaii Needs "Genuine environmentalists ... separately from the 'CAVE' people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything)"

A professor and environmentalist at the University of Hawaii, discusses the problem of "single issue environmentalists" in Hawaii in today's Star Bulletin.

His editorial concludes that

. . . legislators and regulators and politicians tend to pay more heed to groups that speak with a loud voice rather than getting advice from organizations such as the Hawaii Association of Environmental Professionals, retired scientists and engineers, as well as applying critical thinking, considering history, and stopping long enough to use just plain common sense. These are the factors that all of the above as well as citizens should think over before rushing to join the PC, "green" bandwagon. The intent is good; the means may not be.

Effective and comprehensive environmental policies hamstrung by reactionary, CAVE campaigns can also undermine Hawaii's environmental regulatory system.  For example, existing processes under Hawaii EIS law, historic and cultural preservation laws, and coastal zone management laws do work to preserve Hawaii's resources. But all too often, the process is set askew by emotional, reactionary responses to a particular project. Once politicized, decisionmaking is unhinged from valid scientific analysis. Instead, outcomes are based on the wishes of a small group of vocal opponents rather than on a critical assessment of whether impacts from a project can be mitigated or avoided.

From a legal perspective, reactionary law making can have terrible long-run consequences by creating unnecessary complexities in the law, losing focus of the intent of an environmental law, and creating conflicts with other law that work in concert with particular statutes. For example, some legislators were thinking of removing secondary impacts from Hawaii's EIS analysis solely because of one company's experience with the Hawaii EIS regulatory process (which has been in place since the mid-1970s). See Environmental Review Without Secondary Impacts Analysis—Is Hawaii About to Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater? If adopted, this would be a fundamental change to Hawaii's EIS law and inconsistent with similar national EIS laws.

As the author of the editorial wrote, "we need genuine environmentalists [who base their work on "valid scientific input"]...and we need to urge our legislators to call on them and listen to them."