Valley County Wind back

Developer:  GreenHunter Energy
Valley County, MT

• Project Background
• Montana Context
• Siting and Zoning
• Environmental Assessment and Public Discourse
• Conclusions
• Bibliography

“To avoid conflicts in the future, greater discussion and a more comprehensive approach to energy development are needed. We should encourage wind farms, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice our cherished landscapes and wildlife to get them.”
-Gerry Jennings, former president, Montana Wilderness Association

“If you have opposition in Valley County, I don't know how you could build [a wind farm] anywhere.”
-Gary Evans, CEO, GreenHunter Energy

Project Background top

Valley County, Montana is located on the border with Canada, about twenty-six miles north of the city of Glasgow. The county is sparsely populated, with just over one person per square mile. Glasgow has a population of just over two thousand and a median income of about $30,500. The northwest part of the county is home to the Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area, a large undeveloped area rich in wildlife, scenery, and cultural resources. The Wilderness Study Area consists of untrammeled shortgrass prairie and badlands, which house a number of rare animal and plant species.

In 1999, WindHunter, LLC, a division of Texas-based GreenHunter Energy, began looking at possible sites in northeastern Montana for a large wind farm. By 2004, it had settled on a location in northwestern Valley County and proposed a 500MW wind farm over 20,000 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Montana School Trust Lands, and private land. The Valley County Wind Energy Project was planned to include  337 1.5MW turbines, built in four phases over several years. A high-voltage (230kV) transmission line was also expected to be built from the wind farm to a proposed Antelope County substation, seven miles west of Glasgow. At the the time, Valley County was proposed to be the largest wind farm in Montana.

GreenHunter cited the rising demand for energy in the western U.S. as the main reason for building the wind farm. Valley County Wind was intended to meet Montana’s Renewable Energy Standard, which requires 15% of all energy purchased to be from renewable sources by 2015. Finally, Valley County also would have met a rising demand from consumers for “green” power.

After the public scoping process in 2005, GreenHunter released its environmental assessment (EA) in June 2006.  As a result of public comments concerned about wildlife, land use, and visual impacts, GreenHunter revised its plans and scaled down the farm to 117 units producing 170 MW with a 61kV transmission line. It released a supplemental EA and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in May 2007which was again opened up for public comment. The public response was significant enough to cause further reassessment, and the project was scaled down to 50MW in September 2007 and finally became a test facility in February 2008, producing just 10MW from new turbines made by Chinese manufacturer Min Yang. The public response about this project will be discussed in more detail in the last section of this paper.

Montana Context top

Montana is an overall exporter of energy, and has some of the cheapest electricity in the nation. Yet despite Montana’s ambitious Renewable Energy Standard, its status as the fifth windiest state in the nation, and the strong support of Governor Brian Schweitzer, wind energy has failed to catch on. Its 250MW of installed wind energy pales in comparison to neighboring states. A lack of demand, transmission barriers, and increasing costs have stalled wind development in Montana.  The Valley County case also shows that public acceptance or opposition carries a lot of weight as well.

Although Montana has little need for additional energy itself, it is experiencing rapid energy development to meet rising demand for electricity in the West.  Five new coal plants are proposed in Montana for energy exportation. This has resulted in a system that some Montanans resent – they must pay taxes for development and feel the landscape impacts of powerlines and turbines without experiencing the benefits.. In a state that seems to be fiercely protective of its way of life and wary of the influence of “tourists” and “Californians,” powerlines are just one more symbol of the imposition of outsiders on its landscape and culture.

The lack of powerlines has driven much of the wind development out of the state.  Many potential wind development sites lack transmission, and new transmission line proposals, such as a recently-approved line from  Montana to Alberta and a proposed line from Montana to Las Vegas, are often highly controversial.  In the Valley County case, GreenHunter was forced to invest in a high voltage powerline that raised controversy for its visual impacts. In three other proposed facilities in Montana, GreenHunter scaled back or completely abandoned plans because of transmission capacity shortage. As of August in 2009, GreenHunter only had projects in development in Wyoming and Texas, none of which had been built.

Siting and Zoning top

Figure 1: Montana wind resource

1999, GreenHunter began to search for a suitable location for a wind farm in northeastern Montana. It used three main criteria in its search: the quality of the wind resource, the availability of land, and the availability of suitable transmission. The Valley County project is located in a class four wind area, a good wind resource with average wind speeds of 15-16mph at 50m (Figure 1). GreenHunter Because the property was on both federal and state land, GreenHunter was required to do an environmental assessment by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and Montana Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was the lead state agency for the project with cooperation from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). In the process, the DEQ was required to hold a number of public comment and review periods.

The site was close to a transmission line, although thirty-five to forty miles of high-voltage transmission would have to be built for interconnection. It appears that GreenHunter did not address or recognize significant visual, biological, or cultural impacts in the siting process. The Valley County proposal is located on the property directly bordering the Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area (BCWSA), with some turbines only a few yards from the boundary. In the EA, GreenHunter determined that the Valley County project would “not affect the wilderness characteristic of Naturalness.” They went on to state that the Valley County location was “the only location determined by WindHunter to meet all its siting criteria” (emphasis added).

Environmental Assessment and Public Discourse top

Figure 2: Visual Impact on the BCWSA wildlife viewing area

GreenHunter was required to do a visual, biologic, and cultural impact assessment according to the BLM’s Programmatic Wind EIS standards, which addressed the turbines, and Montana’s Major Facility Siting Act, which addressed the adjacent powerlines. GreenHunter prepared a visual analysis for the June 2006 EA. GreenHunter categorized six types of landscape rating units in the project area, and then determined a ratings system partially based on one used at the Judith Gap wind farm in central Montana.

It then assessed visual sensitivity and visibility for those areas where the wind farm would appear in the immediate foreground, middleground, and background. It was determined that the wind farms would be visible up to eighteen miles away. GreenHunter then identified contrast levels around the turbines as well as the powerlines and substation. Finally, it compiled the data into a visual impact assessment and developed a mitigation plan.

GreenHunter aggregated all of this data and classified the visual impacts from various areas as high, moderate, or low. It determined that the visual impact would be highest from the BCWSA wildlife viewing area/scenic overlook (Figure 2), with 174 turbines highly visible.  Other areas with high visibility include occupied residences (only ten within eighteen miles), Faraasen Park, and the Buffalo County Interpretive Site. Most of these areas would see the powerlines.

For the EA, GreenHunter chose to do two visual simulations, one from the BCWSA (Figure 3) and the other of the proposed substation. The viewpoint from within the wilderness area portrays a “typical view” of the turbines. GreenHunter used Adobe Photoshop, Bentley Microstation, and ArcView to create its visual impact simulation. Generally, most visual impact studies assess multiple viewpoints and create a number of simulations. GreenHunter’s choice to perform only one simulation suggests the limited public opposition they expected. GreenHunter did not do any further analysis or make any conclusions about the visual effects of its project.

Figure 3: Visual simulation done by GreenHunter

Public input began in the siting process when GreenHunter had been searching for an adequate location for its wind farm and developing relationships with “the local communities, agencies, [and] landowners.” However, formal public input began with a scoping process in 2005. GreenHunter conducted two community meetings (Glasgow and Helena) to assess potential citizen concerns and sent out over 500 contact letters and fact sheets. It used these comments to help direct the focus of the EA.

The comments from the scoping process, as summarized by GreenHunter, were largely focused on two interrelated conerns: the impact on local flora and fauna and the visual effects on the BCWSA and surrounding residences. GreenHunter responded to these concerns with a detailed report in the EA, but did not appear to modify the project to mitigate concerns.

In June 2006, GreenHunter opened the EA for public review, receiving over 150 comments. The full comments are unavailable at this time, but a summary of each comment was supplied by the DEQ. The comments focused almost completely on the impacts on the BCWSA. Most of the comments were made by  conservation groups at the national and state level, including Montana Wilderness Association (MWA), The Wilderness Society, and Montana Audubon, as well as representatives from state wildlife offices and a few individual citizens. Northwest Energy, the power purchaser, also made a number of comments about the lack of transmission capacity in the region.

The Montana Wilderness Association and its outreach coordinator, Mark Good, emerged as the leading group opposing the wind turbines, along with Montana Audubon and the Wilderness Society. Nearly all of these groups, when quoted, said that they support wind power, just not in every location. However, the groups were not formally organized into an opposition group and their websites do not highlight their opposition to the wind farm.

The conservation groups were largely worried about wildlife and wilderness impacts. Some commented on individual species, such as prairie birds, birds of prey, bats, mule deer, swift fox, native plants and grasses, and species belonging to Montana Natural Heritage Program’s “species of concern.” Yet more comments called for a comprehensive review of the cumulative impacts of the wind farm on the habitat. Although none of the wind turbines would be on wilderness land, many believed that placing turbines in proximity to such land would affect nearby species. The value of the BCWSA, claimed many, is its remoteness, solitude, wilderness, and ecological significance as an unmanipulated tract of shortgrass prairie, and wind development would spoil the pristine area for both its human and non-human users. The connection between the visual impact of development and the character of wilderness was brought out best when one commenter noted that wildlife would be affected by the visual topography of the turbines.

Some comments in the EA were more specific about GreenHunter’s assessment of visual impacts and aesthetics of the turbines. GreenHunter’s assessment of high sensitivity to those within the BCWSA was noted by many as an unaddressed issue. The impacts to the scenic quality were disputed. One comment characterized the landscape as “extraordinarily unique, almost pristine quality.” Some comments implored that public lands should not be used for private gain at the expense of the public. Others noted that wind development on private lands benefits the landowners whereas public development does not.

Finally, many concerns were raised about GreenHunter’s siting decision. Many wondered why GreenHunter failed to discover alternative locations. There was an assumption among some that GreenHunter chose that land for its sparse population and public land status.  A few others suggested that taxpayer money should not subsidize the sale of energy to neighboring states while disturbing local land protection.

In November 2006, GreenHunter announced that it would scale down the project to 150MW/117 turbines. The closest turbines to the BCWSA would be over a half mile away, with all turbines on public land over a mile away from the wilderness. By April, it had released a supplemental EA and a draft FONSI, then opened the documents up for comment in June. The DEQ and DNRC were forced to extend the comment period.

Representatives of GreenHunter and Evan Barrett, Gov. Schweitzer’s economic development chief, were project proponents who lamented the fact that the wind farm faced local opposition. Local voices like Larry Mires, executive director of Two Rivers Economic Growth, and Dave Pippen, chairman of the Valley County Commission, argued that the opposition was coming from “outsiders.” “In a community like ours,” said Pippen in a Great Falls Tribune article, “even having six or eight jobs is a noticeable impact.”

Seemingly caught in the middle were John Fahlgren of the BLM and Hoyt Richards of the DNRC. “We don't want to do something that isn't feasible, and we're not trying to do something that's a huge controversy environmentally,” said Fahlgren in an early 2007 Billings Gazette article. He went on to state, “I think the new proposal addresses the feasibility and environmental issues.”

However, the comments must have echoed the previous ones, because by September 2007, GreenHunter had announced that the project would be scaled back again to 50MW entirely on private land. Local newspapers characterized two sides of the debate – on one hand, “environmentalists” were portrayed as irrational and NIMBY, and on the other, proponents were portrayed as supporting good development, greenhouse gas mitigation, and market-driven economics.

By late September, the Associated Press had picked up the story, and the controversy surrounding the turbines had inspired a significant amount of backlash. The title of the AP article, “Environmentalists blamed for collapse of proposed Glasgow wind farm,” harkened the debate that followed. Nearly 100 comments were submitted to the AP article as it appeared in the Billings Gazette. The comments argued that “greenies” from the East Coast and the “Bin Laden of environmental terrorists” armed with “Hollywood’s money” were trying to turn Montana into “Montanifornia,” where no development is possible, unobtrusive grassland is “pristine,” and “Euro-communists” reign supreme. Of the 98 comments, nearly all were opposed to environmentalists. Other regional newspapers ran the story and letters to the editor lamented Glasgow’s loss. The initial discourse was buried beneath their backlash and the debate was simply reduced to a caricature.

It’s impossible to tell where the majority opinion rested on this project. No local polls, votes, or attempts at deliberative resolution were taken.

It’s difficult to determine the reason that GreenHunter chose to scale the project back. While public opposition played a large role, GreenHunter was also confronted with expensive transmission lines that were made less appealing for a smaller project.  Company representatives cited the lack of “financial viability” as the major reason for scaling back the project. Transmission capacity issues, as pointed out in the comments by Northwest Energy in the public review, could have played a role as well. Yet by early 2008, GreenHunter representatives were more directly citing the risk of further opposition as the main reason for shelving the project. “From my perspective,” said Stephen Wiley of GreenHunter in a Great Falls Tribune article, “[the opposition] was a risk element I just didn't need to deal with.” The siting of the now-10MW test farm over ten miles away from BCWSA seemed to address such concerns.

Conclusions top

This project was clearly a failure from GreenHunter’s perspective. The opposition to the case was strong enough to significantly alter the size and impact of the wind farm, now only 2% of its former magnitude. But what can be learned about the strategies taken and decisions made surrounding this project?

GreenHunter’s choice of site may have been unwise.  Although the company was likely trying to limit visual concerns by siting turbines on a low-population farming area, they may have produced more concerns by working on the border of a wildlife refuge. However, the EA process itself also failed to provide an adequate route for remediation, and public discourse took place almost entirely through public comments, media, and the internet.  Montana’s cultural, political and energy context, when combined with the siting choices and public controversy, gave the wind project little chance to succeed. As Gerry Jennings said in the aftermath, “to avoid conflicts in the future, greater discussion and a more comprehensive approach to energy development are needed.”

Full Bibliography top

“Gazette opinion: Harnessing wind energy for Montana.” Billings Gazette, October 3, 2007.http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/03/opinion/gazette/50-gazetteopinion.txt (Accessed June 9, 2008).

Montana DEQ – Windhunter Project. http://deq.mt.gov/MFS/windhunter.asp (accessed June 8, 2008).

Aengst, Peter. “Guest opinion: America needs wind energy, but not every site is right.” Billings Gazette, October 3, 2007. http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/03/opinion/guest/50-wind.txt (Accessed June 9, 2008).

Associated Press. “Environmentalists blamed for collapse of proposed Glasgow wind farm.” Billings Gazette, September 24, 2007. http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/09/24/news/state/30-windfarm.txt (Accessed June 9, 2008).

Associated Press. “Wind farm plans scaled back.” Billings Gazette, January 24, 2007. http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/01/24/news/state/45-wind-farms.txt (Accessed June 9, 2008).

Brown, Matthew. “Montana wind project becalmed.” Bismark Tribune, September 28, 2007. http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/09/28/news/state/140070.txt (Accessed June 11, 2008).

Brown, Matthew. “Proposed wind farm shrinks in size.” Billings Gazette, September 25, 2007.http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/09/25/news/state/30-wind.txt (Accessed June 15, 2008).

Bureau of Land Management. “Wind energy development Programmatic EIS.” 2006. http://www.windeis.anl.gov/ (Accessed June 11, 2008).

Hayden, Tom. “Letter: Wind power has more problems than promise.” Billings Gazette, February 24, 2008. http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/02/24/opinion/letters/32-wind.txt (Accessed June 15, 2008).

Hoffman, Gladys. “Letter: Valley county wind farm opponent doesn’t know area.” Billings Gazette, October 12, 2007. http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/12/opinion/letters/20-windfarm.txt (Accessed June 9, 2008).

Jennings, Gerry. “Wind farms may be needed, but keep landscapes in mind.” Great Falls Tribune, October 9, 2007, sec. A.

Puckett, Karl. “DEQ studying impacts of proposed power line.” Great Falls Tribune, September 30, 2007. http://www.windaction.org/news/11986 (Accessed June 10, 2008).

Puckett, Karl. “Massive wind farm scaled down.” Great Falls Tribune, January 23, 2007, sec. A.

Puckett, Karl. “Proposed Glasgow project goes down in size once again.” Great Falls Tribune, February 28, 2008. http://www.windaction.org/news/14322 (Accessed June 10, 2008).

Puckett, Karl. “Scaled back wind farm up for public comment.” Great Falls Tribune, April 3, 2007. http://www.windaction.org/news/8743 (Accessed June 10, 2008).

Puckett, Karl. “Smaller Glasgow wind farm still possible.” Great Falls Tribune, September 25, 2007, sec. A.
“Renewable Energy Project List.” Renewable Northwest Project. http://www.rnp.org/projects/projectlist.php (accessed August 4, 2009).

Ring, Tom, e-mail message to Kai Bosworth, June 9, 2008. Attached file: Valley County Environmental Assessment: Summary of Public Comments.

Tilley, Phillip. “Letter: Environmentalists fighting wind energy doesn't compute.” Billings Gazette, October 3, 2007. http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/10/03/opinion/letters/20 -windenergy.txt (Accessed June 15, 2008).

Valley County Project, Montana Major Facility Siting Program, http://www.deq.state.mt.us/mfs/WindHunter/FinalRevApp822/Chapter1PurposeBenefits.pdf (accessed June 10, 2008).

Valley County Wind Energy Project: Public Review Environmental Assessment. June 2006. http://www.deq.state.mt.us/MFS/WindHunter/VCWEP_EA_June06.pdf (accessed June 6, 2008).

Image Bibliography

Figure 1
Valley County Project, Montana Major Facility Siting Program, http://www.deq.state.mt.us/mfs/WindHunter/FinalRevApp822/Chapter1PurposeBenefits.pdf (accessed June 10, 2008). p97

Figure 2
Valley County Wind Energy Project: Public Review Environmental Assessment. June 2006. http://www.deq.state.mt.us/MFS/WindHunter/VCWEP_EA_June06.pdf (accessed June 6, 2008). p3-37

Figure 3
Valley County Project (part 2), Montana Major Facility Siting Program, http://www.deq.state.mt.us/MFS/WindHunter/ValleyCoOPTpart2.pdf (accessed June 10, 2008). p198-199