Wind farm noise ‘guidelines’ (written by the industry’s pet consultants) never survive first contact with careful legal scrutiny.

In the Victorian Bald Hills case, Justice Richards of the Victorian Supreme Court not only ordered the wind farm operator to shut down its turbines at night to limit the noise nuisance they created, her Honour slammed the inadequate noise standards purportedly set up to protect residents, but reserved her harshest criticism for the acoustic consultants who are caught out ‘filtering’ – ie destroying – rafts of noise data.

In a separate decision, Australia’s Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) declared that the “noise annoyance” caused by wind turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound “is a plausible pathway to disease”. The AAT also held “The dB(A) weighting system [which is the basis of all wind turbine noise guidelines and standards] is not designed to measure [wind turbine noise], and is not an appropriate way of measuring it.”

Now the French have reached the same conclusion, with its Council of State slamming the noise pollution measurement protocols which have been used by the French wind industry to ride roughshod over rural residents, for years.

The French Conseil d’État (Council of State) acts both as legal adviser to the executive branch of government and as the supreme court for administrative justice, which is one of the two branches of the French judicial system.

In a monumental decision, Council of State have decreed that the noise protocols are unlawful. The consequence of which is that all planned projects will be required to satisfy a new and more stringent noise standard, and that existing operations will be forced to shut down until they can demonstrate that they are capable of satisfying a new and stricter noise standard; one which allows neighbours to sleep comfortably in their own home at night.

Pauline Hot and Mailys Lange has this report on what is a terrific victory for rural France.

Historic cancellation of wind power authorizations
Sustainable Environment Federation
Pauline Hot and Mailys Lange
8 March 2024

[The Council of State rendered a historic decision on March 8 making authorizations for onshore wind turbines and the rules for renewing wind facilities illegal. This decision is the result of a request submitted by the Fédération Environnement Durable and fifteen associations.

The Council of State cancelled all of the provisions concerning the three successive versions of the noise pollution measurement protocol intended to protect the health of neighbours. This decision not only concerns authorizations and current projects, but could also call into question existing wind farms.]

On March 8, the Council of State rendered an historic decision by making authorizations for onshore wind turbines and the rules for renewing wind farms illegal. This decision follows a request submitted by the Sustainable Environment Federation and fifteen associations.

The Council of State cancelled all the provisions concerning the three successive versions of the noise pollution measurement protocol intended to protect the health of local residents. This decision not only concerns authorizations and current projects, but could also call into question existing wind farms.

Consequences:

• Projects under investigation or authorized not yet built: These projects must undergo a complete environmental assessment.
• Existing wind farms: All wind farms built on the basis of the now illegal decrees should normally no longer be allowed to operate as they are.

Reasons for cancellation:

• Absence of environmental assessment: The Council of State noted that the ministerial noise measurement decrees were not subject to an environmental assessment, which constitutes a violation of the law.
• Lack of public participation: The Council of State also highlighted that the decisions to approve the acoustic protocol were not subject to public participation, thus violating the principles of participation and transparency.

Reactions:

• Environmental associations: Environmental associations welcome the decision of the Council of State, calling it a major victory for the protection of the environment, the health of local residents and respect for the laws. They point out the systematic non-compliance with these laws by the public authorities, whose sole objective was to impose the installation of wind turbines which are increasingly rejected by the population, particularly in rural areas.
• State: The State was ordered to pay compensation to the applicant associations.

Impact on the French energy future:

The decision of the Council of State will have a crucial impact on the French energy future. The development of onshore wind energy is now being slowed down, pending the implementation of new authorizations and rules in accordance with the law. The move also raises questions about the viability of current projects and the future of existing wind farms.

Decision of the Council of State n°465036 of March 8, 2024

Press contact
Sustainable Environment Federation
Jean-Louis Butré
contact@environnementdurable.net
tel: 06 80 99 38 08

Eolien: Informations

Applicants
Sustainable Environment Federation
Belle Normandie Environment
Wind of Anger! National Federation
Anti-Wind Federation of Vienna
Regional collective of experts and citizens for the environment and heritage
Occitanie Catalan country Energies Environment
Alps Provence Côte d’Azur Environment
Collective Allier Citizens
SOS Danger Wind Angry
Angry
Contrary Wind Federation in Touraine and Berry,
Fédération Stop Éoliennes Hauts-de-France
Vent de Sottise
For the Protection of the Pays d’Ouche
Echauffour Environnement
Wind Watch

By Justin Bis

The Securities and Exchange Commission is at it again. Straying from its core mission of “protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation,” the SEC is now taking the mantle of climate activist. Chairman Gary Gensler’s signature policy, the Climate Disclosure Rule, was just approved in a partisan 3-2 vote. Companies will now have to disclose direct and indirect emissions that they produce to investors. This rule, in the guise of informing investors of material risks in companies, will overwhelm investors with information that is unrelated to actual risks to a company’s performance.

For example, how do the emissions coming from a company’s truck make an investment in that company riskier to investors? In this example at least, the answer is it doesn’t.

But even if you could find an example, the SEC already requires companies to disclose material risks, and insurers – whose entire business depends on analyzing and assigning material risk – do not factor in emissions. 

So, what is the point of Climate Disclosure Rule? The SEC contends that the Rule is meant to inform investors on the climate risks of their investments. The trouble: investors don’t seem to care about climate risks.  Letting the cat out of the bag, the SEC posted a study on their website which seems to demystify their motives, stating “investors only care about climate change risks when policymakers intervene, not about physical climate risks.” The SEC seems to be looking for a problem to their solution. Nonetheless, the agency continues to claim that investors are clamoring for climate risk information. But, as SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce noted in her dissenting comments, this creates a “hodgepodge standard” that could lead to the SEC creating disclosures for every type of social value. What’s next, will the SEC create antiwar disclosures, religious disclosures, or political ideology disclosures?

There is a point where over-disclosure is a threat to transparency, creating an obfuscation that hides real risks from investors. Spamming investors with non-material information will reduce the quality of the normal reporting process.  Furthermore, the costs of disclosing every direct or indirect emission will be a significant burden borne by investors and eventually passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. For small companies, the compliance cost alone will be another job killing barrier to competing. For companies thinking of going public, this will be just another reason not to. This rule betrays the core mission of the SEC by making investments less transparent, markets less efficient, and preventing capital formulation.

The real reason the SEC is venturing into this murky terrain is that the current administration is beholden to the environmental social governance (ESG) movement, which seeks to starve disfavored industries and companies of capital. Climate disclosures are intended to shame U.S. businesses into divesting from such critical sectors as mining, logging, and power generation. Widespread adoption of the disclosures is essential for the creating an ESG economy that enriches the politically connected but leaves everyday Americans footing the bill with fewer jobs and higher prices. Unable to pass these unpopular policies through the ballot box or through the Congress, administrative agencies such as the SEC are the new battleground. The Rule is a big step in replacing the free market with an ESG-inspired state capitalism.

The Rule’s legality is highly questionable, which is why, despite being SEC Gensler’s main objective since taking office, it’s suffered delay after delay. After more than twenty-thousand public comments and intense public outcry, the SEC surrendered some important ground. Perhaps cowed by recent court decisions that require agencies to point to “clear Congressional authorization” for their authority, the SEC did a massive, last-minute rewrite, eliminating some major reporting requirements. But, even watered down, the final climate disclosure Rule clearly represents an overstep of the agency’s authority. The rule is clearly vulnerable to courts striking it down or to Congress reclaiming its authority through the Congressional Review Act to restrict the SEC to its actual mission.

My organization, the Financial Fairness Alliance, strives to uncover what the SEC and other U.S. regulators are up to. We believe that the public needs to be informed about what their government is doing because the government works for us, not the other way around. It is time for rogue agencies, like the SEC, to return to their core missions of protecting people and making our markets fair and transparent.

Justin Bis is the Director of the Financial Fairness Alliance. He has held senior government roles, including at the White House and the U.S. Department of Energy, where he assisted with recruiting top-level governmental leaders responsible for regulating the U.S. financial and energy markets. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Essay by Eric Worrall

Opposition party support for nuclear energy appears to have collapsed renewable investment.

Clean Energy Council launches national ad campaign against “nuclear distraction”

Giles Parkinson Mar 22, 2024

…

The CEC says there are two key messages from the campaign: “Nuclear is a distraction”, and “Don’t risk Australia’s Future.”

The campaign is already appearing in more than 2,200 locations in city building lifts and lobbies in Sydney and Melbourne, and on animated digital billboards in airport lounges at Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne Airport. 

…

The campaign by the CEC follows an intense push by the federal Coalition, amplified and often widely supported in mainstream media, to bring a halt to the rollout of large scale renewables, and keep coal fired power stations open until some sort of nuclear option becomes available.

…

It is becoming increasingly clear that the nuclear push is designed to bring the rollout of renewables to a halt – not just temporarily, but for good. 

The Coalition’s chief advisors admit that nuclear, which apart from its extremely high costs, is inflexible and has poor ramping rates, to respond in changes of demand or supply, is effectively not comparable with a grid supplied larger by wind and solar, which needs fast and flexible capacity to support it.

In effect, because the grid is morphing from a system built around centralised “baseload” principles to a more distributed system based around wind, solar and flexibility, the two technologies – nuclear and renewables – are effectively incompatible.

…

Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/clean-energy-council-launches-national-ad-campaign-against-nuclear-distraction/

I agree with the Clean Energy Council that the Australian opposition plan to build nuclear on decommissioned coal sites is not the best solution – though given 25+ years of failure to make renewables useful, their advocacy for more green energy is absurd.

Nuclear might be affordable in the long run, but financing high up-front costs is not something financially stretched energy consumers could easily absorb. Building low cost brown coal plants or refurbishing old plants would be a much better strategy for lowering end user energy prices.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of nuclear, and there are plenty of remote sites in Australia where nuclear would be the cheaper option. But ignoring our vast remaining reserves of brown coal does not make economic sense.

Brown coal does not have value as a saleable commodity, because unlike black coal, brown coal cannot be transported economically. Brown coal has lower energy density than black coal, and when stored for transport has a distressing tendency to spontaneously combust. Brown coal’s only value comes from digging it up then immediately shovelling it into an adjacent coal power plant.

Having said this, it is hilarious that an economically challenged opposition plan for dispatchable zero carbon nuclear energy is enough to crash actual investment in green energy.