Environmental Conflicts: The Portland Wind Farm Debate (2002)

This paper was written with Narelle Jenkins and presented at the Environment, Culture and Community Conference, July 2-5, 2002, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Environmental Conflicts: The Portland Wind Farm Debate

Andrea Bunting and Narelle Jenkins

Abstract
In response to the climate change agenda, Australia has introduced a mandatory renewable energy target. This has given a significant boost to the wind power industry, with many wind farms currently planned. However, developers seeking planning approval are facing growing opposition from members of local communities, who are drawing on the resources and successes of established anti-wind farm lobby groups overseas. The windiest sites are often coastal and elevated sites—often very scenic locations—with protesters demanding that landscape values be preserved. Using the Portland Wind Energy Project as a case study, we analyse this environmental conflict, and show how the way in which the Australian wind energy sector is evolving is exacerbating these differences. We ask how the two principles of protecting landscape values and addressing the threat of climate change can be harmonised.

1. Introduction
For over two decades, Australian environmentalists have urged governments to foster greater use of wind power, while opposing the use of other energy sources in electricity supply: nuclear power for its radiation risks and links with militarism; hydro power for flooding large areas of land; and fossil fuels for being squandered and for emitting pollutants and greenhouse gases. Indeed, some Australian environmentalists cut their teeth in disputes over power stations projects—large-scale hydro in Tasmania and the gas-fired Newport power station in Victoria. Environmentalists have long regarded wind power as a benign alternative to conventional energy sources. Until recently, most electricity utilities dismissed wind power, claiming that it was too expensive, too diffuse, and, as an intermittent energy source, unreliable. As wind power need not be available during peak demand, it was deemed ‘non-firm’ and its value set at only the cost of fuel saved. Thus it remained highly uncompetitive.

Today, wind turbines are valued primarily for their capability of generating power without emitting greenhouse gases. In response to concerns about climate change, many countries are installing significant wind power capacity—international growth rates are about 30%. Australia was a slow starter, but wind power is now taking off here too. Also growing is opposition to wind power, with opponents arguing that landscape values must not be degraded by the installation of huge industrial machines.

We propose to analyse this controversy by taking a historical perspective, in particular, by focussing on the changing meaning of the wind turbine. Despite long being regarded as an environmental technology, the significance of wind turbines has shifted over time, as the nature and concerns of the environment movement have evolved. Many of the themes present earlier—indeed, many of the problems for which it was hoped that wind power was a solution—are reappearing in a different guise. We illustrate this by analysing a controversy over a proposed wind farm.

2. Traditional Images of Wind Power
With the 1970s rise of environmentalism, interest in wind power burgeoned. This was linked with a number of different albeit overlapping issues: the alternative technology movement; concerns about energy resource depletion following the 1970s oil shocks; opposition to nuclear power; and objections to the electricity utilities’ environmental performance and planning practices. These helped to shape popular perceptions about wind power. We discuss two of these briefly.

2.1 Alternative Technology Movement
Although part of 1970s environmentalism, the alternative technology (AT) movement was also influenced by the third-world appropriate technology movement, the countercultural movement, anarchism, and 1960s critiques of industrial society. Like other 1970s social movements, AT sought to create a less oppressive, more participatory society. Many alternative technologists went ‘back to the land’ and/or experimented with alternative forms of social organisation and more meaningful work.

Thus, alternative technologists hoped to create technologies that were more than just environmentally benign. To varying degrees, they emphasised that technologies be labour intensive and non-exploitative, and foster decentralisation and self-reliance. An early Australian adherent of AT, John Andrews, recalls how he was inspired by the idea:
that it was possible to design technologies that served very different goals, that technology doesn’t necessarily harm the environment, [that] you can develop technologies that enhance people and their growth … [that you can use] technology to serve human goals, rather than the technological juggernaut running over people (Andrews J. 2000, pers. comm.).
Alternative technologists were critical of large, centralised technological systems such as electricity supply systems. They favoured small-scale wind and solar energy systems which enabled a household or community to be independent from the grid, simple electricity systems which could be installed, maintained and perhaps built by the practical layperson, and community ownership and control.

While the early AT movement held a perhaps overly romantic view of wind power—a view tempered after large numbers of anti-nuclear activists joined their ranks—they helped to shape a popular image of wind power which was strongly associated with a critique of people’s disempowerment from energy supply systems (Tatum 1995).

2.2 Electricity Utilities’ Planning Practices
In the 1970s and 1980s, the electricity utilities were forecasting high growth rates and planning new power stations. But community disquiet over the electricity utilities’ planning practices and poor environmental performance was growing, breaking out into protests over new power station proposals. Critics claimed that the utilities were doing little to control electricity demand, while promoting high growth through their marketing practices to justify building more power stations. Instead, critics argued, the electricity utilities should be vigorously promoting energy efficiency and discouraging the use of electricity for inappropriate applications such as heating. The electricity utilities claimed that new power stations were required to ensure continued economic and employment growth, and that insufficient supply would cause an outcry in industry and the general population.

Wind power proponents claimed that wind power was not only a more environmentally benign form of power generation, but also more appropriate in times of uncertain load growth. The construction of large coal and hydro plant required long lead times; if demand forecasts were too high, the utilities would be saddled with huge debts from overcapacity. Wind power was flexible and modular: it could be built quickly in the required size to meet rising demand. The economic benefit of this reduced risk was ignored in traditional forecasting.

2.3 Summary of Themes
Much of the early support for wind power was premised on opposition to the technologies and practices of the electricity industry. Conventional generation technologies were considered too large, centralised, the domain of technical experts, and environmentally damaging. There was no community control over how the utilities operated or the type of energy source used. The utilities rode roughshod over community and environmental concerns, claiming this was necessary for the industry to continue underpinning economic growth. And they were almost completely supply oriented, giving little consideration to controlling electricity demand.

3. Recent Developments in Australia’s Energy Policies
3.1 GreenhousePolicies
In the late 1980s, concerns about the enhanced greenhouse effect gave new impetus to renewable energy. This presented a problem for federal and state governments, who had long used low electricity prices to lure energy-intensive industry. Heavily dependent on coal, Australia’s electricity sector is a high emitter of greenhouse gases. At the 1997 Kyoto climate change conference, Australia sought to increase greenhouse gas emissions. As part of Australia’s bargaining position, the federal government proposed a mandatory renewable energy target (MRET): the requirement that by 2010 an additional 2% (later set at 9,500 GWh/year) of electricity be supplied by renewable energy or specified waste sources. The legislation was passed in late 2000, with a $40/MWh (4c/kWh) penalty cap included. Renewable energy generators now produce renewable energy certificates, which are traded.
3.2 Restructuring of the Electricity Industry
During the 1990s, Australia’s electricity supply industry was restructured, reputedly to reduce electricity costs for business thereby enhancing international competitiveness. Electricity utilities were disaggregated into generation, transmission, distribution and supply functions, the new bodies corporatised or privatised, and a National Electricity Market formed. This market is intended to allow non-discriminatory access to the grid; however, small-scale generators claim they are disadvantaged due to the power of existing large players. Generators compete to sell electricity into the market, and suppliers compete for customers. Competition has led to lower generation costs, and increased price differentials for electricity users.

4. Wind Power in Australia
4.1 Recent History
Despite the electricity utilities’ dismissal of wind power, several embarked on limited investigations of the wind resource during the 1980s. The WA electricity utility undertook Australia’s biggest wind energy program, installing several individual wind turbines and two wind farms at Esperance. The main driver was reducing fuel costs in WA’s remote communities supplied by diesel generation.

Since the MRET legislation was introduced, electricity companies have been investigating ways to exploit this opportunity. Because MRET is competitive, only the cheapest forms of renewable energy are considered viable. Many wind farms are now being planned, with the Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA) predicting that wind power alone could feasibly exceed the MRET by 2010 (Greenpeace and AusWEA 2001). Developers are trying to lock in the windiest sites in the electricity grid areas for future wind farms, erecting anemometers to determine the wind resource, signing up landowners, and applying for planning permits. As wind power has taken off, so too has the opposition movement.

4.2 The Siting Problem
Most wind farm opponents do not oppose wind power per se; they oppose large, visible wind farms being installed at particular sites. Typical opponents are people living near a planned wind farm who fear the loss of visual amenity. They would prefer that the wind farm be installed “elsewhere”. Dealing with such opposition has become a major—and costly—headache for wind farm developers. In their frustration, developers label such opponents ‘NIMBYs’ (not in my backyard). We find such labelling unhelpful. Instead, we should recognise that competitive measures such as MRET drive developers to consider only the most cost-effective sites, which are often the most controversial.

The wind speed regime is the main factor determining the economic viability of a site, although access to the electricity grid and other infrastructure may alter the project economics. The power in the wind is proportional to the cube of wind speed: a 10% reduction in wind speed can produce a 30% reduction in power output, and thus income. Topographical features such as vegetation and buildings lower the wind speed, and wind flows slower over earth than sea. Therefore, the prime wind power sites in Victoria have good access to sea winds. Some inland sites, particularly elevated sites in hilly terrain, may also have relatively high wind speeds. Hilly areas and coastal locations are often the most scenic.

Modern wind turbines are very tall—some taller than a 25-story building—and not easily hidden. Clearly, wind turbines change the visual experience of a landscape (Pasqualetti et al 2002). Opponents argue that utilizing wind power to address climate change should not be at the expense of landscape values. Although opponents typically comprise a small minority, their objections can thwart attempts by developers to gain planning approval. Opponents have had remarkable success overseas, particularly in the UK. For example one UK developer claimed that 80% of their wind farm proposals were refused planning approval, mainly because of complaints about visual impact (Australian Energy News 2001). Thanks to the Internet, Australian wind farm opponents can draw on a wealth of overseas information about successful strategies to stop wind farm developments.

5. The Portland Wind Farm Controversy
In 1997, Perth-based Energy Equity Corporation (EEC) lodged a planning application to build a wind farm near Portland on Victoria’s western coast. After considering three sites—Cape Nelson, Cape Bridgewater and Bridgewater Lakes—EEC proposed a 25 MW wind farm at Cape Bridgewater, comprising 33 wind turbines. The proposal was approved by Glenelg Shire Council, but a number of local opponents appealed, citing concerns about noise, fauna and flora impacts, archaeological impacts, and the visual impact of 70-m high wind turbines on the landscape. Cape Bridgewater was widely acknowledged as having exceptional landscape qualities including some of the highest cliffs in the state. It also formed part of the Great South West Walk, a tourist destination. The opponents’ appeal was heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in late 1998 and upheld (VCAT 1999).

In making their decision, VCAT were placed in a difficult position. The Planning Minister had decided that no Environmental Effects Statement was required, but that VCAT should consider a range of environmental issues. There were no government guidelines on wind power development, and the incumbent state government had shown little interest in fostering renewable energy. The recently adopted Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) required that significant coastal features be adequately protected; yet the responsible department and agency were not represented at the VCAT hearing, adopting a “wait and see” approach (VCAT 1999). VCAT were aware that by permitting a wind farm in a renowned coastal landscape, they would be setting a precedent. They were unimpressed by arguments that Cape Bridgewater was the only Victorian site where wind power could compete favourably with power from brown coal, instead suggesting that wind farms would probably still be profitable in less significant areas with slightly lower wind speeds. Cape Bridgewater, VCAT argued, should be preserved as a tourist destination—its natural and scenic attributes, infrastructure, and proximity to Portland could facilitate significant tourism opportunities (VCAT 1999).

Meanwhile, Sustainable Energy Australia Pty Ltd (SEA), a small Portland-based company, was planning a wind farm for the coastal farming area east of Portland. Its initial proposal for a wind farm at Tyrenderra was withdrawn after some locals raised objections, with SEA not wanting to waste money on or create antagonism through the appeal process. SEA then announced plans for a 14-turbine wind farm at Codrington, near Portland. The announcement was made soon after the Cape Bridgewater decision was handed down. In light of this, SEA elected to seek planning permission before conducting wind speed tests to determine if the site was viable. Not the industry’s usual practice, this reflected that gaining local support was becoming the biggest obstacle facing wind farm developers. SEA’s proposal received planning approval with little controversy. SEA, along with its wind farm proposal, was taken over by Pacific Hydro Limited (PHL), a Melbourne-based company with hydropower assets in Australia and overseas. The Codrington wind farm was commissioned in mid 2001.

In late 2000, with the Codrington project proceeding and the company recording strong financial growth, PHL announced plans for a large wind farm of around 140 MW spread over four sites near Portland—Yambuk, Cape Sir William Grant, Cape Nelson and Cape Bridgewater—spanning about 60 kilometres. PHL would also negotiate with a wind turbine manufacturer to establish a manufacturing facility in Portland, creating hundreds of new jobs. Currently Australia imports large wind turbines, because the market has been insufficient for local manufacture. PHL was required to prepare an Environmental Effects Statement (EES), and the project was considered by a planning panel established by the Victorian government.

Given that the Cape Bridgewater site had been previously rejected by VCAT, why did PHL include this site in its proposal? The company believed that the climate was now more favourable for wind power: the federal government had instituted the MRET; the new Victorian government was enthusiastic about wind power developments; the local council was developing a wind power strategy (Connell Wagner 2001), and the promise of jobs in wind turbine manufacturing was very attractive to a community with relatively high unemployment (PHL 2002, pers. comm.). While Cape Bridgewater was the most controversial of the four sites in the proposal, it was also the windiest and thus the most lucrative. PHL represented the four-site project as an integrated whole, indicating that the whole project would not proceed if only part were approved. This strategy made it difficult to achieve a compromise: if only Cape Bridgewater were rejected, there would be no wind turbine manufacturing facility for Portland. Moreover, as VCAT had argued earlier, approval for Cape Bridgewater would set a precedent for wind farm proposals at other scenic locations.

The proposal generated great controversy in the Portland region: many locals made submissions to the planning panel and thousands signed petitions both for and against the wind farm (Mercer 2002). A poll in the Portland district found 88% support for the proposal (Auspoll 2001), while a Cape Bridgewater landowner claimed that the level of opposition in the Cape Bridgewater region was 77% (Mercer 2002). Supporters of the project welcomed the promised economic and employment benefits, and denounced the opponents for trying to thwart this opportunity. Meanwhile, opponents railed against the visual intrusion on the capes, some donating funds to fight the proposal. They argued that more greenhouse gas reductions could be achieved by implementing energy efficiency measures in industry, transport, commercial buildings and dwellings. Privately, some opponents expressed mistrust in PHL and concern that the company’s strategies had divided the community. PHL had engaged in a community consultation process, but was criticised by opponents for not revealing the full effect of the development. In particular, opponents claimed that PHL’s photomontages showing the effect of the wind farm on the landscape were of poor quality, did not adequately represent the impact of the turbines and were taken from too great a distance. Opponents then published their own photomontages.

In August 2002, the Victorian government announced its decision: the Portland Wind Energy Project was approved subject to PHL relocating seven wind turbines with the greatest visual impact. At this stage it appears likely that the project will proceed. At the same time, the government released its wind energy policy and planning guidelines. These guidelines excluded from wind farm development only those areas reserved under the National Parks Act (1975), and made the Minister for Planning the responsible authority for wind projects greater that 30 MW (SEAV, 2002). Since future wind developments are likely to be greater than 30 MW, in effect the decision-making authority has been removed from local government.

6 Issues of Contention
6.1 Environmental Trade-Offs and Equity
In terms of environmental protection, both proponents and opponents of wind farms claim the moral high ground—for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or preserving landscapes respectively. The ‘environment’ can, of course, be depicted in different ways: as natural systems and orders such as ecosystems, climate interactions and the hydrological cycle; or as that which surrounds us including the countryside, vistas and fresh air. Early work analysing the environmental costs of electricity production generally considered only the latter definition—that is, the direct human impact (Stirling 1997). Recently, the former definition has taken precedence, with the impact of greenhouse gas emissions becoming the overriding concern. Some wind power proponents justify this by cautioning that if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, climate change could have a significant impact on coastal and natural ecosystems. (See for example, Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria 2001.)

Also apparent in the wind farm debate is a tension between local and global environmental impacts (Elliott 1997). Concern about global environmental impacts became widespread only since the late 1980s, while concern about local impacts have a longer history and are undoubtedly more deeply embedded. Must local and global impacts be traded-off? There are important equity issues here. Critics claim that wealthy countries can preserve their scenic vistas, clean air, etc. along with their high energy lifestyles while ‘exporting’ environmental impacts to poorer countries. One can recognise similarity with the argument that rural communities living near proposed wind farms are being asked to suffer the disadvantages of wind power so that urban residents can continue their high energy lifestyles without the guilt of contributing to climate change.

The controversy over the Portland Wind Energy Project is commonly portrayed as being about how to resolve the environmental trade-off between the greenhouse benefits of the project and the detrimental effects on the landscape. Yet, as Buxton (2002) argues, this trade-off is not necessary if there are other means of achieving the same greenhouse gas emission reduction, whether by finding a less scenic albeit less cost-effective wind farm site, or by reducing Australia’s electricity demand through implementing greater energy efficiency. Both require government to play a stronger role, in the former case by replacing MRET with a less competitive renewables support measure or by providing an assistance package to the wind industry (Buxton 2002), in the latter case by formulating a demand management strategy and implementing regulations on energy efficiency performance standards.

Given that there are alternatives, despite requiring government intervention, the debate can be reinterpreted as one of whether to trade off landscape values for economic growth. For Portland residents, this is indeed the dilemma: they are torn, as are many communities, between environment and jobs—albeit green jobs.

6.2 Visual Impact
A typical wind farm comprises 10 to 50 turbines. Each has a three-bladed rotor on a 60 to 80 metre tubular steel tower, with a nacelle on top to house the generator, all painted gray with minimal signage or logos. These are undoubtedly large structures, but the visual impact may be compounded by the setting. The eye is drawn to motion and to vertical structures in a horizontal landscape. The visual impact need not be negative: some people find wind turbines attractive, and they can be a powerful symbol of environmental sustainability. Certainly the visual impact of early Californian wind farms was not favourable. Fields of densely packed lattice towers of assorted heights topped with wind turbines of assorted designs, some clearly inoperable, and a scarred landscape all gave wind power a bad image. But much has changed.

Visual impact is now not treated as solely subjective; techniques have been used to quantify it. One technique, called zones of visual influence (ZVI), is usually shown as a map layer describing the extent of the wind farm that can be seen at given points under standard conditions. The Sinclair-Thomas Matrix, for example, is used to describe the number of turbines, their proximity and how clearly they can be seen. When assessing the impact of wind farms on tourism, the ZVI can be compared with existing scenic lookouts and tourist viewsheds. Visual impact can be mitigated by careful location of the turbines, using screening plants or topographical features to ‘hide’ the turbines.

The aesthetics of individual wind turbine have been addressed. Tubular steel towers are preferred over lattice towers, nose cones and careful nacelle design improve the look of the machine, and underground cabling reduces visual clutter. There have also been advances made in wind farm layout to improve the visual impact. Individual turbines have become larger in both size and power rating. This means that fewer turbines are needed for the same total output, and they also need to be spaced further apart. Both of these details eliminate the solid wall appearance of early wind farms, such as found in images from California’s wind farms. Also important is to keep turbines operating whenever possible; a stationary turbine amongst operational ones gives the impression that wind power is not reliable.

Thus, substantial progress has been made by the wind industry in addressing visual impact. The problem in Australia is that many people have not seen a wind farm, though this is now changing. The wind industry believes that people’s fears will be allayed if they can visit a wind farm—hence the importance of the Codrington project for PHL.

6.3 Tourism and Wind Farm Developments
Wind farms are more economically attractive in scenic coastal locations because the landforms that promote steady, strong winds are also those that produce scenic vistas. The wind energy industry has had to deal with visual impacts and tourism for some time. It is now standard practice for a modern wind farm to include a viewing center with some type of information display. This varies from a roadside pullover with a notice board through to a staffed information centre with guided tours. Wind farms initially attract high visitor numbers, but this may be due to their novelty: when this wears off with time or increased exposure, visitor numbers should decline. Hence, opponents believe that increased tourism is not a long-term outcome of installing a wind farm. Experience overseas bears this out, but also suggests that wind farms do not stop people visiting the area, even if they are not specifically visiting the turbines, nor do they stop visitors from returning (BWEA 2001, pers. comm.).

In the Portland, the effect on tourism is a major issue of contention. The region attracts many ecotourists, and many Cape Bridgewater tourism operators were concerned about effect of the wind farms on the experience currently offered to such visitors (Goulding 2002). PHL claimed that a wind farm would attract tourists, particularly if a wind power ‘interpretive centre’ were included (Sinclair Knight Merz 2002). In fact, both sides of the Portland debate recognize that projections for tourist numbers and expenditure differ very little between the scenarios for no wind farm development versus wind farm development with an interpretive centre. We believe that the tourism issue masks more significant concerns about the wind farm planning process, the actions of the developers, and lack of community involvement.

6.4 Energy Supply and Use
As noted above, opponents argue that a more effective way of achieving greenhouse gas reductions is to implement greater energy efficiency. Supply-side electricity options, whether they be fossil fuel-fired or renewable energy power stations, are more visible ways of ensuring that electricity demand is met. Pro-development politicians love to be seen opening new power stations—once it was coal plant, now it is renewable energy plant. Reducing demand through energy efficiency measures is less tangible, and not such a vote winner.

It is in this light that one might reflect on the oft-cited popular support for wind power. Informed surveys present a different picture, suggesting that support for wind power may be based on a lack of understanding of energy efficiency. The Deliberative Poll, a technique used to elicit informed opinion though education of a representative sample, has been used by several Texan electricity utilities. Groups were polled before and after an intensive period of deliberation over an energy plan, which included the options of renewable energy, energy efficiency, fossil fuels and purchased power. Typically, two thirds of respondents chose renewable energy as their first option in the ‘before’ poll, while few chose energy efficiency. In the ‘after’ poll, support for energy efficiency increased greatly, and support for renewable energy as first preference plummeted. (Fishkin 1997).

Of course, many environmentalists advocate greater energy efficiency and wind power. They argue that fostering wind power is a long-term strategy, so that ultimately our energy supply and use patterns will become wholly sustainable. Wind power has to be supported now to give time for the technology to develop and for the supporting institutions to adapt to a shift in the technological regime. We agree with this view, but maintain that a measure such as MRET, which is wholly focussed on the supply-side, has been introduced for political expediency. It is politically more difficult to introduce effective demand-side measures. Yet, measures such as MRET will only slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions; they will not reverse it.

7 Conclusions
We return now to reflect on the early images of wind power, reviewed briefly in Section 2. Wind power was advocated because it was part of an alternative paradigm: it was emblematic of what was considered wrong with the electricity industry and its impact on society. While some of the earlier ideas were naive—indeed the idea that technological change will bring about social change is an extreme form of technological determinism—we believe that the current wind farm debate can be interpreted in light of these earlier themes.

Early support for wind energy was premised on the idea that wind turbines were relatively small-scale. Until recently, most wind machines in Australia were small. People are often shocked when they find out the size of modern wind turbines. Much of the support for wind power may well be premised on an unrealistic image and thus should not be taken for granted.

As in the previous era, the electricity industry is very much focussed on supply-side rather than demand-side options, and favours high demand growth to justify building more power stations. Some early wind power proponents saw wind farms as an important part of a demand management strategy: they could be built quickly to meet an unexpected supply shortfall, and through the pricing mechanism, electricity consumers could tailor usage to meet fluctuations in supply. Today, electricity companies regard wind farms as solely a supply option.

Electricity companies can no longer ride roughshod over community and environmental concerns, for now they are often required to produce an EES and engage in community consultation. PHL scaled back its original Portland proposal to satisfy some opposition, but was not prepared to abandon the Cape Bridgewater site, even though this site had been rejected by an earlier VCAT hearing. To protesters, it stills appears as though the technological juggernaut—albeit with a green face—is running over people. They feel a loss of community control. While it is unlikely that any project could obtain 100% local support, would Portland residents have supported the wind farm if they had not been promised new employment opportunities? Are power stations still being built to underpin economic growth?

Some have suggested community or cooperative ownership of wind farms as a possible solution, a theme harking back to the AT ideas. This was certainly a successful strategy in the early Danish wind industry. It also ensures that the profits of a wind farm accrue to locals rather than an outside developer, and it would help to overcome concerns about the developer’s approach and motives. Yet, the scale of modern wind farms seems to preclude community ownership—the installation of even one large wind turbine could cost over $2M, and there are significant economies of scale in large wind farms. While the MRET remains a highly competitive mechanism, small community-owned wind farms are an unlikely proposition. An alternative is to facilitate local purchase of a small portion of shares in the wind farm, but whether this is sufficient to overcome distrust in an outside developer remains to be seen. As a method for gaining local support, it is probably on par with offering jobs in wind turbine manufacturing, and thus could be a divisive strategy.

We suggest that the root of the wind farm controversy lies in the state’s abrogation of its energy planning responsibilities. Private or corporatised companies are now competing to build the most cost-effective renewable energy plant. Until very recently, they were working in an ad hoc manner without wind power planning guidelines. There is no mechanism, such as a flexible price paid for wind power, which would encourage developers to seek less controversial sites. Governments have no comprehensive energy policy incorporating both demand and supply options to facilitate Australia reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Until it starts to take a stronger role, we fear that the road ahead for wind power is a rocky one.

References
Auspoll 2001, Report to Pacific Hydro Limited: Portland Wind Energy Project – Quantitative Research, July.
Australian Energy News 2001 “5,000MW and a Windy Aussie Industry”, no. 21, Sep., pp. 40-41.
Buxton, M. 2002, Witness Statement Relating to the Portland Wind Energy Project, Pacific Hydro Limited.
Connell Wagner 2001, Background Report – Glenelg Shire Strategic Wind Farming Study.
Elliott, D 1997, Energy, Society and Environment. Routledge, London.
Fishkin, J. 1997, The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Goulding, C. (2002), Expert Witness Statement: Tourism Assessment. Prepared for Portland Wind Energy Project Panel, 6 Feb.
Greenpeace and AusWEA 2001, Wind Force 10: the Australian Contribution.
Mercer, D. 2002, The Great Australian Wind-Rush and the Devaluation of Landscape Amenity, unpublished manuscript.
Pasqualetti, M.J., Gipe, P. and Righter, R. (eds) 2002, Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World, Academic Press, San Diego.
Sinclair Knight Merz 2001, Portland Wind Energy Project Environmental Effects Statement and Planning Report.
Sinclair Knight Merz 2002, Portland Wind Energy Project – Environment Effects Statement, Socio-economic and Tourism Assessment, Feb.
Stirling, A. 1997, “Limits to the value of external costs”, Energy Policy, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 517-540.
Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria 2001, Response to Portland Wind Energy Project Environmental Effects Statement, 18 Dec.
Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria 2002, Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria
Tatum, J.S. 1995, Energy Possibilities: Rethinking Alternatives and the Choice-Making Process, State University of New York Press, Albany.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 1999, Results of Planning Appeal Hearing: Tribunal Application No. 1997/88762, Permit Application No. 190/97/H, Melbourne.