For 40 years, NYSEG residential electricity customers have benefited from an allocation of power from the New York Power Authority's Niagara and St. Lawrence hydroelectric plants. Because of the low cost of this power, NYSEG residential customers will see a nillion benefit in 2006.
Some people are now suggesting that this power should be shifted to economic development instead of using it to benefit residential customers.
We strongly disagree and here's why; If we lose this low-cost power when the contracts for it expire on August 31,2007, NYSEG residential electricity rates would increase 12% to 14.5%.
We're fighting to keep this power for our residential customers and we'll keep you informed about our efforts.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Proposed wind farm canceled
Atlantic Renewable has dropped its plans to build 14 wind turbines in Springwater.
PPM spokeswoman Jan Johnson said Tuesday that the company’s options on property in the town have expired. “We decided to focus our efforts on the development of wind projects in other parts of New York,” Johnson said. In early 2005, PPM — owned by a Scottish parent company — proposed building the 397- foot windmills along two miles of ridge east of Strutt Street. Informally called the Bishop wind farm, it would have been visible from parts of Canadice in Ontario County.
The project raised objections in Springwater and prompted officials in Canadice to start working on wind-farm regulations in the event that an energy company started looking for turbine sites there. Canadice will hold a hearing on that law as early as February.
Earlier this year, PPM Energy opened the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County — 120 turbines, each 320 feet tall.
PPM spokeswoman Jan Johnson said Tuesday that the company’s options on property in the town have expired. “We decided to focus our efforts on the development of wind projects in other parts of New York,” Johnson said. In early 2005, PPM — owned by a Scottish parent company — proposed building the 397- foot windmills along two miles of ridge east of Strutt Street. Informally called the Bishop wind farm, it would have been visible from parts of Canadice in Ontario County.
The project raised objections in Springwater and prompted officials in Canadice to start working on wind-farm regulations in the event that an energy company started looking for turbine sites there. Canadice will hold a hearing on that law as early as February.
Earlier this year, PPM Energy opened the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County — 120 turbines, each 320 feet tall.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Partial Supplemental Draft Environment Impact - Phase I
COHOCTON WIND POWER PROJECT is the name being used for the UPC Cohocton Phase I project.
NOTE: the size has been increased to a 90 MW project for just Phase I.
Appendices and figures are not available; there is no Dutch Hill. There is no inclusion of the hearings of the DEIS, nor interested/involved agency list and communication, no response to public and interested/involved agency input and correspondence as well as the highly important Germanischer Lloyd certifying engineer agency technical data and recommendations as per Clipper Website.
There is also no notification of hearing and deadlines for public submission.
(click on this UPC link for the PDF file)
NOTE: the size has been increased to a 90 MW project for just Phase I.
Appendices and figures are not available; there is no Dutch Hill. There is no inclusion of the hearings of the DEIS, nor interested/involved agency list and communication, no response to public and interested/involved agency input and correspondence as well as the highly important Germanischer Lloyd certifying engineer agency technical data and recommendations as per Clipper Website.
There is also no notification of hearing and deadlines for public submission.
(click on this UPC link for the PDF file)
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Cohocton Wind Watch Media/Press release - sues Town of Cohocton
COHOCTON WIND WATCH GROUP SUES TOWN OVER WINDMILL LAW
On December 20, 2006, Cohocton Wind Watch and a number of Cohocton residents filed a lawsuit against the Town to annul the passage of Local Law #2 of 2006, which purports to regulate the siting, construction and operation of windmills within the Town. The petitioners claim that the law was passed without required environmental review, and violated various other zoning procedures.
The law that the petitioners seek to void would allow construction of industrial size windmills of up to 500 feet in height, that would be lighted with strobe lights all night long, 365 days per year, and that might cause safety hazards by ice throw or stray electricity. The siting and construction of these windmills would also cause significant environmental damage through bird kill, wetland destruction, and loss of prime agricultural land.
James Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch and a petitioner in the lawsuit stated that "we all live in Cohocton because we love and appreciate the beautiful rural and agricultural nature of our Town. These huge industrial windmills will destroy this quality of life."
The case has been assigned to Judge Mary Anne Furfure, and will be heard at the Steuben County Courthouse in Bath on January 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM.
Richard Lippes, Buffalo NY and David Miller, Naples, NY are the attorneys for the petitioners.
Cohocton Wind Watch Inquiries:
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
(585) 534-5581
Emails to: cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
On December 20, 2006, Cohocton Wind Watch and a number of Cohocton residents filed a lawsuit against the Town to annul the passage of Local Law #2 of 2006, which purports to regulate the siting, construction and operation of windmills within the Town. The petitioners claim that the law was passed without required environmental review, and violated various other zoning procedures.
The law that the petitioners seek to void would allow construction of industrial size windmills of up to 500 feet in height, that would be lighted with strobe lights all night long, 365 days per year, and that might cause safety hazards by ice throw or stray electricity. The siting and construction of these windmills would also cause significant environmental damage through bird kill, wetland destruction, and loss of prime agricultural land.
James Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch and a petitioner in the lawsuit stated that "we all live in Cohocton because we love and appreciate the beautiful rural and agricultural nature of our Town. These huge industrial windmills will destroy this quality of life."
The case has been assigned to Judge Mary Anne Furfure, and will be heard at the Steuben County Courthouse in Bath on January 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM.
Richard Lippes, Buffalo NY and David Miller, Naples, NY are the attorneys for the petitioners.
Cohocton Wind Watch Inquiries:
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
(585) 534-5581
Emails to: cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Plan may put wind farms in Empire Zones by MARY PERHAM
HAMMONDSPORT | A new state incentive could bring i new revenues to Steuben County, .and the towns and schools in areas pegged for wind farm development. James Sherron, county Industrial Development Agency executive director, recently told the SCIDA "board the state intends to place all existing and proposed wind farms in Empire Zones.
Under the plan, wind farm develbpers would pay their property taxes and then would be reimbursed by the state. The proposal means towns, school districts and the county would receive their full share of taxes from developers.
Currently, the county agency provides some tax breaks that allows developers to pay a reduced amount of their taxes. As a result, local governments don't receive the full amount they are owed.
"This is a real windfall for these towns and schools," said James Griffin, a board member and executive director of the Hornell IDA. "In these rural areas that don't have much of a way to increase their revenues, this is going to make a huge difference."
Sherron said the new incentive requires an amendment to existing state regulations and would not change zones already in place in the county.
He said there was nb estimate how much new revenue placing wind farms in Empire Zones would produce, but guessed it would amount to "millions and millions.'' Steuben County would still . insist wind farm developers conform to environment study requirements, Sherron said.
Sherron said the county can still offer other tax, breaks as an option, or in the event the amendment is vetoed by Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer after he takes office Jan. 1, 2007.
Wind farm development in the county- has been-. the source of controversy since Global Winds first proposed a site in the town of Prattsburgh in 2002. Supporters claim the 400-foot-tall turbines provide an essential source of renewable energy and local revenue. Opponents charge the .turbines do not generate significant amounts of electricity and threaten people and the environment. Sherron told the board the proposed developments throughout the county are picking up speed, particularly in the town of Prattsburgh where the first two projects were proposed.
Sherron said EcoGen wants to break ground for a 53-turbine project this spring but must submit environmental studies on each site for review. A lawsuit filed by residents of the town against EcoGen and SCIDA is still being considered by the state appellate court, said SCIDA Attorney John Leyden.
The other Prattsburgh developer, Global Winds, is ready to submit its final environmental impact statement on its 44-turbtne wind farm to SCIDA in January, Sherron said.
The two developers are rivals for the same turf, since a nearby power substation can only accommodate energy, from one wind farm.
Developers fpr separate projects in the towns of Hornby, Howard, and Hartsville and Hornellsville, are completing their draft environmental studies, Sherron told the board.
The town of Howard is now being sued by four residents who claim the town should not have named SCIDA as the chief supervisor of the project.
Howard successfully defended an earlier legal challenge some board members owned land being considered for turbines and were illegally using their position to encourage developers and promote, personal financial gain.
Plans in Hartsville are unsettled since the uproar over wind farm development there led to the recent resignations of the town supervisor and deputy supervisor.
Under the plan, wind farm develbpers would pay their property taxes and then would be reimbursed by the state. The proposal means towns, school districts and the county would receive their full share of taxes from developers.
Currently, the county agency provides some tax breaks that allows developers to pay a reduced amount of their taxes. As a result, local governments don't receive the full amount they are owed.
"This is a real windfall for these towns and schools," said James Griffin, a board member and executive director of the Hornell IDA. "In these rural areas that don't have much of a way to increase their revenues, this is going to make a huge difference."
Sherron said the new incentive requires an amendment to existing state regulations and would not change zones already in place in the county.
He said there was nb estimate how much new revenue placing wind farms in Empire Zones would produce, but guessed it would amount to "millions and millions.'' Steuben County would still . insist wind farm developers conform to environment study requirements, Sherron said.
Sherron said the county can still offer other tax, breaks as an option, or in the event the amendment is vetoed by Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer after he takes office Jan. 1, 2007.
Wind farm development in the county- has been-. the source of controversy since Global Winds first proposed a site in the town of Prattsburgh in 2002. Supporters claim the 400-foot-tall turbines provide an essential source of renewable energy and local revenue. Opponents charge the .turbines do not generate significant amounts of electricity and threaten people and the environment. Sherron told the board the proposed developments throughout the county are picking up speed, particularly in the town of Prattsburgh where the first two projects were proposed.
Sherron said EcoGen wants to break ground for a 53-turbine project this spring but must submit environmental studies on each site for review. A lawsuit filed by residents of the town against EcoGen and SCIDA is still being considered by the state appellate court, said SCIDA Attorney John Leyden.
The other Prattsburgh developer, Global Winds, is ready to submit its final environmental impact statement on its 44-turbtne wind farm to SCIDA in January, Sherron said.
The two developers are rivals for the same turf, since a nearby power substation can only accommodate energy, from one wind farm.
Developers fpr separate projects in the towns of Hornby, Howard, and Hartsville and Hornellsville, are completing their draft environmental studies, Sherron told the board.
The town of Howard is now being sued by four residents who claim the town should not have named SCIDA as the chief supervisor of the project.
Howard successfully defended an earlier legal challenge some board members owned land being considered for turbines and were illegally using their position to encourage developers and promote, personal financial gain.
Plans in Hartsville are unsettled since the uproar over wind farm development there led to the recent resignations of the town supervisor and deputy supervisor.
Cherry Valley adopts tough wind ordinance
December 15, 2006 in The Freeman's Journal
The bleachers were filled at the old high school gym and applause erupted when the Cherry Valley town board Thursday, Dec. 14, voted, 2-1, in favor of a "gold standard" wind ordinance that may stop Reunion Power from building 24 turbines on East Hill.
Supervisor Tom Garretson and Town Board member Jim Johnson voted in favor of the measure, while retiring board member Fabian Bressett III voted nay.
This was also the last meeting for Bressett, who is retiring after 33 years on the town board. The board "selected" Mark Cornwell, who works in the SUNY Cobleskill fisheries and wildlife program. He and his wife, Christine, have opposed the windmill development. Cornwell will be confirmed in the job next month.
While Bressett voted against the ordinance, he paved the way for the ordinance's adoption by making the motion to put the question into play.
Web link: http://thefreemansjournal.com/
The bleachers were filled at the old high school gym and applause erupted when the Cherry Valley town board Thursday, Dec. 14, voted, 2-1, in favor of a "gold standard" wind ordinance that may stop Reunion Power from building 24 turbines on East Hill.
Supervisor Tom Garretson and Town Board member Jim Johnson voted in favor of the measure, while retiring board member Fabian Bressett III voted nay.
This was also the last meeting for Bressett, who is retiring after 33 years on the town board. The board "selected" Mark Cornwell, who works in the SUNY Cobleskill fisheries and wildlife program. He and his wife, Christine, have opposed the windmill development. Cornwell will be confirmed in the job next month.
While Bressett voted against the ordinance, he paved the way for the ordinance's adoption by making the motion to put the question into play.
Web link: http://thefreemansjournal.com/
Friday, December 15, 2006
WIND ORDINANCE VOTE IS THURSDAY by JIM AUSTIN
CHERRY VALLEY _ A vote on a controversial local wind ordinance is on the agenda for Thursday night's Cherry Valley town board meeting.
The ordinance, which sets standards for the installation of wind turbines in the town, threatens to short circuit Reunion Power's plan to erect two dozen turbines East Hill in the town of Cherry Valley.
Reunion Power's project manager David Little said in September that they had serious concerns about the law and has proposed compromises so that the project can move ahead.
``In essence, the current draft amounts to a permanent moratorium,'' Little wrote in a letter to town board members.
He claimed noise limits and the required setbacks from property lines and residences was ``by far in excess of standards contained in any scientifically-based ordinances or local laws that have been passed by at least fifteen other communities within the state of New York.''
The ordinance, he wrote, ``would make it impossible for any developer to site even a single windmill on the East Hill.''
But the town planning board disagrees. Its members developed the law with the assistance of consulting engineers and Syracuse attorney Tom Fucillo. In a letter to town supervisor Tom Garretson, the board said the ordinance provided ``a strong basis to appropriately control wind energy systems in our town and to balance the benefits of such systems with the potential impacts of such systems on the citizens of this town and the environment.''
The planning board's letter also specifically addressed the 1,200-foot setback from property lines and 2,000-foot setback from residences for the wind turbines.
``We believe that the larger setbacks are both reasonable and necessary to protect adjacent landowners from the potential impact of such large industrial projects,'' the board's stated.
Earlier this fall, Garreston said the town needed a law ``that's going to protect the town. That comes first.'' He went on to say that if one developer finds they can not work within the confines of the town's proposed wind ordinance then perhaps another developer can.
Now, with two public hearings and some revisions behind them, the town board is set to vote on the ordinance.
And Reunion Power's East Hill Wind Farm is running an ad in local newspapers this week making a last-minute plea for a compromise on the wind ordinance.
``A compromise position has been offered that would result in Cherry Valley having the most restrictive wind ordinance in New York State and will still allow for a limited version of the project to move forward. The development team of the East Hill Wind Farm respectfully requests that the town board consider the proposed compromise and allow the town and its residents to benefit from the East Hill Wind Farm,'' the ad states.
Another ad is undersigned by 28 town residents and asks the community to urge the town board to reject the wind ordinance.
``If you believe in a better future for our children and the opportunity for all of the Townís residents to receive the benefits, let the Town Board know you support the project and encourage them to seek a compromise,'' the ad states.
On the eve of the vote, the Advocates for Cherry Valley, who oppose the project, remain optimistic the board will listen to the recommendation of the planning board and adopt the ordinance.
``We have made every appeal to reason and to the board's sense of fair play. In the process we have by far made the best case. I hope we are not disappointed,'' Advocates spokesman Andy Minnig said Wednesday morning.
``By approving the ordinance the board would return the town of Cherry Valley to a tradition of responsible government. If they fail to approve it, they would deny their own planning board's wisdom and the expressed will of the community. Calls for defeat of the ordinance and for "compromise" being made by the developer are analogous to the thief in your house saying, `let's negotiate.'''
Garretson said Tuesday that he plans on asking for a motion to adopt the wind ordinance Thursday night.
``If we can get this ordinance in place, we'll be in the driver's seat where we belong,'' he said.
The supervisor said he also plans to select a replacement Thursday night for board member Fabian Bressett III, who announced his intention to resign effective at the end of the year.
Garretson said there is some uncertainty and he is researching whether or not the board must wait until a vacancy actually exists before making the official appointment.
The meeting will be Thurs., Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. in the old school gymnasium.
The ordinance, which sets standards for the installation of wind turbines in the town, threatens to short circuit Reunion Power's plan to erect two dozen turbines East Hill in the town of Cherry Valley.
Reunion Power's project manager David Little said in September that they had serious concerns about the law and has proposed compromises so that the project can move ahead.
``In essence, the current draft amounts to a permanent moratorium,'' Little wrote in a letter to town board members.
He claimed noise limits and the required setbacks from property lines and residences was ``by far in excess of standards contained in any scientifically-based ordinances or local laws that have been passed by at least fifteen other communities within the state of New York.''
The ordinance, he wrote, ``would make it impossible for any developer to site even a single windmill on the East Hill.''
But the town planning board disagrees. Its members developed the law with the assistance of consulting engineers and Syracuse attorney Tom Fucillo. In a letter to town supervisor Tom Garretson, the board said the ordinance provided ``a strong basis to appropriately control wind energy systems in our town and to balance the benefits of such systems with the potential impacts of such systems on the citizens of this town and the environment.''
The planning board's letter also specifically addressed the 1,200-foot setback from property lines and 2,000-foot setback from residences for the wind turbines.
``We believe that the larger setbacks are both reasonable and necessary to protect adjacent landowners from the potential impact of such large industrial projects,'' the board's stated.
Earlier this fall, Garreston said the town needed a law ``that's going to protect the town. That comes first.'' He went on to say that if one developer finds they can not work within the confines of the town's proposed wind ordinance then perhaps another developer can.
Now, with two public hearings and some revisions behind them, the town board is set to vote on the ordinance.
And Reunion Power's East Hill Wind Farm is running an ad in local newspapers this week making a last-minute plea for a compromise on the wind ordinance.
``A compromise position has been offered that would result in Cherry Valley having the most restrictive wind ordinance in New York State and will still allow for a limited version of the project to move forward. The development team of the East Hill Wind Farm respectfully requests that the town board consider the proposed compromise and allow the town and its residents to benefit from the East Hill Wind Farm,'' the ad states.
Another ad is undersigned by 28 town residents and asks the community to urge the town board to reject the wind ordinance.
``If you believe in a better future for our children and the opportunity for all of the Townís residents to receive the benefits, let the Town Board know you support the project and encourage them to seek a compromise,'' the ad states.
On the eve of the vote, the Advocates for Cherry Valley, who oppose the project, remain optimistic the board will listen to the recommendation of the planning board and adopt the ordinance.
``We have made every appeal to reason and to the board's sense of fair play. In the process we have by far made the best case. I hope we are not disappointed,'' Advocates spokesman Andy Minnig said Wednesday morning.
``By approving the ordinance the board would return the town of Cherry Valley to a tradition of responsible government. If they fail to approve it, they would deny their own planning board's wisdom and the expressed will of the community. Calls for defeat of the ordinance and for "compromise" being made by the developer are analogous to the thief in your house saying, `let's negotiate.'''
Garretson said Tuesday that he plans on asking for a motion to adopt the wind ordinance Thursday night.
``If we can get this ordinance in place, we'll be in the driver's seat where we belong,'' he said.
The supervisor said he also plans to select a replacement Thursday night for board member Fabian Bressett III, who announced his intention to resign effective at the end of the year.
Garretson said there is some uncertainty and he is researching whether or not the board must wait until a vacancy actually exists before making the official appointment.
The meeting will be Thurs., Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. in the old school gymnasium.
Cohocton Town attorney response to CWW ethic complaints on Councilman Wayne Hunt
Patrick F. McAllister
Attorney at Law
31 Main Street, P.O. Box 338
Wayland, New York 14572
(585)728-2110
Fax: (585)728-2715
e-mail: patmclaw@frontiernet.net
December 7, 2006
RE: Town of Cohocton
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am in receipt of your letters dated October 2, 2006 and November 29, 2006, addressed to the Town of Cohocton Board of Ethics.
Pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of Local Law No. 1 of 1970 of the Town of Cohocton, the Town Board of Ethics may render advisory opinions to officers and employees of the Town. See also General Municipal Law § 808. Article III Section 2 of Local Law No. 1 of 1970 also requires that such opinions be held confidential by authorized persons and agencies of the Town.
You may want to contact your attorney or the New York State Department of State, Division of Local Governments concerning the remainder of the issues identified in the October 2, 2006 and November 29, 2006 letters.
Thank you. Yours very truly,
Patrick F. McAllister PFM:amd
cc: David P. Miller, Esq.
Attorney at Law
31 Main Street, P.O. Box 338
Wayland, New York 14572
(585)728-2110
Fax: (585)728-2715
e-mail: patmclaw@frontiernet.net
December 7, 2006
RE: Town of Cohocton
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am in receipt of your letters dated October 2, 2006 and November 29, 2006, addressed to the Town of Cohocton Board of Ethics.
Pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of Local Law No. 1 of 1970 of the Town of Cohocton, the Town Board of Ethics may render advisory opinions to officers and employees of the Town. See also General Municipal Law § 808. Article III Section 2 of Local Law No. 1 of 1970 also requires that such opinions be held confidential by authorized persons and agencies of the Town.
You may want to contact your attorney or the New York State Department of State, Division of Local Governments concerning the remainder of the issues identified in the October 2, 2006 and November 29, 2006 letters.
Thank you. Yours very truly,
Patrick F. McAllister PFM:amd
cc: David P. Miller, Esq.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
No welcome mat for wind farms in Canadice by LENORE FRIEND
The town of Canadice proposes regulations for windmills, with the greatest restrictions on industrial turbines.
By LENORE FRIEND
Messenger Post Staff
CANADICE — Canadice is not outlawing wind farms, but the town wants to make it pretty difficult for any 400-foot turbines to get built here.
That’s the gist of a proposed windfarm law up for public inspection on Monday, Dec. 11, at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall. It’s not the official hearing that precedes a Town Board vote; that could come in January. But it is the first time the public can read and comment on a full text that the Wind Farm Study Group has been revising
over the last year.
The 11-page law would prohibit industrial towers in places where the Planning Board feels they would detract from the view. “We live in a very scenic town,” said Charlie Gray, co-chairman of the Wind Farm Study Group. “If they put (towers) across Bald Hill overlooking the two watershed lakes, we might consider that detrimental.”
The law does not name any specific protected views though Gray said that could come later. The law limits industrial turbines, meaning those built to sell electricity
to the grid, to the same height as telecommunications towers: 195 feet. It limits their output to three-tenths of a megawatt.
That is half the height and a fraction of the output of the turbines proposed in nearby Prattsburgh and Cohocton, meaning a wind-energy company would likely have to apply for variances at the outset. The extra step was intentional. “Why would we not want to have that control?” Gray asked.
The law imposes fewer requirements on smaller windmills meant to power a single home or business. “We’re not trying to restrict the private towers,” Gray said.
The height restriction of 60 feet may also require a home or business owner to get a variance before putting up a windmill, however.
Richard Gammell, owner of Canadice Construction, a commercial framing operation, is seeking state certification to install windmills. He has completed class work and now needs field experience helping erect a single windmill, which he said are typically 100 feet tall with up to a 20-kilowatt output.
“I think that’s a little low,” he said of the 60-foot limit. “If they went with 120 to 130 feet, I would say it would be fine.”
To review a copy of the current proposal, stop by the Town Hall or visit www.canadice.org. Scroll to the Wind Farm Study Group in the upper right corner of the home page. Click on “Draft Changes to Town Code to Regulate Potential Wind Farms.” Then, scroll to the bottom of the page and look for “Click here to review
proposed changes.”
Contact Lenore Friend at (585)
394-0770, Ext. 256 or at
lfriend@mpnewspapers.com.
By LENORE FRIEND
Messenger Post Staff
CANADICE — Canadice is not outlawing wind farms, but the town wants to make it pretty difficult for any 400-foot turbines to get built here.
That’s the gist of a proposed windfarm law up for public inspection on Monday, Dec. 11, at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall. It’s not the official hearing that precedes a Town Board vote; that could come in January. But it is the first time the public can read and comment on a full text that the Wind Farm Study Group has been revising
over the last year.
The 11-page law would prohibit industrial towers in places where the Planning Board feels they would detract from the view. “We live in a very scenic town,” said Charlie Gray, co-chairman of the Wind Farm Study Group. “If they put (towers) across Bald Hill overlooking the two watershed lakes, we might consider that detrimental.”
The law does not name any specific protected views though Gray said that could come later. The law limits industrial turbines, meaning those built to sell electricity
to the grid, to the same height as telecommunications towers: 195 feet. It limits their output to three-tenths of a megawatt.
That is half the height and a fraction of the output of the turbines proposed in nearby Prattsburgh and Cohocton, meaning a wind-energy company would likely have to apply for variances at the outset. The extra step was intentional. “Why would we not want to have that control?” Gray asked.
The law imposes fewer requirements on smaller windmills meant to power a single home or business. “We’re not trying to restrict the private towers,” Gray said.
The height restriction of 60 feet may also require a home or business owner to get a variance before putting up a windmill, however.
Richard Gammell, owner of Canadice Construction, a commercial framing operation, is seeking state certification to install windmills. He has completed class work and now needs field experience helping erect a single windmill, which he said are typically 100 feet tall with up to a 20-kilowatt output.
“I think that’s a little low,” he said of the 60-foot limit. “If they went with 120 to 130 feet, I would say it would be fine.”
To review a copy of the current proposal, stop by the Town Hall or visit www.canadice.org. Scroll to the Wind Farm Study Group in the upper right corner of the home page. Click on “Draft Changes to Town Code to Regulate Potential Wind Farms.” Then, scroll to the bottom of the page and look for “Click here to review
proposed changes.”
Contact Lenore Friend at (585)
394-0770, Ext. 256 or at
lfriend@mpnewspapers.com.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Focus on Monroe County Future
On March 22, our Monroe Copunty Board of Supervisors passed a Wind Energy Facility Zoning Ordinance.
The ordinance proposed by our county board will not adequately protect the citizens of this couty. We need a stronger ordinance.
Expert opinion on what's wrong with the ordinance:
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3
A Stronger Ordinance is Needed.
Please, call your Monroe County Supervisor.
Tell them to veto the proposed ordinance. Tell them you want an ordinance that protects the health, safety, general welfare, and private property rights of Monroe County citizens.
Tell Them: Do It Right--or don't do it at all.
Resource Information:
Monroe County Wind Ordinance
Shawano County Wind Ordinance (an example of a better wind ordinance)
National Wind Watch
Stop Ill Wind
Glebe Mountain Group
How big are they?About us | Contact | Resource Links
The ordinance proposed by our county board will not adequately protect the citizens of this couty. We need a stronger ordinance.
Expert opinion on what's wrong with the ordinance:
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3
A Stronger Ordinance is Needed.
Please, call your Monroe County Supervisor.
Tell them to veto the proposed ordinance. Tell them you want an ordinance that protects the health, safety, general welfare, and private property rights of Monroe County citizens.
Tell Them: Do It Right--or don't do it at all.
Resource Information:
Monroe County Wind Ordinance
Shawano County Wind Ordinance (an example of a better wind ordinance)
National Wind Watch
Stop Ill Wind
Glebe Mountain Group
How big are they?About us | Contact | Resource Links
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Wind Energy Will NOT Reduce US Oil Dependence – December 2006 Update
One of the false claims made by “wind energy” advocates is that greater use of wind energy would reduce US dependence on oil, including oil imports.
In fact, adding more wind turbines will have no significant impact on US oil consumption.
Unfortunately, many well-meaning people (including reporters) and some regulators and political leaders have accepted – and repeated -- the wind advocates’ false claims about reductions in oil use. This brief paper explains why the reduced oil use claim is false.
(The claim about reduced oil dependence is only one of many false and misleading claims made by the wind industry, US Department of Energy (DOE), DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) and other wind advocates. Other such claims are discussed elsewhere.1)
Facts about oil use in electric generation in the US
1. The only potential use of wind turbines is to produce electricity.
2. Very little oil is used in the US to produce electricity. In 2005, only 3.0% of the electricity generated in the US was produced by using oil.2 Oil use was up slightly in 2004 and 2005 from 2003 because of high natural gas prices which made it more economical for some generating companies to use oil. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects that the share of electricity generated by oil will drop to 1.85% by 2030.3
3. Most of the use of oil in the US for electricity generation occurs in a few states. As shown in the attached table, in 2005, 3 states (Florida, New York and Hawaii) accounted for more than 57% of all the electricity in the US generated by using oil.
4. Oil accounted for more than 5% of electric generation in only 11 states and the District of Columbia. Those states are Hawaii, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
5. Oil accounted for less than 1% of electric generation in 29 states. Twenty-four of those were less than ½ of 1%.
Reasons why wind energy will have no significant impact on oil use for electric generation
6. Even in those few states where oil accounts for more than 1% of electricity generation, adding wind turbines would have very little, if any, impact on oil consumption. The facts supporting this conclusion are complex and many of those who have believed the false claims might be forgiven for their errors. However, the complexity does not excuse officials from DOE, NREL or the wind industry who should know better. But, in any case, here is why wind energy is highly unlikely to reduce to reduce oil use in electric generation:
a. About 9.7% of the oil used in electric generation in 2005 was “distillate” oil4
used in combustion turbine and internal combustion electric generating units.5
The cost of this oil is high and such units are used almost exclusively in times when electricity demand is at its highest level (e.g., during hot weekday afternoons in July and August). Little if any wind generated electricity is available during those times.
b. Most of the remaining 90% of the oil used in electric generation was “residual oil” (#4 & #5) that is used in older, oil-fired steam-electric generating units (oil is burned to heat water and create steam to drive a turbine).
c. These older oil-fired steam-electric units are quite unlikely to be the units that are backed down or ramped up to adjust for the intermittent, highly volatile (output often varies widely minute to minute) and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines – which produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range.6
d. Instead, the generating units that are likely to be used to “back up” the intermittent wind turbines will be units that are either:
1) Designed and designated to serve in an Automatic Generation Control (AGC) mode to keep an electric grid in balance (i.e., frequency and voltage),
2) Producing at less than full capacity and capable of ramping up or down on short notice, or
3) Operating in a “spinning reserve” mode.7
Electricity supply and demand must be kept in balance. Electricity production is constantly adjusted to meet electricity demand. The generating units that serve best in backing up intermittent, volatile wind turbines are hydropower units because the output from these units can be increased or decreased almost instantaneously. The next best alternatives are gas-fired turbine-based generating units (e.g., combined-cycle or larger simple cycle). Oil-fired units are less likely to be used in the required balancing role for wind turbines because (a) the oil-fired combustion turbine and internal combustion units are unlikely to be running except in times of peak demand, and (b) the oil-fired steamelectric units are likely to have slower response times than is necessary to back up wind turbines.
e. The generating units used to “back up” intermittent and volatile wind generation will depend on the generating mix and other conditions in the grid control area that is receiving the electricity from wind turbines. In the Pacific-Northwest, for example, hydro power would likely serve in the balancing role – with no savings in oil. In New England, with its heavy dependence on natural gas and a significant amount of newer gas-fired generating capacity, a gas-fired unit would likely serve in the balancing role, again with little or no savings in oil use.
7. In summary, there is very little likelihood that any oil use in electric generation would be reduced by adding wind turbines. This would certainly be true in the states with only small shares of their electric generation from oil.
The electric industry officials who will have the exact data on the generating units that are run to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines are those who handle the day to day management and control of electric grids and transmission systems; i.e., depending on the region of the US, electric utility, the power pool, the independent system operator (ISO), or the regional transmission organization (RTO). Where is most oil used in the US?
During 2005, US oil use8 averaged 20,802,000 barrels per day.9 The shares of US oil consumption by sector were as follows:10
• Transportation. - 67.5%
• Industrial - 23.8%
• Residential - 3.7%
• Electric Generation - 3.0%
• Commercial - 1.9%
Total - 100%
As the above table suggests, those seeking a reduction in US oil consumption will need to focus primarily on oil use in transportation.
Glenn R. Schleede *
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
Attachment: 2005 Electric Generation by State & US Total – All energy sources & petroleum
Endnotes:
1 For facts about other false and misleading claims, see my paper entitled: “Facing up to the true costs and benefits of
wind energy,” June 24, 2004, and others that can be found at http://www.windaction.org/, or http://www.windwatch.
org/ or www.tsaugust.org .
2 US Energy Information Administration, Electricity Data Base, Generation.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html
3 US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Table A8.
4 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 7.3b.
5 A small amount of distillate oil may be used as a start up fuel in oil or coal-fired steam electric generating units or
occasionally to assist in flame stabilization.
6 Larger wind turbines now being installed begin producing electricity when wind is around 6 miles per hour, reach
rated capacity at around 33 MPH and are shut down to avoid equipment damage around 56 MPH.
7 That is, running and synchronized with the grid but not inputting electricity.
8 Technically, “products delivered.”
9 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 3.1b.
10 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Tables 2.2 – 2.6.
______________________________________________
* GLENN R. SCHLEEDE is semi-retired after working on energy and related matters in government and the private
sector for over 30 years. He now devotes a significant portion of his time to self-financed analysis of and writing about
(a) government policies, programs and regulations that are detrimental to the interests of consumers and taxpayers, and
(b) government or private sector programs and projects that are presented to the media, public and government
officials in a false or misleading way. “Wind energy” is a frequent topic.
2005 Electric Generation by State and US Total*
All Energy Sources & Petroleum in Kilowatt-hours & Percent Petroleum
Kilowatt-hours Kilowatt-hours % of State's State Share of
Generated -- generated by using Electric Generation US oil-fired electric
All Energy Sources Petroleum from Petroleum Generation
State
FL 220,256,412,000 37,229,508,000 16.90% 30.39%
NY 146,887,419,000 24,044,258,000 16.37% 19.62%
HI 11,522,805,000 9,076,427,000 78.77% 7.41%
MA 47,515,443,000 7,119,369,000 14.98% 5.81%
PA 218,091,125,000 4,965,387,000 2.28% 4.05%
VA 78,943,045,000 4,276,268,000 5.42% 3.49%
MD 52,661,600,000 3,817,584,000 7.25% 3.12%
KY 97,822,419,000 3,680,685,000 3.76% 3.00%
LA 92,616,878,000 3,485,935,000 3.76% 2.85%
CT 33,549,747,000 3,156,048,000 9.41% 2.58%
CA 200,292,818,000 2,576,322,000 1.29% 2.10%
TX 396,668,722,000 1,613,248,000 0.41% 1.32%
ME 18,843,978,000 1,611,697,000 8.55% 1.32%
MS 45,067,453,000 1,444,848,000 3.21% 1.18%
OH 156,976,323,000 1,390,649,000 0.89% 1.14%
NH 23,735,290,000 1,357,142,000 5.72% 1.11%
DE 8,136,568,000 1,216,423,000 14.95% 0.99%
NJ 60,549,583,000 1,106,561,000 1.83% 0.90%
GA 136,667,892,000 1,019,233,000 0.75% 0.83%
KS 45,862,696,000 986,408,000 2.15% 0.81%
MI 121,619,771,000 897,881,000 0.74% 0.73%
MN 53,018,995,000 783,358,000 1.48% 0.64%
AK 6,576,659,000 760,118,000 11.56% 0.62%
WI 61,824,664,000 724,230,000 1.17% 0.59%
SC 102,514,665,000 672,803,000 0.66% 0.55%
NC 129,748,578,000 485,079,000 0.37% 0.40%
MT 27,938,778,000 413,991,000 1.48% 0.34%
IL 194,120,146,000 326,024,000 0.17% 0.27%
IN 130,371,573,000 279,038,000 0.21% 0.23%
AL 137,948,581,000 234,880,000 0.17% 0.19%
TN 97,117,165,000 230,527,000 0.24% 0.19%
DC 226,042,000 226,042,000 100.00% 0.18%
WV 93,626,285,000 223,552,000 0.24% 0.18%
AR 47,794,509,000 206,675,000 0.43% 0.17%
MO 90,828,230,000 168,418,000 0.19% 0.14%
IA 44,156,160,000 149,537,000 0.34% 0.12%
OR 49,325,003,000 78,191,000 0.16% 0.06%
OK 68,607,827,000 70,333,000 0.10% 0.06%
WA 101,965,850,000 64,181,000 0.06% 0.05%
RI 6,053,294,000 55,814,000 0.92% 0.05%
AZ 101,478,654,000 43,208,000 0.04% 0.04%
WY 45,567,307,000 42,295,000 0.09% 0.03%
UT 38,165,131,000 40,909,000 0.11% 0.03%
NM 35,135,642,000 36,909,000 0.11% 0.03%
ND 31,932,615,000 34,207,000 0.11% 0.03%
NE 31,464,734,000 31,234,000 0.10% 0.03%
SD 6,520,769,000 20,785,000 0.32% 0.02%
NV 40,213,752,000 20,500,000 0.05% 0.02%
CO 49,616,694,000 17,046,000 0.03% 0.01%
VT 5,716,755,000 10,179,000 0.18% 0.01%
ID 10,824,984,000 5,000 0.00% 0.00%
US-TOTAL 4,054,688,028,000 122,521,949,000 3.02% 100.00%
Data Source: US Energy Information administration, Electricity Data Base, Generation
* All electric generation including utilities, non-utility generators & combined heat & power.
In fact, adding more wind turbines will have no significant impact on US oil consumption.
Unfortunately, many well-meaning people (including reporters) and some regulators and political leaders have accepted – and repeated -- the wind advocates’ false claims about reductions in oil use. This brief paper explains why the reduced oil use claim is false.
(The claim about reduced oil dependence is only one of many false and misleading claims made by the wind industry, US Department of Energy (DOE), DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) and other wind advocates. Other such claims are discussed elsewhere.1)
Facts about oil use in electric generation in the US
1. The only potential use of wind turbines is to produce electricity.
2. Very little oil is used in the US to produce electricity. In 2005, only 3.0% of the electricity generated in the US was produced by using oil.2 Oil use was up slightly in 2004 and 2005 from 2003 because of high natural gas prices which made it more economical for some generating companies to use oil. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects that the share of electricity generated by oil will drop to 1.85% by 2030.3
3. Most of the use of oil in the US for electricity generation occurs in a few states. As shown in the attached table, in 2005, 3 states (Florida, New York and Hawaii) accounted for more than 57% of all the electricity in the US generated by using oil.
4. Oil accounted for more than 5% of electric generation in only 11 states and the District of Columbia. Those states are Hawaii, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
5. Oil accounted for less than 1% of electric generation in 29 states. Twenty-four of those were less than ½ of 1%.
Reasons why wind energy will have no significant impact on oil use for electric generation
6. Even in those few states where oil accounts for more than 1% of electricity generation, adding wind turbines would have very little, if any, impact on oil consumption. The facts supporting this conclusion are complex and many of those who have believed the false claims might be forgiven for their errors. However, the complexity does not excuse officials from DOE, NREL or the wind industry who should know better. But, in any case, here is why wind energy is highly unlikely to reduce to reduce oil use in electric generation:
a. About 9.7% of the oil used in electric generation in 2005 was “distillate” oil4
used in combustion turbine and internal combustion electric generating units.5
The cost of this oil is high and such units are used almost exclusively in times when electricity demand is at its highest level (e.g., during hot weekday afternoons in July and August). Little if any wind generated electricity is available during those times.
b. Most of the remaining 90% of the oil used in electric generation was “residual oil” (#4 & #5) that is used in older, oil-fired steam-electric generating units (oil is burned to heat water and create steam to drive a turbine).
c. These older oil-fired steam-electric units are quite unlikely to be the units that are backed down or ramped up to adjust for the intermittent, highly volatile (output often varies widely minute to minute) and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines – which produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range.6
d. Instead, the generating units that are likely to be used to “back up” the intermittent wind turbines will be units that are either:
1) Designed and designated to serve in an Automatic Generation Control (AGC) mode to keep an electric grid in balance (i.e., frequency and voltage),
2) Producing at less than full capacity and capable of ramping up or down on short notice, or
3) Operating in a “spinning reserve” mode.7
Electricity supply and demand must be kept in balance. Electricity production is constantly adjusted to meet electricity demand. The generating units that serve best in backing up intermittent, volatile wind turbines are hydropower units because the output from these units can be increased or decreased almost instantaneously. The next best alternatives are gas-fired turbine-based generating units (e.g., combined-cycle or larger simple cycle). Oil-fired units are less likely to be used in the required balancing role for wind turbines because (a) the oil-fired combustion turbine and internal combustion units are unlikely to be running except in times of peak demand, and (b) the oil-fired steamelectric units are likely to have slower response times than is necessary to back up wind turbines.
e. The generating units used to “back up” intermittent and volatile wind generation will depend on the generating mix and other conditions in the grid control area that is receiving the electricity from wind turbines. In the Pacific-Northwest, for example, hydro power would likely serve in the balancing role – with no savings in oil. In New England, with its heavy dependence on natural gas and a significant amount of newer gas-fired generating capacity, a gas-fired unit would likely serve in the balancing role, again with little or no savings in oil use.
7. In summary, there is very little likelihood that any oil use in electric generation would be reduced by adding wind turbines. This would certainly be true in the states with only small shares of their electric generation from oil.
The electric industry officials who will have the exact data on the generating units that are run to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines are those who handle the day to day management and control of electric grids and transmission systems; i.e., depending on the region of the US, electric utility, the power pool, the independent system operator (ISO), or the regional transmission organization (RTO). Where is most oil used in the US?
During 2005, US oil use8 averaged 20,802,000 barrels per day.9 The shares of US oil consumption by sector were as follows:10
• Transportation. - 67.5%
• Industrial - 23.8%
• Residential - 3.7%
• Electric Generation - 3.0%
• Commercial - 1.9%
Total - 100%
As the above table suggests, those seeking a reduction in US oil consumption will need to focus primarily on oil use in transportation.
Glenn R. Schleede *
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
Attachment: 2005 Electric Generation by State & US Total – All energy sources & petroleum
Endnotes:
1 For facts about other false and misleading claims, see my paper entitled: “Facing up to the true costs and benefits of
wind energy,” June 24, 2004, and others that can be found at http://www.windaction.org/, or http://www.windwatch.
org/ or www.tsaugust.org .
2 US Energy Information Administration, Electricity Data Base, Generation.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html
3 US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Table A8.
4 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 7.3b.
5 A small amount of distillate oil may be used as a start up fuel in oil or coal-fired steam electric generating units or
occasionally to assist in flame stabilization.
6 Larger wind turbines now being installed begin producing electricity when wind is around 6 miles per hour, reach
rated capacity at around 33 MPH and are shut down to avoid equipment damage around 56 MPH.
7 That is, running and synchronized with the grid but not inputting electricity.
8 Technically, “products delivered.”
9 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 3.1b.
10 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Tables 2.2 – 2.6.
______________________________________________
* GLENN R. SCHLEEDE is semi-retired after working on energy and related matters in government and the private
sector for over 30 years. He now devotes a significant portion of his time to self-financed analysis of and writing about
(a) government policies, programs and regulations that are detrimental to the interests of consumers and taxpayers, and
(b) government or private sector programs and projects that are presented to the media, public and government
officials in a false or misleading way. “Wind energy” is a frequent topic.
2005 Electric Generation by State and US Total*
All Energy Sources & Petroleum in Kilowatt-hours & Percent Petroleum
Kilowatt-hours Kilowatt-hours % of State's State Share of
Generated -- generated by using Electric Generation US oil-fired electric
All Energy Sources Petroleum from Petroleum Generation
State
FL 220,256,412,000 37,229,508,000 16.90% 30.39%
NY 146,887,419,000 24,044,258,000 16.37% 19.62%
HI 11,522,805,000 9,076,427,000 78.77% 7.41%
MA 47,515,443,000 7,119,369,000 14.98% 5.81%
PA 218,091,125,000 4,965,387,000 2.28% 4.05%
VA 78,943,045,000 4,276,268,000 5.42% 3.49%
MD 52,661,600,000 3,817,584,000 7.25% 3.12%
KY 97,822,419,000 3,680,685,000 3.76% 3.00%
LA 92,616,878,000 3,485,935,000 3.76% 2.85%
CT 33,549,747,000 3,156,048,000 9.41% 2.58%
CA 200,292,818,000 2,576,322,000 1.29% 2.10%
TX 396,668,722,000 1,613,248,000 0.41% 1.32%
ME 18,843,978,000 1,611,697,000 8.55% 1.32%
MS 45,067,453,000 1,444,848,000 3.21% 1.18%
OH 156,976,323,000 1,390,649,000 0.89% 1.14%
NH 23,735,290,000 1,357,142,000 5.72% 1.11%
DE 8,136,568,000 1,216,423,000 14.95% 0.99%
NJ 60,549,583,000 1,106,561,000 1.83% 0.90%
GA 136,667,892,000 1,019,233,000 0.75% 0.83%
KS 45,862,696,000 986,408,000 2.15% 0.81%
MI 121,619,771,000 897,881,000 0.74% 0.73%
MN 53,018,995,000 783,358,000 1.48% 0.64%
AK 6,576,659,000 760,118,000 11.56% 0.62%
WI 61,824,664,000 724,230,000 1.17% 0.59%
SC 102,514,665,000 672,803,000 0.66% 0.55%
NC 129,748,578,000 485,079,000 0.37% 0.40%
MT 27,938,778,000 413,991,000 1.48% 0.34%
IL 194,120,146,000 326,024,000 0.17% 0.27%
IN 130,371,573,000 279,038,000 0.21% 0.23%
AL 137,948,581,000 234,880,000 0.17% 0.19%
TN 97,117,165,000 230,527,000 0.24% 0.19%
DC 226,042,000 226,042,000 100.00% 0.18%
WV 93,626,285,000 223,552,000 0.24% 0.18%
AR 47,794,509,000 206,675,000 0.43% 0.17%
MO 90,828,230,000 168,418,000 0.19% 0.14%
IA 44,156,160,000 149,537,000 0.34% 0.12%
OR 49,325,003,000 78,191,000 0.16% 0.06%
OK 68,607,827,000 70,333,000 0.10% 0.06%
WA 101,965,850,000 64,181,000 0.06% 0.05%
RI 6,053,294,000 55,814,000 0.92% 0.05%
AZ 101,478,654,000 43,208,000 0.04% 0.04%
WY 45,567,307,000 42,295,000 0.09% 0.03%
UT 38,165,131,000 40,909,000 0.11% 0.03%
NM 35,135,642,000 36,909,000 0.11% 0.03%
ND 31,932,615,000 34,207,000 0.11% 0.03%
NE 31,464,734,000 31,234,000 0.10% 0.03%
SD 6,520,769,000 20,785,000 0.32% 0.02%
NV 40,213,752,000 20,500,000 0.05% 0.02%
CO 49,616,694,000 17,046,000 0.03% 0.01%
VT 5,716,755,000 10,179,000 0.18% 0.01%
ID 10,824,984,000 5,000 0.00% 0.00%
US-TOTAL 4,054,688,028,000 122,521,949,000 3.02% 100.00%
Data Source: US Energy Information administration, Electricity Data Base, Generation
* All electric generation including utilities, non-utility generators & combined heat & power.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Cohocton makes another mistake!
Steuben County - The Town of Cohocton Town Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed Local Law No. 2 of 2006 will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. The action involves the adoption of a local law to allow "Residential and/or Commercial Windmills' and "Windmill Facilities" in the AG_R. LDR, GB, I_C, and I Town Zoning Districts, and "Industrial Windmills" and "Windmill Facilities" in the AG_R Town Zoning District. All windmills and windmill facilities will be subject to special use permit and site plan review as set forth under Local Law No. 2 of 2006, and sections 720 and 730 of the Town of Cohocton Zoning Law. Local Law No. 2 of 2006 also regulates the placement and operation of windmills and windmill facilities throughout the Town of Cohocton, including, but not limited to height, color, type and other features of windmills and windmill facilities now or hereafter sited in the Town.
TESTING THE WIND - GOLDMAN BETS ON HIGH PRICE FOR ENERGY UNIT
December 4, 2006 -- Goldman Sachs is putting its Horizon Wind Energy subsidiary up for sale, in a bet that the market for renewable energy is nearing a top.
According to energy news Web site Sparkspread.com, which first reported the sale, Goldman might get around $1.5 billion for the Houston, Tex.-based company. The firm bought Horizon - which was then known as Zilkha Renewable Energy - last year for an undisclosed amount.
To get that pile of cash, Goldman is making some gale force assumptions about Horizon, a sales memorandum obtained by The Post shows.
Goldman is pitching the company as possibly being able to throw off $800 million in adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization by 2011. A more traditional financial valuation, Ebitda, is expected to come in at around $400 million by then.
To get that cash flow from wind energy, Goldman is assuming that Horizon will control 14 percent of all wind generation developed in the U.S. since 2000. Those figures also assume that 2,100 megawatts of additional generation capacity is added by 2010.
Goldman is also telling prospective buyers that legislation might blow their way.
"National greenhouse gas legislation, widely expected to be adopted in the next five years, would improve the cost competitiveness of renewable energy," the sales document said.
Better still, as the "exclusive financial adviser" for Horizon, Goldman's merger department is slated for a handsome multi-million dollar payday.
To be fair, Goldman is selling into a market that has seen plenty of interest from major power producers in wind generation. BP, NRG Energy and Iberdrola have each spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past year buying U.S.-based wind power assets.
A Goldman spokesman refused to comment on the transaction.
According to energy news Web site Sparkspread.com, which first reported the sale, Goldman might get around $1.5 billion for the Houston, Tex.-based company. The firm bought Horizon - which was then known as Zilkha Renewable Energy - last year for an undisclosed amount.
To get that pile of cash, Goldman is making some gale force assumptions about Horizon, a sales memorandum obtained by The Post shows.
Goldman is pitching the company as possibly being able to throw off $800 million in adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization by 2011. A more traditional financial valuation, Ebitda, is expected to come in at around $400 million by then.
To get that cash flow from wind energy, Goldman is assuming that Horizon will control 14 percent of all wind generation developed in the U.S. since 2000. Those figures also assume that 2,100 megawatts of additional generation capacity is added by 2010.
Goldman is also telling prospective buyers that legislation might blow their way.
"National greenhouse gas legislation, widely expected to be adopted in the next five years, would improve the cost competitiveness of renewable energy," the sales document said.
Better still, as the "exclusive financial adviser" for Horizon, Goldman's merger department is slated for a handsome multi-million dollar payday.
To be fair, Goldman is selling into a market that has seen plenty of interest from major power producers in wind generation. BP, NRG Energy and Iberdrola have each spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past year buying U.S.-based wind power assets.
A Goldman spokesman refused to comment on the transaction.
Goldman Sachs has decided to get out of the windpower industry
Reported this am @ 8:00 AM on radio station WLEA 1480 AM by Kevin Doran that Goldman Sachs has decided to get out of the windpower industry and other investors are likely to follow. Of course money is basis for their decision which they deemed source (Fed Gov) will soon end.
Goldman puts wind up energy sector
December 5, 2006 by Tom Bawden in The Times
Concerns are mounting that the renewable energy market in America may be close to its peak after Goldman Sachs, a barometer of the industry, put its Horizon Wind Energy business up for sale for an estimated $1.5 billion (£760 million).
The reasons for the proposed sale, after just 18 months of ownership, were not clear, although many analysts said that it could be in response to huge uncertainty surrounding the wind power industry.
Will Ainger, co-editor of SparkSpread, the online US power industry resource, said: “Lots of bankers look at Goldman Sachs as the weathercock of the energy industry and so many are assuming that it is now calling the top of the market.”
Rudolf Stützle, director of project finance at HypoVereinsbank in New York, said: “There is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the industry . . . and this is causing a good deal of concern among its leading players.”
(Read more at: http://www.windaction.org/news/6671)
Concerns are mounting that the renewable energy market in America may be close to its peak after Goldman Sachs, a barometer of the industry, put its Horizon Wind Energy business up for sale for an estimated $1.5 billion (£760 million).
The reasons for the proposed sale, after just 18 months of ownership, were not clear, although many analysts said that it could be in response to huge uncertainty surrounding the wind power industry.
Will Ainger, co-editor of SparkSpread, the online US power industry resource, said: “Lots of bankers look at Goldman Sachs as the weathercock of the energy industry and so many are assuming that it is now calling the top of the market.”
Rudolf Stützle, director of project finance at HypoVereinsbank in New York, said: “There is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the industry . . . and this is causing a good deal of concern among its leading players.”
(Read more at: http://www.windaction.org/news/6671)
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)