Wyoming County promotes itself as having more wind turbines than any county in New York State.
But plans to add a new wind farm in the Town of Orangeville are facing stifff resistance from several hundred residents.
Calling themselves 'Clear Skies Over Orangeville,' the group is challenging the project because the turbines would be located too close to homes.
"It is about the people who live here and what they will be subjected to, and if they will be able to stay here," said concerned resident, Lynn Lomanto.
The residents are worried that low-frequency turbine noise, called infra-sound, will make many homes in the small community unliveable.
So far, 'Clear Skies Over Orangeville' have taken the matter to court twice - both times unsuccessfully.
"It seems to be all for the money," adds 'Clear Skies' President, Cathi Orr.
Fighting the expansion has been an uphill battle for the group because land-lease agreements for the installation of turbines offers cash-poor farmers, and town governments, a source of much needed income.
'Clear Skies" is now one of many concerned nationwide groups that have contacted Congress urging them to let the 'Wind Production Tax Credit' expire at the end of the month.
Source
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Backlash against Big Wind Continues
Last month, 60 residents of New York’s Herkimer County filed a lawsuit in Albany that provides yet another example of the growing backlash against the wind-energy sector. It also exposes the double standard that exists in both the mainstream media and among environmental groups when it comes to “green” energy.
The main defendant in the lawsuit is the Spanish electric utility Iberdrola, which is the second-largest wind-energy operator in the U.S. The Herkimer County residents — all of whom live within a mile or so of the $200 million Hardscrabble Wind Power Project — are suing Iberdrola and a group of other companies because of the noise and disruption caused by the wind project.
The lawsuit comes at a touchy time for the wind industry, which is desperately trying to convince Congress to extend the industry’s production tax credit that expires at the end of this year. The subsidy gives wind-energy companies 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity that they produce.
Wind-energy proponents claim that an elimination of this tax credit could result in the loss of 37,000 jobs, but they have not been able to silence the dozens upon dozens of groups that have sprung up to fight expansion of the wind sector. And few places in the U.S. have seen a bigger backlash than New York State. About two dozen New York towns have passed rules banning or restricting wind-energy development, and many rural residents have expressed ongoing concerns about turbine noise.
The noise issue is front and center in the Hardscrabble lawsuit. Neighbors of the project have been complaining about noise from the turbines since last year. Two noise studies done on the Hardscrabble facility found that the turbines sometimes exceed their permitted limit of 50 decibels. In response to the complaints, Iberdrola Renewables — which owns the Hardscrabble project — installed noise-reduction equipment on a handful of the turbines.
In the lawsuit, the residents claim that the noise produced by the turbines on the 74-megawatt facility causes headaches and disturbs their sleep. Some of the residents say they have abandoned their homes because of the noise. Others are claiming that the project has hurt their property values. The key paragraph in the suit says that the defendants “failed to adequately assess the effect that the wind turbines would have on neighboring properties including, but not limited to, noise creation, significant loss of use and enjoyment of property . . . diminished property values, destruction of scenic countryside, various forms of trespass and nuisance to neighboring properties, and health concerns, among other effects.”
For years, the wind industry and its many supporters on the “green” left have been trying to dismiss the turbine-noise issue — and the nearby residents who are complaining about the problem. In late 2009, the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association published a paper that attempted to quiet critics of the noise problem; they stated in the paper that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” The paper also suggested that the symptoms critics were attributing to wind-turbine noise were psychosomatic and declared flatly that the vibrations from the turbines were “too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.”
The Herkimer County lawsuit — Abele et al. v. Iberdrola et al. — will bring the noise issue into the legal arena where it can be properly adjudicated. But it’s not yet clear what the plaintiffs might get if they win, because the lawsuit doesn’t name a specific dollar amount in damages. Jeff DeFrancisco, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said that New York State doesn’t allow plaintiffs to put a dollar value on the damages. Further, DeFrancisco said the plantiffs cannot seek injunctive relief because the turbines are already in place. “All we can do is seek compensation,” he says.
DeFrancisco said the litigation was necessary because the residents living near the turbines had no other options. The plaintiffs, he says, “can’t live peacefully” in their homes. “These are people who never had a problem before.” Some of them, he says, “would like to move but can’t because they can’t sell their homes.”
In addition to illustrating the backlash against the wind industry, the Herkimer County lawsuit provides yet another example of the double standard that exists in media coverage of “green” energy. Rural newspapers in New York and a few anti-wind websites have covered the lawsuit, but it has not been mentioned in mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times.
It’s easy to imagine what the coverage in the Times might look like if a lawsuit similar to the one in Herkimer County was filed against a company that was drilling for oil or natural gas. Last year, the Times ran a number of stories under a banner called “drilling down” — some of them were published on the front page — spotlighting hydraulic fracturing and the possibility of water contamination due to drilling.
The issues involved in oil and gas drilling and wind-turbine development are similar. They all entail new industrial activity in rural areas. All bring friction — truck traffic, noise, and other disruptions — to regions that are not accustomed to energy development. But the Times has never published a story on the backlash against the wind industry, even though New York is home to much of the backlash.
Although it’s easy to get riled about the newspaper of record, it’s mainstream environmental groups that display the most pernicious double standard. Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and other groups were founded on the notion of environmental protection. The Sierra Club’s mission statement declares that it wants to “educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.”
If that’s true, why isn’t the Sierra Club campaigning for the rights of the residents in Herkimer County? Don’t rural landowners have the right to a high-quality natural and human environment that is free from industrial intrusions, like, say, 470-foot-high wind turbines that are built within a few thousand feet of their homes?
The hard reality is that for groups such as the Sierra Club and their fellow travelers, the issue of climate change — and their near-religious belief that wind turbines are an effective method of cutting carbon dioxide emissions — trumps nearly every other concern. If rural residents in Herkimer County and elsewhere are getting steamrolled by wind-energy developers, well, then, that’s just too bad.
It will take months for the Herkimer County lawsuit to wend its way through the courts. But the lawsuit shows, once again, that the anti-wind backlash is growing. And that blowback will only get worse — with or without the help of the self-proclaimed “environmentalists.”
Source
The main defendant in the lawsuit is the Spanish electric utility Iberdrola, which is the second-largest wind-energy operator in the U.S. The Herkimer County residents — all of whom live within a mile or so of the $200 million Hardscrabble Wind Power Project — are suing Iberdrola and a group of other companies because of the noise and disruption caused by the wind project.
The lawsuit comes at a touchy time for the wind industry, which is desperately trying to convince Congress to extend the industry’s production tax credit that expires at the end of this year. The subsidy gives wind-energy companies 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity that they produce.
Wind-energy proponents claim that an elimination of this tax credit could result in the loss of 37,000 jobs, but they have not been able to silence the dozens upon dozens of groups that have sprung up to fight expansion of the wind sector. And few places in the U.S. have seen a bigger backlash than New York State. About two dozen New York towns have passed rules banning or restricting wind-energy development, and many rural residents have expressed ongoing concerns about turbine noise.
The noise issue is front and center in the Hardscrabble lawsuit. Neighbors of the project have been complaining about noise from the turbines since last year. Two noise studies done on the Hardscrabble facility found that the turbines sometimes exceed their permitted limit of 50 decibels. In response to the complaints, Iberdrola Renewables — which owns the Hardscrabble project — installed noise-reduction equipment on a handful of the turbines.
In the lawsuit, the residents claim that the noise produced by the turbines on the 74-megawatt facility causes headaches and disturbs their sleep. Some of the residents say they have abandoned their homes because of the noise. Others are claiming that the project has hurt their property values. The key paragraph in the suit says that the defendants “failed to adequately assess the effect that the wind turbines would have on neighboring properties including, but not limited to, noise creation, significant loss of use and enjoyment of property . . . diminished property values, destruction of scenic countryside, various forms of trespass and nuisance to neighboring properties, and health concerns, among other effects.”
For years, the wind industry and its many supporters on the “green” left have been trying to dismiss the turbine-noise issue — and the nearby residents who are complaining about the problem. In late 2009, the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association published a paper that attempted to quiet critics of the noise problem; they stated in the paper that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” The paper also suggested that the symptoms critics were attributing to wind-turbine noise were psychosomatic and declared flatly that the vibrations from the turbines were “too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.”
The Herkimer County lawsuit — Abele et al. v. Iberdrola et al. — will bring the noise issue into the legal arena where it can be properly adjudicated. But it’s not yet clear what the plaintiffs might get if they win, because the lawsuit doesn’t name a specific dollar amount in damages. Jeff DeFrancisco, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said that New York State doesn’t allow plaintiffs to put a dollar value on the damages. Further, DeFrancisco said the plantiffs cannot seek injunctive relief because the turbines are already in place. “All we can do is seek compensation,” he says.
DeFrancisco said the litigation was necessary because the residents living near the turbines had no other options. The plaintiffs, he says, “can’t live peacefully” in their homes. “These are people who never had a problem before.” Some of them, he says, “would like to move but can’t because they can’t sell their homes.”
In addition to illustrating the backlash against the wind industry, the Herkimer County lawsuit provides yet another example of the double standard that exists in media coverage of “green” energy. Rural newspapers in New York and a few anti-wind websites have covered the lawsuit, but it has not been mentioned in mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times.
It’s easy to imagine what the coverage in the Times might look like if a lawsuit similar to the one in Herkimer County was filed against a company that was drilling for oil or natural gas. Last year, the Times ran a number of stories under a banner called “drilling down” — some of them were published on the front page — spotlighting hydraulic fracturing and the possibility of water contamination due to drilling.
The issues involved in oil and gas drilling and wind-turbine development are similar. They all entail new industrial activity in rural areas. All bring friction — truck traffic, noise, and other disruptions — to regions that are not accustomed to energy development. But the Times has never published a story on the backlash against the wind industry, even though New York is home to much of the backlash.
Although it’s easy to get riled about the newspaper of record, it’s mainstream environmental groups that display the most pernicious double standard. Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and other groups were founded on the notion of environmental protection. The Sierra Club’s mission statement declares that it wants to “educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.”
If that’s true, why isn’t the Sierra Club campaigning for the rights of the residents in Herkimer County? Don’t rural landowners have the right to a high-quality natural and human environment that is free from industrial intrusions, like, say, 470-foot-high wind turbines that are built within a few thousand feet of their homes?
The hard reality is that for groups such as the Sierra Club and their fellow travelers, the issue of climate change — and their near-religious belief that wind turbines are an effective method of cutting carbon dioxide emissions — trumps nearly every other concern. If rural residents in Herkimer County and elsewhere are getting steamrolled by wind-energy developers, well, then, that’s just too bad.
It will take months for the Herkimer County lawsuit to wend its way through the courts. But the lawsuit shows, once again, that the anti-wind backlash is growing. And that blowback will only get worse — with or without the help of the self-proclaimed “environmentalists.”
Source
Monday, November 26, 2012
Michigan’s insane 25×25 proposition: A postmortem
Why Michigan voters wisely rejected the crazy idea of 25% electricity from renewables by 2025
The Michigan Energy-Michigan Jobs (MEMJ) Proposal 3 – its 25 by 25 gambit – would have forced Michigan taxpayers and ratepayers to produce 25 percent of the Wolverine State’s electricity via expensive, unreliable, parasitic wind and solar projects by 2025.
The misguided program has now been laid to rest by the wisdom of Michigan’s voters. What can we learn by autopsying its corpse?
This initiative was hardly local. It was driven by out-of-state pressure groups like the Sierra Club that were backed by the League of Conservation Voters, natural gas company Chesapeake Energy, and a number of deep-pocketed elites. MEMJ itself was funded largely by the Green Tech Action Fund of San Francisco; the Natural Resources Defense Fund of New York, whose president is multi-millionaire Frances Beinecke; and San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer.
These carpetbagger activists placed a bull’s-eye on Michigan ratepayers with Proposal 3. Sierra Club was blunt: “If successful, the [Michigan] 25×25 initiative will send an important signal to the nation that public desire to move toward green energy remains strong.”
The grassroots activists who defeated this proposal had no billionaire largesse to draw upon. They were united under the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition, a bipartisan renewable energy consumers watchdog group dependent on small contributions to support its work and committed to advancing sensible science-based energy policies and free market land use policies.
Compelled by the principle that industrial renewable energy schemes like Proposal 3 bring far more benefit to their invisible corporate cronies than to the environment, IICC members traveled the state on their own dime to speak out, protest, educate and inform. Their reward was sweet: they took their message of science-based energy policy to the people, who responded at the ballot box, soundly defeating Proposal 3 by 64-36 percent.
Using Sierra’s own test, Michigan ratepayers have shouted there is no such “public desire.”
In fact, there is widespread opposition to mandating forest-denuding biomass and massively expensive solar. But the hottest conflict focused on industrial wind. Michigan wind projects have lost at the ballot box virtually every time they have been put to the vote in a fair manner – and by similar margins.
At the township level, opposition to wind cronyism is just as strong. In Lenawee County, Riga Township rejected wind-friendly zoning by 64-36 percent. Two more Lenawee Townships followed suit. In Huron County, Lake Township removed a wind friendly ordinance by a similar 61-39 percent. And in Clinton County townships are intent on adopting police power regulations for wind energy installations, in defiance of too-permissive county level zoning.
This opposition is strongly bipartisan. Proposal 3 and its miles of wind turbines were opposed by both the free market Americans for Prosperity and Michael Moore movie producer Jeff Gibbs.
The ballot box evidence is clear. Michigan ratepayers from left to right are emphatic that there is no “desire” for mandated and subsidized industrial wind projects, in their backyard or anywhere in the State.
The push for Prop 3 also broke the big utilities’ code of silence on wind inefficacy. MEMJ unwittingly exposed CMS Energy’s duplicity on this issue – observing that CMS praised its new Ludington area wind plant for furnishing “reliable and affordable energy,” even as its public relations surrogate Care for Michigan was calling wind “expensive and unreliable.” Unfortunately for MEMJ, the Care for Michigan version was the truth.
Opponents of renewable energy have long pointed out that wind energy is parasitic – totally dependent on fossil fuels for backup power, with every megawatt of wind power supported by a megawatt of redundant coal or natural gas generating plants. So wind cannot possibly or meaningfully reduce emissions.
But the utilities stood silent. Their beloved existing 10 percent renewable mandate, PA295, restored their monopoly status and guaranteed them nice profits, in exchange for a small number of renewable projects. They were not interested in biting the legislative hand that was (and is) feeding them.
But Prop 3 brought all stick and no carrot for the utilities. They could no longer remain silent. Out came the truth. Wind cannot replace fossil fuel plants. Wind is not getting inexorably cheaper, but is far more expensive than current generation and, minus the huge hidden subsidies, more expensive than new coal. Wind cannot increase employment without costing employment in other industries that get stuck with soaring electricity bills. Wind energy cannot liberate us from foreign oil or from out-of-state coal imports.
What then did our autopsy discover? Michigan renewable energy mandates – including PA295 – are doomed. Because of gluttonous overreach, they will die by their own hand. Politicians need not fear public reprisal for opposing and repealing renewable energy mandates. It is now safe for lawmakers to acknowledge and act on the fact that renewables mandates like PA 295 are of no benefit to ratepayers, employers or employees, and are of dubious benefit to the environment.
Through the failure of Proposal 3, Michigan wind has been dissected and eviscerated by public opinion. The sooner our elected officials zip the death bag shut and send the corpse out for burial, the sooner Michigan can protect its rural areas from needless industrialization and our energy intensive industries from rising electricity costs that compromise their competitive edge.
Other states, and our federal government, should take note.
Kevon Martis is Senior Policy Analyst for the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition (www.iiccusa.org) in Blissfield, Michigan.
The Michigan Energy-Michigan Jobs (MEMJ) Proposal 3 – its 25 by 25 gambit – would have forced Michigan taxpayers and ratepayers to produce 25 percent of the Wolverine State’s electricity via expensive, unreliable, parasitic wind and solar projects by 2025.
The misguided program has now been laid to rest by the wisdom of Michigan’s voters. What can we learn by autopsying its corpse?
This initiative was hardly local. It was driven by out-of-state pressure groups like the Sierra Club that were backed by the League of Conservation Voters, natural gas company Chesapeake Energy, and a number of deep-pocketed elites. MEMJ itself was funded largely by the Green Tech Action Fund of San Francisco; the Natural Resources Defense Fund of New York, whose president is multi-millionaire Frances Beinecke; and San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer.
These carpetbagger activists placed a bull’s-eye on Michigan ratepayers with Proposal 3. Sierra Club was blunt: “If successful, the [Michigan] 25×25 initiative will send an important signal to the nation that public desire to move toward green energy remains strong.”
The grassroots activists who defeated this proposal had no billionaire largesse to draw upon. They were united under the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition, a bipartisan renewable energy consumers watchdog group dependent on small contributions to support its work and committed to advancing sensible science-based energy policies and free market land use policies.
Compelled by the principle that industrial renewable energy schemes like Proposal 3 bring far more benefit to their invisible corporate cronies than to the environment, IICC members traveled the state on their own dime to speak out, protest, educate and inform. Their reward was sweet: they took their message of science-based energy policy to the people, who responded at the ballot box, soundly defeating Proposal 3 by 64-36 percent.
Using Sierra’s own test, Michigan ratepayers have shouted there is no such “public desire.”
In fact, there is widespread opposition to mandating forest-denuding biomass and massively expensive solar. But the hottest conflict focused on industrial wind. Michigan wind projects have lost at the ballot box virtually every time they have been put to the vote in a fair manner – and by similar margins.
At the township level, opposition to wind cronyism is just as strong. In Lenawee County, Riga Township rejected wind-friendly zoning by 64-36 percent. Two more Lenawee Townships followed suit. In Huron County, Lake Township removed a wind friendly ordinance by a similar 61-39 percent. And in Clinton County townships are intent on adopting police power regulations for wind energy installations, in defiance of too-permissive county level zoning.
This opposition is strongly bipartisan. Proposal 3 and its miles of wind turbines were opposed by both the free market Americans for Prosperity and Michael Moore movie producer Jeff Gibbs.
The ballot box evidence is clear. Michigan ratepayers from left to right are emphatic that there is no “desire” for mandated and subsidized industrial wind projects, in their backyard or anywhere in the State.
The push for Prop 3 also broke the big utilities’ code of silence on wind inefficacy. MEMJ unwittingly exposed CMS Energy’s duplicity on this issue – observing that CMS praised its new Ludington area wind plant for furnishing “reliable and affordable energy,” even as its public relations surrogate Care for Michigan was calling wind “expensive and unreliable.” Unfortunately for MEMJ, the Care for Michigan version was the truth.
Opponents of renewable energy have long pointed out that wind energy is parasitic – totally dependent on fossil fuels for backup power, with every megawatt of wind power supported by a megawatt of redundant coal or natural gas generating plants. So wind cannot possibly or meaningfully reduce emissions.
But the utilities stood silent. Their beloved existing 10 percent renewable mandate, PA295, restored their monopoly status and guaranteed them nice profits, in exchange for a small number of renewable projects. They were not interested in biting the legislative hand that was (and is) feeding them.
But Prop 3 brought all stick and no carrot for the utilities. They could no longer remain silent. Out came the truth. Wind cannot replace fossil fuel plants. Wind is not getting inexorably cheaper, but is far more expensive than current generation and, minus the huge hidden subsidies, more expensive than new coal. Wind cannot increase employment without costing employment in other industries that get stuck with soaring electricity bills. Wind energy cannot liberate us from foreign oil or from out-of-state coal imports.
What then did our autopsy discover? Michigan renewable energy mandates – including PA295 – are doomed. Because of gluttonous overreach, they will die by their own hand. Politicians need not fear public reprisal for opposing and repealing renewable energy mandates. It is now safe for lawmakers to acknowledge and act on the fact that renewables mandates like PA 295 are of no benefit to ratepayers, employers or employees, and are of dubious benefit to the environment.
Through the failure of Proposal 3, Michigan wind has been dissected and eviscerated by public opinion. The sooner our elected officials zip the death bag shut and send the corpse out for burial, the sooner Michigan can protect its rural areas from needless industrialization and our energy intensive industries from rising electricity costs that compromise their competitive edge.
Other states, and our federal government, should take note.
Kevon Martis is Senior Policy Analyst for the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition (www.iiccusa.org) in Blissfield, Michigan.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Clipper Windpower’s California HQ to close
A California business journal is reporting that Clipper Windpower, which has a wind turbine servicing operation in Cedar Rapids, plans to close its Caprinteria, Calif. headquarters.
The closing plan was announced at an all-employees meeting on Nov. 7, according to a Nov. 16 report in the Pacific Coast Business Times, quoting an unnamed “person who was present.”
The report said that by February, Clipper will consist of “somewhere under 100 employees,” all of them in Cedar Rapids. It said the remaining employees will likely focus on servicing the proprietary gearboxes on the fleet of 739 Clipper turbines already in service.
Clipper Windpower was acquired earlier this year from United Technologies Corp. by Platinum Equity, a private equity firm based in Beverly Hills.
A lawsuit filed recently by a major customer in Linn District Court documents Clipper’s financial difficulties, which it linked to massive warranty claims resulting from problems with Clipper’s turbines.
Source
The closing plan was announced at an all-employees meeting on Nov. 7, according to a Nov. 16 report in the Pacific Coast Business Times, quoting an unnamed “person who was present.”
The report said that by February, Clipper will consist of “somewhere under 100 employees,” all of them in Cedar Rapids. It said the remaining employees will likely focus on servicing the proprietary gearboxes on the fleet of 739 Clipper turbines already in service.
Clipper Windpower was acquired earlier this year from United Technologies Corp. by Platinum Equity, a private equity firm based in Beverly Hills.
A lawsuit filed recently by a major customer in Linn District Court documents Clipper’s financial difficulties, which it linked to massive warranty claims resulting from problems with Clipper’s turbines.
Source
Monday, November 19, 2012
First Wind goes to arbitration in $60m Clipper claim
First Wind has gone to arbitration to recover almost $60 million from Clipper Windpower, claiming in court documents that the wind turbine manufacturer "appears on the verge of imploding".
First Wind also petitioned the New York Supreme Court, in an effort to ensure Clipper puts aside the $59,521,000 being claimed. The developer said the money represented advance payments made as part of a 2007 turbine deal.
The arbritration is going through the America Arbitration Association in Chicago. Clipper maintained it had access funds if the judgement went against it.
The arbitration hearing follows Clipper's acquisition by private equity company Platinum Equity from United Technologies Corporation. First Wind states that Clipper has effectively stopped manufacturing wind turbines, which the company denies.
The supreme court judge rejected First Wind's petition on the grounds that Clipper said it was willing and able to manufacture the turbines if First Wind placed a firm order and made the "required deposit". The judge also said that taking such a sum of money out of the company could bankrupt it.
Clipper has admitted it has ceased wind turbine manufacturing due to lack of orders. First Wind has also claimed Clipper has stopped its warranty obligations to it and other customers and that Platinum is planning to close down the majority of its operations.
A recent report in the Pacific Coast Business Times claimed Clipper was making around 200 cuts to its Carpinteria head office. It said employees were informed of the plan on 7 November.
The report claimed that Clipper's new CEO Michael Reed - who was installed by Platinum earlier this year - will take the company's head count down to 100 by February next year. All of these will be based at its Cedar Rapids plant.
It said the only part of the company that was likely to continue was its servicing operations, which handled the Clipper-developed gearbox for the 2.5MW Liberty turbine.
Source
The arbritration is going through the America Arbitration Association in Chicago. Clipper maintained it had access funds if the judgement went against it.
The arbitration hearing follows Clipper's acquisition by private equity company Platinum Equity from United Technologies Corporation. First Wind states that Clipper has effectively stopped manufacturing wind turbines, which the company denies.
The supreme court judge rejected First Wind's petition on the grounds that Clipper said it was willing and able to manufacture the turbines if First Wind placed a firm order and made the "required deposit". The judge also said that taking such a sum of money out of the company could bankrupt it.
Clipper has admitted it has ceased wind turbine manufacturing due to lack of orders. First Wind has also claimed Clipper has stopped its warranty obligations to it and other customers and that Platinum is planning to close down the majority of its operations.
A recent report in the Pacific Coast Business Times claimed Clipper was making around 200 cuts to its Carpinteria head office. It said employees were informed of the plan on 7 November.
The report claimed that Clipper's new CEO Michael Reed - who was installed by Platinum earlier this year - will take the company's head count down to 100 by February next year. All of these will be based at its Cedar Rapids plant.
It said the only part of the company that was likely to continue was its servicing operations, which handled the Clipper-developed gearbox for the 2.5MW Liberty turbine.
Source
Sunday, November 18, 2012
HECO says Kahuku Wind Farm's battery storage system will cost at least $8M to replace
Hawaiian Electric Co. says its interconnection facility inside the battery energy storage system warehouse at the Kahuku Wind Farm on Oahu's North Shore, which was destroyed by fire in August, will cost at least $8 million to rebuild and take about a year to complete.
The 15-megawatt system, which helps stabilize the wind energy output for the grid, houses both HECO's interconnection facility and Kahuku Wind Farm's control rooms.
The Hawaiian Electric Industries' subsidiary also noted in a letter sent last week to the state Public Utilities Commission that the scheduled completion date for its interconnection facility is late 2013. That means that Boston-based First Wind won't have its Oahu wind farm up and running until the latter part of next year.
Additionally, HECO says that First Wind will replace its battery energy storage system with a D-Var System, a voltage regulation device made by American Superconductor that has proven wind farm experience.
Source
The 15-megawatt system, which helps stabilize the wind energy output for the grid, houses both HECO's interconnection facility and Kahuku Wind Farm's control rooms.
The Hawaiian Electric Industries' subsidiary also noted in a letter sent last week to the state Public Utilities Commission that the scheduled completion date for its interconnection facility is late 2013. That means that Boston-based First Wind won't have its Oahu wind farm up and running until the latter part of next year.
Additionally, HECO says that First Wind will replace its battery energy storage system with a D-Var System, a voltage regulation device made by American Superconductor that has proven wind farm experience.
Source
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
60 Herkimer Co. residents file lawsuit against wind farm owner
Some Herkimer County residents near the Hardscrabble Wind Farm are fed up with the noise, the view and “negative impact” they say 37 wind turbines bring to their backyards.
Frustrated by the wind farm that some residents say drives them “crazy,” 60 Middleville, Fairfield and Norway residents have filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the entities responsible for its construction, namely Iberdrola Renewables.
“A lot of it has to do with the effect that it’s having in being in close proximity to the residences,” said Jeff DeFrancisco, an attorney from DeFrancisco & Flagiatano Law Firm of Syracuse.
Among the complaints, the lawsuit asserts that those responsible for the construction of the wind farm were negligent in assessing the site to determine whether it was properly suited for the project, and that the 450-foot turbines are a public and private nuisance.
Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman said the company had no comment since it had not received the papers.
DeFrancisco, who is working with Syracuse environmental Attorney Melody Scalfone, said the concerns range from the negative impact the turbines have on the residents’ enjoyment of their home to health problems and difficulty selling the property.
Noise concerns
Jimmy Salamone, who lives on Davis Road in Fairfield, said he gets headaches and his ears ring.
“The noise is literally driving me out of my house,” he said.
Iberdrola installed a noise-reduction system at four turbines in Fairfield earlier this year. Prior to that, the town had requested sound studies.
Fairfield Town Supervisor Henry Crofoot said he anticipates the preliminary results of the system to be presented within the next month.
Salamone said the town leadership hasn’t had the residents’ best interests in mind.
“I’m very, very disgusted with the way our town supervisor and Town Board have handled any of this,” he said. “These things are hurting people.”
Crofoot, who said he has not seen the lawsuit, said the town is doing what it can.
“We will do whatever we can to help our residents within the letter of the law,” he said.
‘We’ve got to leave’
Salamone said he hopes the lawsuit will encourage Iberdrola to shut down the wind farm, or that the plaintiffs will be “heavy compensated.”
“I would expect them to buy my house, whatever the lawsuit is, and we would leave,” he said. “One way or another, we’ve got to leave.”
Leaving is difficult for many residents, DeFrancisco said, because the turbines can impact property values.
“A lot of people don’t want to live in that area because (turbines) obstruct the view,” he said.
Others, Scalfone said, bought property intending to build a retirement home and now can’t sell the land because of the turbines.
The bottom line is the turbines are a nuisance, he said.
“The New York law simply states it’s unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your property,” Scalfone said. “The residents’ quality of life has been significantly impacted.”
Some Herkimer County residents near the Hardscrabble Wind Farm are fed up with the noise, the view and “negative impact” they say 37 wind turbines bring to their backyards.
Frustrated by the wind farm that some residents say drives them “crazy,” 60 Middleville, Fairfield and Norway residents have filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the entities responsible for its construction, namely Iberdrola Renewables.
“A lot of it has to do with the effect that it’s having in being in close proximity to the residences,” said Jeff DeFrancisco, an attorney from DeFrancisco & Flagiatano Law Firm of Syracuse.
Among the complaints, the lawsuit asserts that those responsible for the construction of the wind farm were negligent in assessing the site to determine whether it was properly suited for the project, and that the 450-foot turbines are a public and private nuisance.
Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman said the company had no comment since it had not received the papers.
DeFrancisco, who is working with Syracuse environmental Attorney Melody Scalfone, said the concerns range from the negative impact the turbines have on the residents’ enjoyment of their home to health problems and difficulty selling the property.
Noise concerns
Jimmy Salamone, who lives on Davis Road in Fairfield, said he gets headaches and his ears ring.
“The noise is literally driving me out of my house,” he said.
Iberdrola installed a noise-reduction system at four turbines in Fairfield earlier this year. Prior to that, the town had requested sound studies.
Fairfield Town Supervisor Henry Crofoot said he anticipates the preliminary results of the system to be presented within the next month.
Salamone said the town leadership hasn’t had the residents’ best interests in mind.
“I’m very, very disgusted with the way our town supervisor and Town Board have handled any of this,” he said. “These things are hurting people.”
Crofoot, who said he has not seen the lawsuit, said the town is doing what it can.
“We will do whatever we can to help our residents within the letter of the law,” he said.
‘We’ve got to leave’
Salamone said he hopes the lawsuit will encourage Iberdrola to shut down the wind farm, or that the plaintiffs will be “heavy compensated.”
“I would expect them to buy my house, whatever the lawsuit is, and we would leave,” he said. “One way or another, we’ve got to leave.”
Leaving is difficult for many residents, DeFrancisco said, because the turbines can impact property values.
“A lot of people don’t want to live in that area because (turbines) obstruct the view,” he said.
Others, Scalfone said, bought property intending to build a retirement home and now can’t sell the land because of the turbines.
The bottom line is the turbines are a nuisance, he said.
“The New York law simply states it’s unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your property,” Scalfone said. “The residents’ quality of life has been significantly impacted.”
Source
Frustrated by the wind farm that some residents say drives them “crazy,” 60 Middleville, Fairfield and Norway residents have filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the entities responsible for its construction, namely Iberdrola Renewables.
“A lot of it has to do with the effect that it’s having in being in close proximity to the residences,” said Jeff DeFrancisco, an attorney from DeFrancisco & Flagiatano Law Firm of Syracuse.
Among the complaints, the lawsuit asserts that those responsible for the construction of the wind farm were negligent in assessing the site to determine whether it was properly suited for the project, and that the 450-foot turbines are a public and private nuisance.
Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman said the company had no comment since it had not received the papers.
DeFrancisco, who is working with Syracuse environmental Attorney Melody Scalfone, said the concerns range from the negative impact the turbines have on the residents’ enjoyment of their home to health problems and difficulty selling the property.
Noise concerns
Jimmy Salamone, who lives on Davis Road in Fairfield, said he gets headaches and his ears ring.
“The noise is literally driving me out of my house,” he said.
Iberdrola installed a noise-reduction system at four turbines in Fairfield earlier this year. Prior to that, the town had requested sound studies.
Fairfield Town Supervisor Henry Crofoot said he anticipates the preliminary results of the system to be presented within the next month.
Salamone said the town leadership hasn’t had the residents’ best interests in mind.
“I’m very, very disgusted with the way our town supervisor and Town Board have handled any of this,” he said. “These things are hurting people.”
Crofoot, who said he has not seen the lawsuit, said the town is doing what it can.
“We will do whatever we can to help our residents within the letter of the law,” he said.
‘We’ve got to leave’
Salamone said he hopes the lawsuit will encourage Iberdrola to shut down the wind farm, or that the plaintiffs will be “heavy compensated.”
“I would expect them to buy my house, whatever the lawsuit is, and we would leave,” he said. “One way or another, we’ve got to leave.”
Leaving is difficult for many residents, DeFrancisco said, because the turbines can impact property values.
“A lot of people don’t want to live in that area because (turbines) obstruct the view,” he said.
Others, Scalfone said, bought property intending to build a retirement home and now can’t sell the land because of the turbines.
The bottom line is the turbines are a nuisance, he said.
“The New York law simply states it’s unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your property,” Scalfone said. “The residents’ quality of life has been significantly impacted.”
Some Herkimer County residents near the Hardscrabble Wind Farm are fed up with the noise, the view and “negative impact” they say 37 wind turbines bring to their backyards.
Frustrated by the wind farm that some residents say drives them “crazy,” 60 Middleville, Fairfield and Norway residents have filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the entities responsible for its construction, namely Iberdrola Renewables.
“A lot of it has to do with the effect that it’s having in being in close proximity to the residences,” said Jeff DeFrancisco, an attorney from DeFrancisco & Flagiatano Law Firm of Syracuse.
Among the complaints, the lawsuit asserts that those responsible for the construction of the wind farm were negligent in assessing the site to determine whether it was properly suited for the project, and that the 450-foot turbines are a public and private nuisance.
Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman said the company had no comment since it had not received the papers.
DeFrancisco, who is working with Syracuse environmental Attorney Melody Scalfone, said the concerns range from the negative impact the turbines have on the residents’ enjoyment of their home to health problems and difficulty selling the property.
Noise concerns
Jimmy Salamone, who lives on Davis Road in Fairfield, said he gets headaches and his ears ring.
“The noise is literally driving me out of my house,” he said.
Iberdrola installed a noise-reduction system at four turbines in Fairfield earlier this year. Prior to that, the town had requested sound studies.
Fairfield Town Supervisor Henry Crofoot said he anticipates the preliminary results of the system to be presented within the next month.
Salamone said the town leadership hasn’t had the residents’ best interests in mind.
“I’m very, very disgusted with the way our town supervisor and Town Board have handled any of this,” he said. “These things are hurting people.”
Crofoot, who said he has not seen the lawsuit, said the town is doing what it can.
“We will do whatever we can to help our residents within the letter of the law,” he said.
‘We’ve got to leave’
Salamone said he hopes the lawsuit will encourage Iberdrola to shut down the wind farm, or that the plaintiffs will be “heavy compensated.”
“I would expect them to buy my house, whatever the lawsuit is, and we would leave,” he said. “One way or another, we’ve got to leave.”
Leaving is difficult for many residents, DeFrancisco said, because the turbines can impact property values.
“A lot of people don’t want to live in that area because (turbines) obstruct the view,” he said.
Others, Scalfone said, bought property intending to build a retirement home and now can’t sell the land because of the turbines.
The bottom line is the turbines are a nuisance, he said.
“The New York law simply states it’s unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your property,” Scalfone said. “The residents’ quality of life has been significantly impacted.”
Source
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Meteorological test towers to be put up in Wayland
They’ve been put up around Wayland, so why not in Wayland?
Pittsburgh, Pa. -based Everpower Wind Holdings Inc., the same company with wind turbines in nearby Howard, will be putting up two meteorological test towers in Wayland.
"[Meteorlogical test towers] primarily measure wind speed and direction. The information these towers provide will allow us to assess the wind resource of the area,” Everpower senior director of development Kevin Sheen said.
The results of the tests will help Everpower determine whether there is enough wind speed necessary to build wind turbines, and will help the company learn the wind direction to assist in siting turbine locations.
Everpower is hoping, weather permitting, for the test towers to be up by Christmas.
Everpower's Howard Wind Project utilizes 25 turbines and generates 51.25 megawatts of electricity at full load – enough to power the equivalent of 35,000 households, Sheen?said.
The exact locations of where the Wayland test towers will be placed have not yet been disclosed by Everpower.
However, Sheen said that one met tower, which will stand at 190 feet, will be placed two miles northwest of Hartsville; and the other tower, which will stand 313 feet tall, will be placed two and a half miles southwest of Cohocton.
Each tower will stay in place for at least three years, possibly up to five years.
Source
Pittsburgh, Pa. -based Everpower Wind Holdings Inc., the same company with wind turbines in nearby Howard, will be putting up two meteorological test towers in Wayland.
"[Meteorlogical test towers] primarily measure wind speed and direction. The information these towers provide will allow us to assess the wind resource of the area,” Everpower senior director of development Kevin Sheen said.
The results of the tests will help Everpower determine whether there is enough wind speed necessary to build wind turbines, and will help the company learn the wind direction to assist in siting turbine locations.
Everpower is hoping, weather permitting, for the test towers to be up by Christmas.
Everpower's Howard Wind Project utilizes 25 turbines and generates 51.25 megawatts of electricity at full load – enough to power the equivalent of 35,000 households, Sheen?said.
The exact locations of where the Wayland test towers will be placed have not yet been disclosed by Everpower.
However, Sheen said that one met tower, which will stand at 190 feet, will be placed two miles northwest of Hartsville; and the other tower, which will stand 313 feet tall, will be placed two and a half miles southwest of Cohocton.
Each tower will stay in place for at least three years, possibly up to five years.
Source
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Wind farms drop property values
The EverPower wind farm proposes 29 turbines, 494 feet tall, towering over homes on Chipmonk Road, Four Mile Road, Knapp Creek and Birch Run.
Many other homes and businesses in Allegany, Olean and Carrollton, including St. Bonaventure University, Rock City Park and St. Elizabeth’s Motherhouse will have a view of the turbines for decades ahead.
A National Research Council (NRC) study submitted to the Allegany Town Board showed that of existing property value studies near wind energy facilities, few studies focus on non-farm, residential property in close proximity to (not bordering, but in the vicinity of) a wind farm, and “forecasts of property values in prospective host areas that are based on comparisons with existing host areas are of questionable validity, especially if there are significant differences between the areas.”
However, studies in Wisconsin and Ontario, Canada, show alarming drops in the value of residential real property near turbines. Therefore, the NRC recommends wind energy project sponsors "provide property-value guarantees to property owners within a specified distance from the facility when they want to sell their properties."
EverPower has never proposed doing this.
Homeowners are legitimately alarmed by the prospect of the loss of value in their primary investment. Residents also submitted to the board a study performed by the Appraisal Group One, Wind Turbine Impact Study, in Wisconsin, where property in “bordering proximity” to wind-energy facilities lost a whopping 39 percent to 43 percent. Losses continue in property that is in “close proximity” with up to 36 percent loss, while property in “near proximity” saw a negative impact of 24 percent to 29 percent.
The study further found that having a turbine within view caused the property value to plummet 30 percent.
While many property owners did not receive official assessment reductions this past year because the wind-energy facility is not yet constructed, real property values in the area have already suffered. Recent letters in this paper have brought this fact to the attention of our representatives.
There are no comparable real property value studies taking into account the character of our area and the extreme wind-energy installation now proposed for Chipmonk. The turbines in the Wisconsin study referenced above are 389 feet tall. Another study released this month by Lansink Appraisals & Consulting, Case Study, Diminution in Value, Wind Turbine Analysis, found that residential (non-farm) property near a wind farm in Ontario, Canada, lost 38.8 percent of its value. The turbines in the Canadian study are 393 feet tall.
Turbines for the Allegany project will dwarf those of the Wisconsin and Canadian studies. EverPower will make the citizens of Allegany, young and old, the research population for this colossal experiment on wind turbines for their own profit.
What would happen if your home lost 40 percent or more of its value? This is the agonizing reality for residents and property owners in Chipmonk, Knapp Creek, the Four Mile and the Birch Run. Note that our individual losses will also reverberate throughout the community.
Recently, the assessment rolls in Wolfe Island (on the St. Lawrence Seaway) were reduced by $3 million dollars because homes in close proximity to turbines lost value. (The turbines on Wolfe Island are 410 feet, 84 feet shorter than those proposed by EverPower.) The tax rolls for this township show 78 significant assessment reductions since 2008 (the wind farm became operational in 2009). The six homes nearest the turbines lost $100,000 each.
Obviously, wind turbines erected near residential areas have a negative effect on property assessments.
Property owners, residents and business owners should be aware that, while Allegany homeowners pay property taxes at full rate, EverPower would be allowed to make greatly reduced fractional payments. The unavoidable declines in Allegany’s tax rolls will substantially offset any wind farm PILOT payments.
The Allegany Town Board’s responsibility is to protect the health and general welfare of all citizens within the community. Unless the board is able to do the job it was elected to do, decades of weak property values will cause irreparable harm to the town and school tax base.
Source
Many other homes and businesses in Allegany, Olean and Carrollton, including St. Bonaventure University, Rock City Park and St. Elizabeth’s Motherhouse will have a view of the turbines for decades ahead.
The Allegany Town Board members have been apprised of the concerns of property owners surrounding the wind energy facility.
A National Research Council (NRC) study submitted to the Allegany Town Board showed that of existing property value studies near wind energy facilities, few studies focus on non-farm, residential property in close proximity to (not bordering, but in the vicinity of) a wind farm, and “forecasts of property values in prospective host areas that are based on comparisons with existing host areas are of questionable validity, especially if there are significant differences between the areas.”
However, studies in Wisconsin and Ontario, Canada, show alarming drops in the value of residential real property near turbines. Therefore, the NRC recommends wind energy project sponsors "provide property-value guarantees to property owners within a specified distance from the facility when they want to sell their properties."
EverPower has never proposed doing this.
Homeowners are legitimately alarmed by the prospect of the loss of value in their primary investment. Residents also submitted to the board a study performed by the Appraisal Group One, Wind Turbine Impact Study, in Wisconsin, where property in “bordering proximity” to wind-energy facilities lost a whopping 39 percent to 43 percent. Losses continue in property that is in “close proximity” with up to 36 percent loss, while property in “near proximity” saw a negative impact of 24 percent to 29 percent.
The study further found that having a turbine within view caused the property value to plummet 30 percent.
While many property owners did not receive official assessment reductions this past year because the wind-energy facility is not yet constructed, real property values in the area have already suffered. Recent letters in this paper have brought this fact to the attention of our representatives.
There are no comparable real property value studies taking into account the character of our area and the extreme wind-energy installation now proposed for Chipmonk. The turbines in the Wisconsin study referenced above are 389 feet tall. Another study released this month by Lansink Appraisals & Consulting, Case Study, Diminution in Value, Wind Turbine Analysis, found that residential (non-farm) property near a wind farm in Ontario, Canada, lost 38.8 percent of its value. The turbines in the Canadian study are 393 feet tall.
Turbines for the Allegany project will dwarf those of the Wisconsin and Canadian studies. EverPower will make the citizens of Allegany, young and old, the research population for this colossal experiment on wind turbines for their own profit.
What would happen if your home lost 40 percent or more of its value? This is the agonizing reality for residents and property owners in Chipmonk, Knapp Creek, the Four Mile and the Birch Run. Note that our individual losses will also reverberate throughout the community.
Recently, the assessment rolls in Wolfe Island (on the St. Lawrence Seaway) were reduced by $3 million dollars because homes in close proximity to turbines lost value. (The turbines on Wolfe Island are 410 feet, 84 feet shorter than those proposed by EverPower.) The tax rolls for this township show 78 significant assessment reductions since 2008 (the wind farm became operational in 2009). The six homes nearest the turbines lost $100,000 each.
Obviously, wind turbines erected near residential areas have a negative effect on property assessments.
Property owners, residents and business owners should be aware that, while Allegany homeowners pay property taxes at full rate, EverPower would be allowed to make greatly reduced fractional payments. The unavoidable declines in Allegany’s tax rolls will substantially offset any wind farm PILOT payments.
The Allegany Town Board’s responsibility is to protect the health and general welfare of all citizens within the community. Unless the board is able to do the job it was elected to do, decades of weak property values will cause irreparable harm to the town and school tax base.
Source
Monday, November 05, 2012
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Study links wind turbines to illness
Opponents to wind farms who allege health risks have their first scientific support in a peer-reviewed study linking proximity to turbines to illness.
An article, published in the "Noise and Health" journal, gave optimism to some people in rural and agricultural southwestern Ontario, where wind farms are proliferating despite resistance from residents, the London (Ontario) Free Press reported.
The scientific journal addressed a study done in Maine by Canadian epidemiologist Jeffery Aramini that suggested people living within a mile of wind turbines experienced more sleep deprivation and mental health issues than those further away.
"The reality is that some people are getting sick," Aramini said. "As a public health person, I can't wrap my head around [government inaction]."
Opponents in Ontario have been rebuffed for several years by the provincial government and health officials, who said there was no scientific basis for health concerns.
Esther Wrightman, who leads one local opposition group near Strathroy, Ontario, called the report a breakthrough.
"I view it as a huge step forward. It definitely gives credibility to our case," she said.
Chris Forrest of the Canadian Wind Energy Association played down the journal's report.
"The balance of scientific, medical and human experience to date clearly demonstrates that sound from wind turbines does not adversely impact human health," he said.
Source
An article, published in the "Noise and Health" journal, gave optimism to some people in rural and agricultural southwestern Ontario, where wind farms are proliferating despite resistance from residents, the London (Ontario) Free Press reported.
The scientific journal addressed a study done in Maine by Canadian epidemiologist Jeffery Aramini that suggested people living within a mile of wind turbines experienced more sleep deprivation and mental health issues than those further away.
"The reality is that some people are getting sick," Aramini said. "As a public health person, I can't wrap my head around [government inaction]."
Opponents in Ontario have been rebuffed for several years by the provincial government and health officials, who said there was no scientific basis for health concerns.
Esther Wrightman, who leads one local opposition group near Strathroy, Ontario, called the report a breakthrough.
"I view it as a huge step forward. It definitely gives credibility to our case," she said.
Chris Forrest of the Canadian Wind Energy Association played down the journal's report.
"The balance of scientific, medical and human experience to date clearly demonstrates that sound from wind turbines does not adversely impact human health," he said.
Source
Customer seeking to freeze Clipper Windpower assets, including Cedar Rapids factory
A major Clipper Windpower customer is seeking to freeze the recently sold company’s assets — including its Cedar Rapids factory and equipment — to ensure it can pay a possible arbitration settlement.
Wind project developer and owner First Wind Energy LLC said Clipper accepted $59.5 million in advance payments for wind turbines it no longer produces in the lawsuit filed last month in Linn District Court in Cedar Rapids.
Clipper manufactured its huge Clipper Liberty 2.5-megawatt wind turbines in Cedar Rapids from 2006 until earlier this year. The Carpinteria, Calif.-based company has been sold twice in the last two years.
Clipper’s leaders were tight-lipped this past summer as Clipper suspended turbine production and laid off 76 employees after the company was sold by United Technologies Corp. to a private equity firm, Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Platinum Equity LLC.
Warranty claims, according to the lawsuit, have been a huge financial problem for Clipper Windpower. The company’s previous owner, United Technologies Corp., indicated it was setting aside $91 million to pay for warranty claims on Clipper’s products.
First Wind, based in Boston, said the undelivered turbines and related issues are now part of an arbitration proceeding in Chicago. It is seeking a writ of attachment on Clipper’s Iowa assets because it is worried that Clipper Windpower will dispose of them, making it impossible for First Wind to collect any award it receives in arbitration.
“Clipper has not only ceased production of these turbines, but has wrongfully refused to return the advance payments, even though it has no plans to meet its contractual obligations to produce and deliver the turbines to first wind,” the lawsuit said.
“Indeed,” the lawsuit continued, “Clipper even turned down First Wind’s proposed order for 20 turbines earlier this year.”
Clipper began producing turbines in Cedar Rapids in 2006. The lawsuit claims that as early as early as March 24, 2008, because of Clipper’s financial difficulties, First Wind and another customer had to provide secured financing to Clipper so that it could meet its repair obligations.
The lawsuit also details difficulties by First Wind in trying to obtain project financing for wind development in which it planned to use Clipper Windpower turbines because of Clipper’s financial instability.
First Wind had expected the acquisition of Clipper by United Technologies about two years ago to ease the financial problems, but it did not, the lawsuit said.
As evidence of Clipper’s non-production status, the lawsuit detailed a series of email exchanges last March.
First Wind was seeking clarification of Clipper’s production capabilities because it was interested in buying 41 turbines to take advantage of the possibility of receiving U.S. Treasury grants to assist in financing a wind development. It believed its prior deposits with Clipper might serve as owner equity in qualifying for the grants.
Clipper’s chief commercial officer, Robert Gates, confirmed in the exchanges that Clipper was rebuilding turbine gear boxes for warranty purposes and no longer building new turbines. In fact, he said, Clipper had recently “passed” on a 16-turbine sale to have more gearbox components to serve existing customers.
In the same email exchange, the lawsuit says, Gates indicated another turbine model slated for production by Clipper likely would not be available until 2014 or 2015.
“By May 2012, First Wind was informed by Clipper that it had ceased all manufacturing of wind turbines and had no intention of resuming manufacturing them,” the lawsuit said.
First Wind has purchased 150 of the 2.5-megawatt Clipper wind turbines since 2006, according to the lawsuit. The importance of having Clipper continue to honor parts, service and maintenance agreements on the turbines is one of the critical concerns for First Wind and other Clipper customers.
Clipper Windpower’s attorneys have been granted an extension to respond to the lawsuit. CEO Michael Reed declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the company does not comment on litigation.
Platinum Equity, Clipper’s new owner, did not respond to a request for comment.
Clipper Windpower’s $22 million investment in Cedar Rapids was one of Iowa’s first victories attracting wind power manufacturers in 2005. At least five other states had been courting the promising California company as it got ready to launch production.
A basket of state incentives included a $500,000 forgivable loan, $2 million short-term loan, $346,000 infrastructure assistance grant and enterprise zone benefits.
Clipper is facing a similar lawsuit to freeze its assets in California courts. Much of that lawsuit in Santa Barbara Superior County Court is under seal, according to the Pacific Coast Business Times.
Wind project developer and owner First Wind Energy LLC said Clipper accepted $59.5 million in advance payments for wind turbines it no longer produces in the lawsuit filed last month in Linn District Court in Cedar Rapids.
Clipper manufactured its huge Clipper Liberty 2.5-megawatt wind turbines in Cedar Rapids from 2006 until earlier this year. The Carpinteria, Calif.-based company has been sold twice in the last two years.
Clipper’s leaders were tight-lipped this past summer as Clipper suspended turbine production and laid off 76 employees after the company was sold by United Technologies Corp. to a private equity firm, Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Platinum Equity LLC.
Warranty claims, according to the lawsuit, have been a huge financial problem for Clipper Windpower. The company’s previous owner, United Technologies Corp., indicated it was setting aside $91 million to pay for warranty claims on Clipper’s products.
First Wind, based in Boston, said the undelivered turbines and related issues are now part of an arbitration proceeding in Chicago. It is seeking a writ of attachment on Clipper’s Iowa assets because it is worried that Clipper Windpower will dispose of them, making it impossible for First Wind to collect any award it receives in arbitration.
“Clipper has not only ceased production of these turbines, but has wrongfully refused to return the advance payments, even though it has no plans to meet its contractual obligations to produce and deliver the turbines to first wind,” the lawsuit said.
“Indeed,” the lawsuit continued, “Clipper even turned down First Wind’s proposed order for 20 turbines earlier this year.”
Clipper began producing turbines in Cedar Rapids in 2006. The lawsuit claims that as early as early as March 24, 2008, because of Clipper’s financial difficulties, First Wind and another customer had to provide secured financing to Clipper so that it could meet its repair obligations.
The lawsuit also details difficulties by First Wind in trying to obtain project financing for wind development in which it planned to use Clipper Windpower turbines because of Clipper’s financial instability.
First Wind had expected the acquisition of Clipper by United Technologies about two years ago to ease the financial problems, but it did not, the lawsuit said.
As evidence of Clipper’s non-production status, the lawsuit detailed a series of email exchanges last March.
First Wind was seeking clarification of Clipper’s production capabilities because it was interested in buying 41 turbines to take advantage of the possibility of receiving U.S. Treasury grants to assist in financing a wind development. It believed its prior deposits with Clipper might serve as owner equity in qualifying for the grants.
Clipper’s chief commercial officer, Robert Gates, confirmed in the exchanges that Clipper was rebuilding turbine gear boxes for warranty purposes and no longer building new turbines. In fact, he said, Clipper had recently “passed” on a 16-turbine sale to have more gearbox components to serve existing customers.
In the same email exchange, the lawsuit says, Gates indicated another turbine model slated for production by Clipper likely would not be available until 2014 or 2015.
“By May 2012, First Wind was informed by Clipper that it had ceased all manufacturing of wind turbines and had no intention of resuming manufacturing them,” the lawsuit said.
First Wind has purchased 150 of the 2.5-megawatt Clipper wind turbines since 2006, according to the lawsuit. The importance of having Clipper continue to honor parts, service and maintenance agreements on the turbines is one of the critical concerns for First Wind and other Clipper customers.
Clipper Windpower’s attorneys have been granted an extension to respond to the lawsuit. CEO Michael Reed declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the company does not comment on litigation.
Platinum Equity, Clipper’s new owner, did not respond to a request for comment.
Clipper Windpower’s $22 million investment in Cedar Rapids was one of Iowa’s first victories attracting wind power manufacturers in 2005. At least five other states had been courting the promising California company as it got ready to launch production.
A basket of state incentives included a $500,000 forgivable loan, $2 million short-term loan, $346,000 infrastructure assistance grant and enterprise zone benefits.
Clipper is facing a similar lawsuit to freeze its assets in California courts. Much of that lawsuit in Santa Barbara Superior County Court is under seal, according to the Pacific Coast Business Times.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
First Wind submits second Bowers Mountain wind-site application
CARROLL PLANTATION, Maine — A First Wind subsidiary will try again to build an industrial wind site on Bowers Mountain, this time proposing to erect 16 turbines instead of 27, company officials said Wednesday.
The new project, company officials said, answers problems that led the Land Use Regulation Commission to reject the initial plan in April. Under the new proposal, turbines would be farther from nearby lakes. The towers would feature radar-controlled aviation warning lights to reduce light pollution and carry turbines that generate 30 percent more electricity than previous models.
First Wind of Massachusetts or its subsidiary, Champlain Wind LLC, also will create a watershed fund — money that could be used to improve the deer herd and promote local guiding and other tourism businesses, officials said.
“This is a $100 million project that would be located in rural Maine and has the potential to put nearly 100 Maine companies and hundreds of Mainers to work during the construction phase, with several permanent positions for the life of the project,” said Matt Kearns, First Wind’s vice president of Northeast business development. “The wind industry has invested more than $1 billion in Maine over the last few years and with projects like this we can continue to invest in Maine companies, communities, students and organizations.”
“Since 2009 we have been listening to people who live in and around the project area to make sure that their input is considered in the design of the project,” said Neil Kiely, director of development for First Wind. “Although it is early in the review process, we are extremely encouraged by the support we have received.”
Located east of Lee and southeast of Springfield near Route 6, Bowers Mountain is 1,127 feet. It overlooks seven lakes — including Bottle, Keg, Duck, Junior and Scraggly lakes — near the western Washington and eastern Penobscot county lines.
Its surroundings include some of the most sensitive wildlands in Maine, project critics have said. The mountain is home to many varieties of wildlife as well as thriving camping, hunting and wildlife guide industries.
About 144 residents reside in the proposed host community of Carroll Plantation. Recently, 112 residents and landowners signed a petition in support of the project, company officials said.
Now called the Land Use Planning Commission, LURC voted 5-0 with little fanfare to accept a staff recommendation and reject the 27-turbine project during a brief meeting April 20 at the Four Points by Sheraton hotel in Bangor. Commissioner Robert Dunphy abstained.
Commissioners said they were swayed by arguments that the project would have a punishing effect on hundreds of nature guides and other tourism-based industries employing hundreds more indirectly that all depend on the area’s beauty to survive.
The commission’s scenic consultant said that Champlain Wind’s consultants downplayed the project’s impact upon the region. In their 27-page decision, commissioners said they relied heavily on testimony from the area’s guides that the turbines “would reduce the likelihood their clients would want to return to the area and thus [the turbines would] adversely impact their businesses.”
Anti-wind-power advocates and residential groups that had opposed the project called the LURC vote their most significant win since they started fighting projects proposed by First Wind of Massachusetts about five years ago.
“It’s a good day. We have been fighting this for a long time,” David Corrigan, a registered Maine Master Guide from Concord Township who opposed the project, said on April 20. “This sets a great precedent. The commission spent a lot of time discussing and looking at this. I think it sets a precedent as far as how these projects should be scrutinized and what the results should be.”
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has accepted the new, or second, application, spokeswoman Samantha Depoy-Warren said. The agency certified the application as complete on Oct. 25. Environmental protection officials are required to have two public hearings on the project. One hearing will be attended by the agency’s commissioner or deputy commissioner, Depoy-Warren said.
Under new state laws passed during the last legislative session, the DEP and LUPC will review the project concurrently, with LUPC certifying to the DEP that the project meets LUPC criteria, LUPC Director Nick Livesay said. The DEP will issue the project’s final permit, if the project qualifies, he said.
First Wind claims endorsements for the project from the Maine Audubon Society, American Lung Association of the Northeast, Conservation Law Foundation, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club. The project has also been endorsed by the Washington County commissioners and the Sunrise County Economic Council, officials said.
One of the project’s opponents, Lakeville resident Gordon Mott, expressed doubt Wednesday that the new proposal would change his opinion. He credited the company with scaling back the project’s footprint but said he didn’t see enough conservation benefits in the new effort to warrant his support.
Mott cautioned, however, that he had not seen the proposal in detail.
Source
The new project, company officials said, answers problems that led the Land Use Regulation Commission to reject the initial plan in April. Under the new proposal, turbines would be farther from nearby lakes. The towers would feature radar-controlled aviation warning lights to reduce light pollution and carry turbines that generate 30 percent more electricity than previous models.
First Wind of Massachusetts or its subsidiary, Champlain Wind LLC, also will create a watershed fund — money that could be used to improve the deer herd and promote local guiding and other tourism businesses, officials said.
“This is a $100 million project that would be located in rural Maine and has the potential to put nearly 100 Maine companies and hundreds of Mainers to work during the construction phase, with several permanent positions for the life of the project,” said Matt Kearns, First Wind’s vice president of Northeast business development. “The wind industry has invested more than $1 billion in Maine over the last few years and with projects like this we can continue to invest in Maine companies, communities, students and organizations.”
“Since 2009 we have been listening to people who live in and around the project area to make sure that their input is considered in the design of the project,” said Neil Kiely, director of development for First Wind. “Although it is early in the review process, we are extremely encouraged by the support we have received.”
Located east of Lee and southeast of Springfield near Route 6, Bowers Mountain is 1,127 feet. It overlooks seven lakes — including Bottle, Keg, Duck, Junior and Scraggly lakes — near the western Washington and eastern Penobscot county lines.
Its surroundings include some of the most sensitive wildlands in Maine, project critics have said. The mountain is home to many varieties of wildlife as well as thriving camping, hunting and wildlife guide industries.
About 144 residents reside in the proposed host community of Carroll Plantation. Recently, 112 residents and landowners signed a petition in support of the project, company officials said.
Now called the Land Use Planning Commission, LURC voted 5-0 with little fanfare to accept a staff recommendation and reject the 27-turbine project during a brief meeting April 20 at the Four Points by Sheraton hotel in Bangor. Commissioner Robert Dunphy abstained.
Commissioners said they were swayed by arguments that the project would have a punishing effect on hundreds of nature guides and other tourism-based industries employing hundreds more indirectly that all depend on the area’s beauty to survive.
The commission’s scenic consultant said that Champlain Wind’s consultants downplayed the project’s impact upon the region. In their 27-page decision, commissioners said they relied heavily on testimony from the area’s guides that the turbines “would reduce the likelihood their clients would want to return to the area and thus [the turbines would] adversely impact their businesses.”
Anti-wind-power advocates and residential groups that had opposed the project called the LURC vote their most significant win since they started fighting projects proposed by First Wind of Massachusetts about five years ago.
“It’s a good day. We have been fighting this for a long time,” David Corrigan, a registered Maine Master Guide from Concord Township who opposed the project, said on April 20. “This sets a great precedent. The commission spent a lot of time discussing and looking at this. I think it sets a precedent as far as how these projects should be scrutinized and what the results should be.”
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has accepted the new, or second, application, spokeswoman Samantha Depoy-Warren said. The agency certified the application as complete on Oct. 25. Environmental protection officials are required to have two public hearings on the project. One hearing will be attended by the agency’s commissioner or deputy commissioner, Depoy-Warren said.
Under new state laws passed during the last legislative session, the DEP and LUPC will review the project concurrently, with LUPC certifying to the DEP that the project meets LUPC criteria, LUPC Director Nick Livesay said. The DEP will issue the project’s final permit, if the project qualifies, he said.
First Wind claims endorsements for the project from the Maine Audubon Society, American Lung Association of the Northeast, Conservation Law Foundation, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club. The project has also been endorsed by the Washington County commissioners and the Sunrise County Economic Council, officials said.
One of the project’s opponents, Lakeville resident Gordon Mott, expressed doubt Wednesday that the new proposal would change his opinion. He credited the company with scaling back the project’s footprint but said he didn’t see enough conservation benefits in the new effort to warrant his support.
Mott cautioned, however, that he had not seen the proposal in detail.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)