First Wind and Emera are again trying to close a seven-year term loan B for the Northeast Wind portfolio. The latest attempt comes just two months after the two pulled a $385 million financing package. Northeast Wind’s latest incarnation is a $315 million term loan B, priced at 400-425bp over Libor, with a Libor floor of 1% and an original issue discount of 1%. Standard & Poor’s (S&P) rates the debt B+....
Source
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Cape Wind not worth the price
Brookline —
The Cape Wind project, started by Jim Gordon in 2001, has largely
turned into a distraction for renewable energy in New England. The
projected construction cost rose from $500 million in 2001, for 168
megawatt annual average (not peak) generating capacity, to $2.6 billion
recently for 183 MW.
Comparable conventional electricity is just across the Charles River from us in Cambridge: the Kendall Square station. Opened by Cambridge Light and Power in 1949 burning coal, it was converted to efficient combined-cycle natural gas by Mirant in 2000, and is now run by NRG Energy.
Kendall Square has a year-round (not peak) generating capacity of 218 MW. For the three most recent calendar years, it averaged 68 percent of capacity, selling into a New England bulk electricity market with average wholesale prices per kilowatt-hour of $0.051 in 2010, $0.048 in 2011, and $0.037 in 2012 — per ISO New England.
In 2012, Cape Wind had contracts to sell bulk electricity for $0.187 per kWh that it cannot fulfill because its offshore wind farm remains unbuilt. That’s about five times the actual, average wholesale price of electricity in New England for the year.
In September 2013, Massachusetts and Connecticut state agencies approved long-term agreements by Northeast Utilities, National Grid and other utilities to buy bulk electricity from land-based wind farms run by First Wind, Iberdrola Renewables and Exergy Development at an average wholesale price of less than $0.080 per kWh.
The total capacity of land-based wind power coming under contract in 2013 is nearly twice what was promised by Cape Wind. The price per kWh is less than half the price from Cape Wind. If Cape Wind had built its offshore wind farm at the cost projected in 2001, it too could sell renewable energy at a fair price.
— Craig Bolon, Fuller Street
Source
Comparable conventional electricity is just across the Charles River from us in Cambridge: the Kendall Square station. Opened by Cambridge Light and Power in 1949 burning coal, it was converted to efficient combined-cycle natural gas by Mirant in 2000, and is now run by NRG Energy.
Kendall Square has a year-round (not peak) generating capacity of 218 MW. For the three most recent calendar years, it averaged 68 percent of capacity, selling into a New England bulk electricity market with average wholesale prices per kilowatt-hour of $0.051 in 2010, $0.048 in 2011, and $0.037 in 2012 — per ISO New England.
In 2012, Cape Wind had contracts to sell bulk electricity for $0.187 per kWh that it cannot fulfill because its offshore wind farm remains unbuilt. That’s about five times the actual, average wholesale price of electricity in New England for the year.
In September 2013, Massachusetts and Connecticut state agencies approved long-term agreements by Northeast Utilities, National Grid and other utilities to buy bulk electricity from land-based wind farms run by First Wind, Iberdrola Renewables and Exergy Development at an average wholesale price of less than $0.080 per kWh.
The total capacity of land-based wind power coming under contract in 2013 is nearly twice what was promised by Cape Wind. The price per kWh is less than half the price from Cape Wind. If Cape Wind had built its offshore wind farm at the cost projected in 2001, it too could sell renewable energy at a fair price.
— Craig Bolon, Fuller Street
Source
Foes file lawsuit to block Aroostook wind project
Opponents of a soon-to-be-started wind farm in the Aroostook County town
of Oakfield took legal action Tuesday in a last-minute attempt to stop
the project.
They filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bangor, aimed at a 50-turbine wind farm to be erected by First Wind of Boston through its subsidiary, Evergreen Wind II LLC. Initial road construction is set to begin before winter on the 150-megawatt project.
A key focus of the complaint, reviewed by the Portland Press Herald, is that the dredging and filling associated with the 59 miles of transmission lines needed to connect the wind farm to the regional power grid would degrade streams that support Atlantic salmon and violate the federal Clean Water Act. The complaint names the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of the Interior as defendants.
A spokesman for First Wind, John Lamontagne, said the company hadn’t yet reviewed the complaint. But he noted that the Army Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service thoroughly reviewed the $400 million project and its impacts, and concluded that it complied with federal laws.
“We believe this project will be able to deliver significant economic benefits to the region and the town of Oakfield while generating clean renewable energy that will power thousands of homes,” Lamontagne said.
The Oakfield lawsuit mirrors a legal tactic used last year by wind power foes who are trying to block an expansion of the Kibby Mountain wind farm in northwestern Maine. That case is still pending.
Nearly seven years since Maine’s first wind farm went up on Mars Hill, controversy continues over the visual, noise and environmental impacts of power production around the state’s rural lakes and mountains. Opponents have been increasingly frustrated by plans for larger wind farms, a result of changing technology and new, long-term contracts for renewable energy with utilities in southern New England. In Oakfield and at TransCanada’s planned expansion on Sisk Mountain in Franklin County, they see a potential legal path to challenge permits in federal courts.
“Part of this shifts (opposition) from the turbines to the water bodies,” said Lynne Williams, a lawyer representing Oakfield opponents.
Read the entire article
They filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bangor, aimed at a 50-turbine wind farm to be erected by First Wind of Boston through its subsidiary, Evergreen Wind II LLC. Initial road construction is set to begin before winter on the 150-megawatt project.
A key focus of the complaint, reviewed by the Portland Press Herald, is that the dredging and filling associated with the 59 miles of transmission lines needed to connect the wind farm to the regional power grid would degrade streams that support Atlantic salmon and violate the federal Clean Water Act. The complaint names the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of the Interior as defendants.
A spokesman for First Wind, John Lamontagne, said the company hadn’t yet reviewed the complaint. But he noted that the Army Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service thoroughly reviewed the $400 million project and its impacts, and concluded that it complied with federal laws.
“We believe this project will be able to deliver significant economic benefits to the region and the town of Oakfield while generating clean renewable energy that will power thousands of homes,” Lamontagne said.
The Oakfield lawsuit mirrors a legal tactic used last year by wind power foes who are trying to block an expansion of the Kibby Mountain wind farm in northwestern Maine. That case is still pending.
Nearly seven years since Maine’s first wind farm went up on Mars Hill, controversy continues over the visual, noise and environmental impacts of power production around the state’s rural lakes and mountains. Opponents have been increasingly frustrated by plans for larger wind farms, a result of changing technology and new, long-term contracts for renewable energy with utilities in southern New England. In Oakfield and at TransCanada’s planned expansion on Sisk Mountain in Franklin County, they see a potential legal path to challenge permits in federal courts.
“Part of this shifts (opposition) from the turbines to the water bodies,” said Lynne Williams, a lawyer representing Oakfield opponents.
Read the entire article
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Allegany Wind Farm project dropped
A wind power development company has pulled out of its contract to build wind turbines in the Town of Allegany.
EverPower Holdings, a Pittsburgh-based maker of utility-grade wind turbines, will not file a permit extension to develop the Allegany Wind Farm project, which called for 29 turbines to be built on the hills above Chipmonk Road. The company blamed backing out on delays in the embattled project’s progress and turbine costs that have risen by millions of dollars in the intervening years.
“We’re hoping to make a fresh attempt next year,” Shears said.
The original permit was granted in 2011 by the Allegany Town Planning Board. Cattaraugus County residents raised concerns about quality of life issues associated with noise and visual clutter associated with the turbine project. That and other considerations kept EverPower from beginning construction in 2012.
“We didn’t have certainty of our ability to connect into the grid system at the end of 2012,” said Chris Shears, chief development officer for EverPower.
Earlier this year, EverPower filed a lawsuit against the Town of Allegany and the Allegany Planning Board, claiming the board’s request for a supplemental review of noise impacts, in light of the wind power company’s request to use larger turbine blades, was arbitrary. That suit was dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Michael Nenno, who said EverPower’s conduct was willfully obstinate.
Source
EverPower Holdings, a Pittsburgh-based maker of utility-grade wind turbines, will not file a permit extension to develop the Allegany Wind Farm project, which called for 29 turbines to be built on the hills above Chipmonk Road. The company blamed backing out on delays in the embattled project’s progress and turbine costs that have risen by millions of dollars in the intervening years.
“We’re hoping to make a fresh attempt next year,” Shears said.
The original permit was granted in 2011 by the Allegany Town Planning Board. Cattaraugus County residents raised concerns about quality of life issues associated with noise and visual clutter associated with the turbine project. That and other considerations kept EverPower from beginning construction in 2012.
“We didn’t have certainty of our ability to connect into the grid system at the end of 2012,” said Chris Shears, chief development officer for EverPower.
Earlier this year, EverPower filed a lawsuit against the Town of Allegany and the Allegany Planning Board, claiming the board’s request for a supplemental review of noise impacts, in light of the wind power company’s request to use larger turbine blades, was arbitrary. That suit was dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Michael Nenno, who said EverPower’s conduct was willfully obstinate.
Source
Thursday, October 24, 2013
APOV: New York wind wars
Congress’s last minute extension of the PTC or Production Tax Credit (aka: “Pork To Cronies”) within the December 31, 2012 fiscal cliff deal was good news for Big Wind corporate welfare profiteers, like Michael Polsky’s Invenergy. It was very bad news for rural/residential towns that are being targeted by industrial wind developers here in New York State, and across the nation.
Even though the Wyoming County, NY Town of Orangeville’s conflicted Town Board approved Invenergy’s “Stony Creek” project in the Fall of 2012, Invenergy admitted it would not go ahead with the project unless the PTC was extended. This again highlights the fact that the only thing Invenergy is interested in “harvesting” via its ‘wind farms’ is taxpayers’ money. Once Crony-Corruptocrats in DC extended the PTC in that midnight fiscal cliff deal, the once-beautiful rolling hills of the Town of Orangeville were doomed.
As Big Wind CEO, Patrick Jenevein candidly pointed out in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Wind power subsidies? No Thanks” and follow-up TV interview, “Wind farms are increasingly being built in less-windy locations,” because the wind industry is focused on reaping the lucrative taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, rather than providing efficient, affordable, reliable electricity.
Nowhere is this proving to be more true than right here in New York State. Orangeville borders the Town of Attica here in the western part of the state. It’s a town that “First Wind LLC” pulled out of a number of years ago, after admitting that the Attica area “was not a good wind area.” It seems Jenevein knew exactly what he was talking about.
Economics 101
According to NYISO’s Goldbook, New York State’s installed wind factories averaged a pathetic 23.5% actual capacity factor in 2012. New York State wind factories are not generating enough electricity to even to pay for themselves over their short life spans. It’s basic economics, but it’s being ignored by politicians.
Renowned energy analyst Glenn Schleede examined the data on New York State’s wind factories and found that one 450-MW combined cycle generating unit near New York City (where the power is actually needed) would provide more power than all of New York State’s wind farms combined, at one-fourth the capital costs – and would significantly reduce CO2 emissions, while creating far more jobs than all those wind farm – without the added costs and impacts of all the transmission lines to New York City.
It’s no wonder New York has earned the dubious distinction of having the highest electricity rates in the continental United States: 17.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) – a whopping 53% above the national average! New York residents using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 more per year for their electricity than if the state’s electricity prices were at the national average.
Despite making absolutely no economic sense, and despite the utter civil discord embroiling Towns across New York State for more than a decade, New York State continues to aggressively pursue further industrial wind development – with no effort whatsoever to protect the health, well-being or pocketbooks of New York State citizens, especially those living next to or under the wind turbines.
Governor Cuomo and ‘Article X’
During his tenure as Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo did nothing to protect New York State citizens from the predatory practices and collusion evident among Big Wind developers. Once he became Governor of New York, Cuomo actively began aiding and abetting Big Wind’s efforts to trample rural communities’ Constitutional private property rights in his pursuit of all things “green” (aka: Agenda 21), by signing into law the new “Article X (10)” contained within his 2011 “Power NY Act.”
Cuomo's new Article X put in place an ”Energy Siting Board” comprised of five Albany bureaucrats who now have the final say regarding the siting of “power-generating facilities” in NY – redefined to mean anything generating 25 MW or more. Cuomo’s intention to clear the way for Big Wind developers could not have been any more obvious had he rolled out a red carpet.
Article X proceedings are already being pursued by British Petroleum (BP) in Cape Vincent, NY, and by Iberdrola in Clayton, NY. These foreign-owned corporations intend to turn our beautiful Thousands Islands, St. Lawrence Seaway area into sprawling industrial wind factories. Devastating some of the most scenic, historic areas in the nation in pursuit of the “green” energy boondoggle of wind should have all Americans incensed – especially since they are paying for it!
In Lichtfield, NY, another Big Wind LLC tried to override the town’s restrictive zoning laws, by using Cuomo’s “Article X,” so that they could install 490-foot-tall turbines. Luckily for Litchfield residents, the FAA struck down Big Wind’s plans there.
Robert Bryce, Senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute, reported on the lawsuit going on in Herkimer County, NY due to the intolerable noise problems associated with industrial wind factories. His article title sums it up: “Backlash against Big Wind continues.” Other wind factories are in the works in New York, with unsuspecting towns yet to recognize the fate that awaits them.
Considering the growing list of problems associated with industrial wind factories in New York State (and worldwide), Governor Cuomo’s actions reflect criminal negligence by a duly-elected “public servant,” as he has not demanded health studies to safeguard those he was elected to serve and protect.
Real Estate 101: “Location, location, location!”
Adding insult to injury, Ben Hoen and his pals at the NRLB just came out with yet another bogus “report,” claiming industrial wind factories do not hurt property values. They can't really be serious, can they?
Any realtor who is not in bed with the wind industry will tell you, location is the most important factor when considering a home’s worth and value.
If you industrialize a neighborhood (and in the case of industrial wind energy, entire towns, and those neighboring them), you are going to devalue it.
Pretty much a no-brainer, right? Not according to Hoen and his pals in the ideologically-driven media.
Media Controlling the Message
After nearly a decade of researching and writing about industrial wind power, I’ve lost count of how many times my comments responding to wind-promoting articles have been rejected, and how many news publications refuse to report all relevant information regarding industrial wind power.
A number of local newspapers serving our area here in Western New York State – which has been targeted by industrial wind developers – have literally cut off all letters to the editor from local citizens regarding the industrial wind issue. These same newspapers continue to publish “Press Releases” and “project updates” on behalf of wind developers, and yet refuse to do any responsible, investigative journalism on the efficacy, effects and economics of wind power.
If “news”papers wonder why their circulation continues to drop, as people choose to get honest news elsewhere, they need look no further than their own refusal to adhere to “The Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics,” which says “Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”
If wind enthusiasts actually believe all they claim to about the supposed “wonders of wind,” then why do they need to control the message the way they do? The answer is evident.
Either they are so ideologically driven that facts are not “relevant” to them — or they are getting so rich via the wind scam that they must squelch factual information as much as possible, so that the “Emperor with No Clothes” doesn’t end up being exposed for what he is — a charlatan who is swindling taxpayers and ratepayers out of billions of dollars in the name of being “green.”
Mary Kay Barton lives in Silver Springs.
Source
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Google’s Green Energy Brag: $375 Million from Taxpayers (or more)
On September 13, 2013, Google announced that it had signed a contract to buy the entire output of the 239 MW Happy Herford “wind farm” that is being developed by Chermac Energy near Amarillo, Texas. The project is expected to begin operation in late 2014.
Undoubtedly Chermac Energy is pleased to have a 20-year contract (purchased power agreement) for the sale of the electricity that will be produced. The Google deal will provide the developer a guaranteed cash stream that will enable project financing. [1]
Undoubtedly, Google is pleased with all the favorable publicity the company has received for being so environmentally committed even though the wind-generated electricity will not be used in a Google facility. Instead, according to Google, the electricity will be sold in the wholesale market and Google will purchase the electricity it needs from the utilities serving its facilities or a wholesale supplier. Google will “retire” the renewable energy credits (REC) resulting from the deal.
The big losers in the Google transaction will be taxpayers, a point that none of the media stories have mentioned. Specifically, taxpayers will have to pick up the cost of the tax breaks that the “wind farm” owner (currently Chermac) will enjoy.
As explained below, the tax burden that will be shifted from the “wind farm” owner to remaining taxpayers will be at least $170 million and probably more.
The most lucrative federal tax break for the project owners will probably be the federal wind “production tax credit” (PTC). This tax break will provide the owners with a tax credit, currently set at $0.023, for each kilowatt-hour of electricity that the “wind farm” produces during the first 10 years of operation. The $0.023 rate applicable during 2013 is subject to upward adjustment for inflation and undoubtedly will be increased during the next 10 years.
Also, the “wind farm” owners will likely qualify also for another lucrative federal tax break known as “accelerated depreciation” which allows the owners to depreciate for tax purposes the entire capital cost of the wind energy equipment over a five-year period, thus providing a significant cash flow benefit.
The actual cost of the PTC to taxpayers can only be estimated at this time since the amount paid depends on the amount of electricity produced as well as the rate at the time of production. The benefit to the owners and added tax burden to remaining taxpayers can be estimated with a few assumptions.
Specifically:
1. The stated capacity of the planned Happy Hereford “wind farm” is 239.2 megawatts (MW) or 239,200 kilowatts (kW).
2. Amount of electricity produced each year will only be known after the fact since this will depend on wind conditions at the site and condition of the turbines. Two large existing “wind farms” in the Amarillo areas had capacity factors of about 45% during 2011, among the highest in the U.S.[2]
3. Assuming that Happy Hereford will achieve a capacity of 45%, the project would produce approximately 942,926,400 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year (that is, 239,200 kW capacity x 8760 hours per year x .45 capacity factor = 942,926,600 kWh).
4. Production of 942,926,400 kWh x the 2013 rate of $0.023 would produce an annual PTC break for the “wind farm” owners and annual cost to taxpayers of $21,687,307. At this rate, the tax break would be $216,873,070 over 10 years if production continued at the same level.
5. If the PTC rate is increased due to inflation adjustments to an average of $0.026 during the 10 year operation, the average annual PTC break would be $24,516,086 per year and $245,160,860 over the 10-year period.
Google had earlier announced the purchased the output of two other wind farms:
1. In July 2010, Google announced the purchase of 114 MW of the capacity of NextEra’s Story County II “wind farm” in Iowa. This project began producing electricity in 2009. Assuming a capacity factor of 35%, this project would produce 349,524,000 kWh of electricity per year and earn production tax credits of $8,039,052 in one year at a rate of $0.023 (the 2013 rate) or $80,390,520 in 10 years if the average rate over the 10 years turns out to be $0.023.
2. In April 2011, Google announced the purchase of the output of NextEra’s 100.8 Minco II “wind farm” in Oklahoma. This project began producing electricity in 2011. Assuming a capacity factor of 40%, this project would produce 353,203,200 kWh of electricity per year and earn production tax credits of $8,123,674 in one year when receiving a rate of $0.023 (the 2013 rate) or $91,832,830 over 10 years if the average rate over that time turns out to be $0.026.
As indicated earlier, the actual 10-year cost of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) tax break for the owners of the three projects will depend on their actual production and the PTC rates that are in effect during each of those 10 years.
Based on the assumptions outlined above, the three projects signed up by Google probably will cost taxpayers between $370 million and $417 million for the production tax credits received by the “wind farm” owners over the first 10 years of each of the projects’ operation.
Summary
One big winner in the Google purchase of wind-generated electricity from three “wind farms” would be Google because of all the favorable press attention. The other big winners will be the project owners because of the lucrative tax breaks.
The big losers will be taxpayers who must pick up the tax burden escaped by the owners or, perhaps more accurately, their children and grandchildren who will inherit the huge and growing national debt, now about $17 trillion—summing to more than $50,000 per U.S. citizen.
Source
Let’s not hand over our community to Everpower/Allegany Wind
As a former wind energy professional, I have personally experienced the
ruthlessness of many wind energy developers during my many years in the wind
business. Litigation is one of their frequent tools used to force their agendas.
They lie, withhold critical information, and turn neighbors against each other.
Some wind farm developers and operators seriously wrecked farmers’ properties in
the Altamont Pass, Calif., where I was employed.
Wind farm developers and operators, including some in Western New York, have a history of violating worker safety, cutting corners on turbine maintenance, falsely promising employees advancement, and making life miserable for employees who wish to perform their jobs responsibly. Given this, if a wind farm is installed in our community, can we be assured we will be properly informed as to the dangers involved?
The infrastructure of constructing and operating a wind farm is highly
technical and must be done with utmost care and meticulousness. If the system is
not properly engineered, if the power distribution hardware is installed
incorrectly, if the transformers are not correctly specified, there can be
serious consequences such as transformer fires AND distribution line failures
compromising landowners’ safety. There was an incident in which a local wind
farm operator here in New York was required, during a severe blade icing
condition, to continue operating the machines even though the site manager
warned of serious consequences. This resulted in a blade failure costing
hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was fortunate that the machine did not go
into a runaway condition, creating a sizable threat to residents’ safety.
Does the town have the time and expertise to oversee whether the engineering of the infrastructure and the turbine installations are done properly? Can we afford to trust Allegany Wind to be honest and open with their work when reporting on their compliance with the town’s specifications? Will they provide a map of the underground cables? Can we trust that Allegany Wind will not increase the turbine tip speed ratios late at night ramping up the sound far above the advertised levels? (The tips of their proposed turbines reach speeds of about 200 mph.) Can we trust Allegany Wind to install the high voltage underground power cables to the depth required to assure landowners’ safety? Can we trust that Allegany Wind will not run the turbines during icing conditions, posing a threat to residents, hunters, and snowmobilers of Chipmonk and Knapp Creek areas from flying ice chunks? Can we trust that the transformers will be specified and sized to prevent hazardous and destructive transformer fires? Will Allegany Wind maintain turbines correctly without violating the safety of workers and local residents? Of note, most windfarms experience several turbine failures during their lifetime.
Is the Allegany Fire Department capable of handling a fire in a turbine motor hundreds of feet in the air? Is the town prepared to deal with a runaway of a 117 meter, 384-foot-high wind turbine rotor, requiring evacuation of residents within several miles of the machine?
Everpower/Allegany Wind representatives have already violated their contract with the town of Allegany numerous times. Then, rather than completing the required study for the project changes they demanded, they brought not just one, but two costly lawsuits against the town. Do we really want to allow these individuals, already acting as our enemies, to have the contractual right to do large-scale, risky business here?
Is it worth a few local businesses making some money, mostly temporary, on this installation at the expense of the well-being and safety of neighbors living and visiting in proximity of the wind farm for the next 20 years and beyond?
These questions need answers before we even consider Allegany Wind/Everpower’s demands. Otherwise, we must tell them NO.
Those of you sincere people who believe Allegany Wind’s promises need to take a long hard look at what Allegany Wind is pushing on us. Take a look at what happened, and is happening, in Howard, Andover, and other communities who have let these scoundrels in.
The bottom line for supporters of Allegany Wind: Will you be able to comfortably look your fellow community members in the eye if the events I described above occur?
To discuss and act on these issues contact Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County at concernedcitizens.homestead.com, and, Allegany residents, please vote for and support the current board members on election day even if the ballot says they’re unopposed. And please spread the word! Thank you.
Barry K. Miller, P.E.
Hinsdale
Source
Wind farm developers and operators, including some in Western New York, have a history of violating worker safety, cutting corners on turbine maintenance, falsely promising employees advancement, and making life miserable for employees who wish to perform their jobs responsibly. Given this, if a wind farm is installed in our community, can we be assured we will be properly informed as to the dangers involved?
Does the town have the time and expertise to oversee whether the engineering of the infrastructure and the turbine installations are done properly? Can we afford to trust Allegany Wind to be honest and open with their work when reporting on their compliance with the town’s specifications? Will they provide a map of the underground cables? Can we trust that Allegany Wind will not increase the turbine tip speed ratios late at night ramping up the sound far above the advertised levels? (The tips of their proposed turbines reach speeds of about 200 mph.) Can we trust Allegany Wind to install the high voltage underground power cables to the depth required to assure landowners’ safety? Can we trust that Allegany Wind will not run the turbines during icing conditions, posing a threat to residents, hunters, and snowmobilers of Chipmonk and Knapp Creek areas from flying ice chunks? Can we trust that the transformers will be specified and sized to prevent hazardous and destructive transformer fires? Will Allegany Wind maintain turbines correctly without violating the safety of workers and local residents? Of note, most windfarms experience several turbine failures during their lifetime.
Is the Allegany Fire Department capable of handling a fire in a turbine motor hundreds of feet in the air? Is the town prepared to deal with a runaway of a 117 meter, 384-foot-high wind turbine rotor, requiring evacuation of residents within several miles of the machine?
Everpower/Allegany Wind representatives have already violated their contract with the town of Allegany numerous times. Then, rather than completing the required study for the project changes they demanded, they brought not just one, but two costly lawsuits against the town. Do we really want to allow these individuals, already acting as our enemies, to have the contractual right to do large-scale, risky business here?
Is it worth a few local businesses making some money, mostly temporary, on this installation at the expense of the well-being and safety of neighbors living and visiting in proximity of the wind farm for the next 20 years and beyond?
These questions need answers before we even consider Allegany Wind/Everpower’s demands. Otherwise, we must tell them NO.
Those of you sincere people who believe Allegany Wind’s promises need to take a long hard look at what Allegany Wind is pushing on us. Take a look at what happened, and is happening, in Howard, Andover, and other communities who have let these scoundrels in.
The bottom line for supporters of Allegany Wind: Will you be able to comfortably look your fellow community members in the eye if the events I described above occur?
To discuss and act on these issues contact Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County at concernedcitizens.homestead.com, and, Allegany residents, please vote for and support the current board members on election day even if the ballot says they’re unopposed. And please spread the word! Thank you.
Barry K. Miller, P.E.
Hinsdale
Source
Monday, October 21, 2013
'Wind Turbine Syndrome' Blamed for Mysterious Symptoms in Cape Cod Town
Sue Hobart, a bridal florist from Massachusetts, couldn't understand why she suddenly developed headaches, ringing in her ears, insomnia and dizziness to the point of falling "flat on my face" in the driveway.
"I thought I was just getting older and tired," said the 57-year-old from Falmouth.
Months earlier, in the summer of 2010, three wind turbines had been erected in her town, one of which runs around the clock, 1,600 feet from her home.
"I didn't put anything to the turbines -- we heard it and didn't like the thump, thump, thump and didn't like seeing them, but we didn't put it together," she told ABCNews.com.
Hobart said her headaches only got worse, but at Christmas, when she went to San Diego, they disappeared. And she said the same thing happened on an overnight trip to Keene, N.H.
"Sometimes at night, especially in the winter, I wake up with a fluttering in the chest and think, 'What the hell is that,' and the only place it happens is at my house," she said. "That's how you know. When you go away, it doesn't happen."
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Despite impending permit denial, First Wind signed contract for Bowers Mountain wind project
By the beginning of August, it was clear the Maine Department of Environmental Protection was going to deny First Wind’s permit application to build the Bowers Mountain wind project, a 16-turbine farm in Carroll Plantation and Kossuth Township in eastern Penobscot County.
But that didn’t stop the company from signing a long-term deal to provide electricity generated at the yet-to-be-built farm to Rhode Island residents and businesses. The company was confident enough that it would succeed in the state’s appeals process that it put up nearly $1.5 million, which it could lose if it’s not able to build the project.
The DEP’s staff on July 24 recommended that DEP Commissioner Patricia Aho deny First Wind’s application because of concerns over the impact the wind turbines would have on views from the area’s lakes. The official applicant is Champlain Wind LLC, a subsidiary of Boston-based First Wind, which operates four wind farms in Maine.
Nine days later, on Aug. 2, First Wind signed a 15-year deal with National Grid, a utility that supplies electricity to customers in Rhode Island and surrounding states, to have the Bowers Mountain project up and running by March 2017, and sending electricity to businesses and residents in Rhode Island at a cost of 7.8 cents per kilowatt hour. That price is competitive with other energy generation sources, though still more expensive than electricity coming from the region’s natural gas-fired power plants.
On Aug. 5, Aho followed her staff’s suggestion and denied First Wind’s application for a permit to build the Bowers Mountain project because it would have “an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character and existing uses related to scenic character” in the area, which includes eight lakes deemed Scenic Resources of State or National Significance within eight miles of the project site.
First Wind has appealed the decision to the Board of Environmental Protection, which is a seven-member citizen board that is part of the DEP but has independent authority when it comes to things like deciding appeals of the commissioner’s licensing actions. That appeal is underway.
It is not uncommon for wind developers such as First Wind to sign such deals, known as power-purchase agreements, before the projects have been permitted or built. The long-term arrangements provide stability for the developer and reduce the cost of financing the project, according to Matt Kearns, First Wind’s vice president of development in the Northeast.
However, why would National Grid sign a long-term deal with a developer whose project it was clear was going to be denied a crucial permit and throwing the project’s entire existence into question?
Requests to speak to the National Grid staff who negotiated the deal with First Wind were denied. However, Deborah Drew, a National Grid spokeswoman, sent the Bangor Daily News the following statement:
“We believe this is a positive project and a good deal for Rhode Island customers. The development process is a lengthy one and most projects at the time of bid and award or contract execution do not yet have permits in hand. The fact that Champlain Wind has received a denial simply means they are in a better position than many developers to address permit issues sooner rather than later.”
So, rather than being a liability, Drew believes the DEP’s initial denial is a benefit.
The appeal process is underway, and Kearns expects a hearing to be scheduled in the next two months or at the beginning of 2014.
First Wind argues that its project complies with existing law, and that the DEP denied its project based on higher standards not outlined in statute.
“It basically looks to us as [if] a new standard has been created that does not currently exist in the law. That’s particularly troubling,” Kearns said. “We’re not asking to get a permit every time, but in this case we met the standard, and the DEP’s own expert said we met the standard, so it’s a little bit hard for us to understand. It sends a distressing signal to the business community, to any business looking at investing in the state, if we can’t expect balls and strikes to be called fairly.”
Kearns is confident the appeal will be successful.
If it’s not successful, First Wind could face penalties stemming from its deal with National Grid. While the deal is complicated with various opportunities for First Wind to extend milestone deadlines toward completion of the project, the bottom line is that if First Wind does not get its DEP permit and does not complete the wind farm by March 2017, it would forfeit nearly $1.5 million it put up in security, Kearns said.
The appeal process did work for another developer, Passadumkeag Wind Park LLC. In November 2012, Aho rejected the company’s initial application for a permit to build a 14-turbine wind farm on Passadumkeag Mountain in Penobscot County, but the BEP reversed her decision in March 2013 and allowed the project to move forward.
Source
Sunday, October 06, 2013
IS BP LEAVING CAPE VINCENT? YES, NO, MAYBE?
Yesterday rumors were flying all over town that BP was leaving after their long reign of terror in Cape Vincent. As of yet I have been unable to get a confirmation that BP is leaving .
Yesterday a comment came in to the post that I did about BP leaving .That hits the nail on the head
There may be a lot of conflicting news but the good news is that something is brewing. My reaction to this news tells me just how good I am going to feel when these wind bastards pull the plug. What a relief. I only hope all the rumor is true.
It has just been confirmed that there was a meeting hosted by BP Thursday night at Aubreys. So, there is something to the story.
Source
Yesterday a comment came in to the post that I did about BP leaving .That hits the nail on the head
There may be a lot of conflicting news but the good news is that something is brewing. My reaction to this news tells me just how good I am going to feel when these wind bastards pull the plug. What a relief. I only hope all the rumor is true.
It has just been confirmed that there was a meeting hosted by BP Thursday night at Aubreys. So, there is something to the story.
Source
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
First Wind moves into solar with 17MW projects
Massachusetts-based wind-farm developer First Wind has announced that the company’s first solar power projects, comprising 17MW capacity, have begun construction in the company’s home state. First Wind secured financing and a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the University of Massachusetts (UMass) and agreements for net metering with two local towns, Millbury and Orange.
The projects will be located in the towns of Millbury and Warren, with a 3MW installation in Millbury and 14MW spread across three sites in Warren.
First Wind claims that around 85 construction and related jobs can be created by the projects, which will be built by Borrego Solar Systems and are expected to be completed and operational by June 2014. The plants will generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of around 3,100 Massachusetts (MA) households, reducing yearly carbon dioxide emissions by around 19,000 tonnes.
The projects have been financed by a loan from KeyBank National Association with tax equity from US Bank. First Wind will pay taxes to Millbury and Warren each year, US$130,000 and US$50,000 respectively to each community.
The PPA agreement with the University of Massachusetts is part of the university’s plan to cut carbon emissions, with electricity supplied by the PV projects mostly powering the university’s Lowell and Medical Center campuses. Overall the university is also expected to save over US$1 million in energy costs each year through the projects. Millbury and Orange, the two towns that will also purchase electricity from the PV plants, will save US$110,000 and US$85,000 in electricity costs each year respectively.
Deval Patrick, governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has committed to the goal of installing 1,600MW solar power generating capacity by 2020, with the commonwealth having surpassed a previous target of 250MW by May 2013, four years earlier than anticipated.
Paul Gaynor, First Wind chief executive officer said: “It is exciting that we are able to develop and build our very first solar projects in our home state of Massachusetts, which has led the way on renewable energy issues, and we are excited that we are able to add some clean energy projects right here in the Commonwealth, which will further enhance our growing portfolio of projects and customers in the north east. We are also very pleased to partner with UMass to deliver clean, renewable solar power to their campuses while delivering genuine economic benefits to the host communities and cost-competitive clean, renewable energy for years to come.”
Source
The projects will be located in the towns of Millbury and Warren, with a 3MW installation in Millbury and 14MW spread across three sites in Warren.
First Wind claims that around 85 construction and related jobs can be created by the projects, which will be built by Borrego Solar Systems and are expected to be completed and operational by June 2014. The plants will generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of around 3,100 Massachusetts (MA) households, reducing yearly carbon dioxide emissions by around 19,000 tonnes.
The projects have been financed by a loan from KeyBank National Association with tax equity from US Bank. First Wind will pay taxes to Millbury and Warren each year, US$130,000 and US$50,000 respectively to each community.
The PPA agreement with the University of Massachusetts is part of the university’s plan to cut carbon emissions, with electricity supplied by the PV projects mostly powering the university’s Lowell and Medical Center campuses. Overall the university is also expected to save over US$1 million in energy costs each year through the projects. Millbury and Orange, the two towns that will also purchase electricity from the PV plants, will save US$110,000 and US$85,000 in electricity costs each year respectively.
Deval Patrick, governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has committed to the goal of installing 1,600MW solar power generating capacity by 2020, with the commonwealth having surpassed a previous target of 250MW by May 2013, four years earlier than anticipated.
Paul Gaynor, First Wind chief executive officer said: “It is exciting that we are able to develop and build our very first solar projects in our home state of Massachusetts, which has led the way on renewable energy issues, and we are excited that we are able to add some clean energy projects right here in the Commonwealth, which will further enhance our growing portfolio of projects and customers in the north east. We are also very pleased to partner with UMass to deliver clean, renewable solar power to their campuses while delivering genuine economic benefits to the host communities and cost-competitive clean, renewable energy for years to come.”
Source
Wind Company Pattern a Winner After IPO
Pattern Energy Group successfully goes public—and more wind power companies could follow.
What a difference three years can make. In 2010, First Wind tried to do an initial public offering, but never made it out of the gate. This week, in a sign of wind power’s now-entrenched place on the U.S. energy landscape, Pattern Energy Group had a successful IPO, raising $352 million.
Of course, there was more that was different about this IPO than the date it took place; as Reuters pointed out, “Pattern has solid cash flow and has been largely profitable, factors that may have helped the company get a better pricing and drive the stock up on debut.”
Still, the success of the Pattern IPO does say something about the state of the larger industry.
Utilities like wind because it’s a reliable way to meet renewable portfolio standards, and it is becoming more and more economically attractive, with its levelized cost of energy falling by half in the past four years. That led the financial firm Lazard to write recently that “while many had anticipated significant declines in the cost of utility-scale solar PV, few anticipated these sorts of cost declines for wind technology.”
To be sure, federal support has been very helpful in keeping the price of wind within shouting distance of very cheap natural gas. Yet earlier this year, the Berkeley Lab reported that “even within today’s low gas price environment…wind power can still provide a cost-effective long-term hedge against many of the higher-priced future natural gas scenarios being contemplated.”
Pattern isn’t just dependent on the U.S. market -- it owns interests in four wind farms in the United States and one in Canada, has a partial interest in another in the U.S., and has two under construction in Ontario and Chile. Those wind farms add up to 1,041 megawatts of rated capacity. The projects generally have long-term power-purchase agreements, giving Pattern a very good expectation of continued, predictable cash flow.
The company (PEGI) priced its offering at $22, then bounced up to $23.98, before closing its first day of trading Friday at $23.27, up about 6 percent.
Source
What a difference three years can make. In 2010, First Wind tried to do an initial public offering, but never made it out of the gate. This week, in a sign of wind power’s now-entrenched place on the U.S. energy landscape, Pattern Energy Group had a successful IPO, raising $352 million.
Of course, there was more that was different about this IPO than the date it took place; as Reuters pointed out, “Pattern has solid cash flow and has been largely profitable, factors that may have helped the company get a better pricing and drive the stock up on debut.”
Still, the success of the Pattern IPO does say something about the state of the larger industry.
Utilities like wind because it’s a reliable way to meet renewable portfolio standards, and it is becoming more and more economically attractive, with its levelized cost of energy falling by half in the past four years. That led the financial firm Lazard to write recently that “while many had anticipated significant declines in the cost of utility-scale solar PV, few anticipated these sorts of cost declines for wind technology.”
To be sure, federal support has been very helpful in keeping the price of wind within shouting distance of very cheap natural gas. Yet earlier this year, the Berkeley Lab reported that “even within today’s low gas price environment…wind power can still provide a cost-effective long-term hedge against many of the higher-priced future natural gas scenarios being contemplated.”
Pattern isn’t just dependent on the U.S. market -- it owns interests in four wind farms in the United States and one in Canada, has a partial interest in another in the U.S., and has two under construction in Ontario and Chile. Those wind farms add up to 1,041 megawatts of rated capacity. The projects generally have long-term power-purchase agreements, giving Pattern a very good expectation of continued, predictable cash flow.
The company (PEGI) priced its offering at $22, then bounced up to $23.98, before closing its first day of trading Friday at $23.27, up about 6 percent.
Source
14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/
There are many hidden truths about the world of wind turbines from the pollution and environmental damage caused in China by manufacturing bird choppers, the blight on people’s lives of noise and the flicker factor and the countless numbers of birds that are killed each year by these blots on the landscape.
The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or the wind speed is too high.
The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.
The US has had wind farms since 1981:
“Some say that Ka Le is haunted—and it is. But it’s haunted not by Hawaii’s legendary night marchers. The mysterious sounds are “Na leo o Kamaoa”– the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm…
The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles—but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California “big three” locations—Altamont Pass, Tehachapin (above), and San Gorgonio—considered among the world’s best wind sites…
California’s wind farms— comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity—ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills…”
The problem with wind farms when they are abandoned is getting the turbines removed, as usual there are non Green environmentalists to be seen:
The City of Palm Springs was forced to enact an ordinance requiring their removal from San Gorgonio. But California’s Kern County, encompassing the Tehachapi area, has no such law
Imagine the outraged Green chorus if those turbines were abandoned oil drilling rigs.
It took nearly a decade from the time the first flimsy wind turbines were installed before the performance of California wind projects could dispel the widespread belief among the public and investors that wind energy was just a tax scam.
Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst focusing on energy and environmental issues for the Heritage Foundation, is not surprised. He asks:
“If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It’s a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end.”
“It’s a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end” therein lies a lesson that is going be learnt by those that sought to make fortunes out of tax payer subsidies, the whole renewables industry of solar, wind and biomass is just an artificial bubble incapable of surviving without subsides from governments and tax payers which many businesses and NGO’s like WWF, FoE and Greenpeace now think is their god given right, as the money is going on Green Climate Religion approved clean energy.
The Green evangelists who push so hard for these wind farms, as usual have not thought the whole idea through, no surprises for a left agenda like Climate Change, which like all things Green and socialist is just a knee jerk reaction:
Altamont’s turbines have since 2008 been tethered four months of every year in an effort to protect migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit. According to the Golden Gate Audubon Society, 75 to 110 Golden Eagles, 380 Burrowing Owls, 300 Red-tailed Hawks, and 333 American Kestrels (falcons) are killed by Altamont turbines annually. A July, 2008 study by the Alameda County Community Development Agency points to 10,000 annual bird deaths from Altamont Pass wind turbines. Audubon calls Altamont, “probably the worst site ever chosen for a wind energy project.”
The same areas that are good for siting wind farms are also good for birds of prey and migrating birds to pass through, shame for the birds that none of the Green mental midgets who care so much about everything in nature, thought that one through when pushing their anti fossil fuel agenda.
After the debacle of the First California Wind Rush, the European Union had moved ahead of the US on efforts to subsidize “renewable” energy–including a “Feed in Tariff” even more lucrative than the ISO4 contracts.
The tax payers who paid for the subsidies to build the wind farms, then paid over the odds for an unreliable source of power generation will, ultimately be left to pick up the bill for clearing up the Green eco mess in the post man made Global Warming world.
Updated November 24th
In answer to several allegations that the number of abandoned wind turbines was made up, the following quote from the article and link will confirm this figure to be true:
California’s wind farms — then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity — ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.
House committee to probe wind tax credit as expiration date once again approaches
A House committee this week will revive a debate that has been dormant
on Capitol Hill for most of this year with a hearing examining the implications
of a key renewable energy tax credit that again is set to expire in a few
months.
Though it is scheduled to expire again at the end of this year, a modification that accompanied the last extension combined with a favorable Internal Revenue Service interpretation means wind developers can continue to benefit from the credit at least through 2015 as long as they meet certain criteria (Greenwire, Sept. 23).
Wind industry lobbyists are asking lawmakers to include an extension or phaseout of the credit in the evolving comprehensive tax reform package, which is expected to be unveiled sometime this fall. If the comprehensive effort seems likely to stretch past the end of next year, the industry may seek another short-term renewal as part of a tax extenders package. Meanwhile, conservative opponents of the wind incentive are ramping up their lobbying against it (E&E Daily, Sept. 25).
As the issue starts to come out of hibernation, the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy will examine the PTC in more detail at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
A full witness list had not been posted by Friday afternoon, but a source familiar with planning for the hearing said it would feature testimony from an IRS representative as well as Robert Michaels, an economist with the conservative Institute for Energy Research, a think tank that opposes the credit.
Source
URGENT: House Subcommittee Hearing Today, 10/2 PLEASE CONTACT THESE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
The wind industry is requesting a phaseout by 2018, but wind projects can qualify for the full PTC until the start of 2016. http://www.law360.com/
I just read this: https://www.wind-watch.org/
PLEASE CONTACT NOW. PLEASE USE MY ARGUMENT IF YOU WISH. PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST. I JUST WANT IT RELAYED TO MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
James Lankford
Phone: (202) 225-2132
Fax: (202) 226-1463
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Tim Walberg
Phone: (202) 225-6276
Fax: (202) 225-6281
https://twitter.com/RepWalberg
https://www.facebook.com/
Paul Gosar
Phone: (202) 225-2315
https://twitter.com/repgosar
https://www.facebook.com/
Thomas Massie
Phone: (202) 225-3465
Fax: (202) 225-0003
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Scott Desjarlais
T (202) 225-6831
F (202) 226-5172
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Rob Woodall
Phone: (202) 225-4272
Fax: (202) 225-4696
https://www.facebook.com/
Blake Farenthold
Phone: (202) 225-7742
Fax: (202) 226-1134
https://twitter.com/farenthold
https://www.facebook.com/
Patrick McHenry
Telephone: 202.225.2576
Fax: 202 225 0316
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Patrick Meehan
Phone: (202) 225-2011
https://twitter.com/RepMeehan
https://www.facebook.com/
Doc Hastings
(202) 225-5816
Fax: (202) 225-3251
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Jason Chaffetz
Phone: (202) 225-7751
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Jim Jordan
T (202) 225-2676
F (202) 226-0577
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan
https://www.facebook.com/
I just read this: https://www.wind-watch.org/
PLEASE CONTACT NOW. PLEASE USE MY ARGUMENT IF YOU WISH. PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST. I JUST WANT IT RELAYED TO MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
James Lankford
Phone: (202) 225-2132
Fax: (202) 226-1463
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Tim Walberg
Phone: (202) 225-6276
Fax: (202) 225-6281
https://twitter.com/RepWalberg
https://www.facebook.com/
Paul Gosar
Phone: (202) 225-2315
https://twitter.com/repgosar
https://www.facebook.com/
Thomas Massie
Phone: (202) 225-3465
Fax: (202) 225-0003
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Scott Desjarlais
T (202) 225-6831
F (202) 226-5172
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Rob Woodall
Phone: (202) 225-4272
Fax: (202) 225-4696
https://www.facebook.com/
Blake Farenthold
Phone: (202) 225-7742
Fax: (202) 226-1134
https://twitter.com/farenthold
https://www.facebook.com/
Patrick McHenry
Telephone: 202.225.2576
Fax: 202 225 0316
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Patrick Meehan
Phone: (202) 225-2011
https://twitter.com/RepMeehan
https://www.facebook.com/
Doc Hastings
(202) 225-5816
Fax: (202) 225-3251
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Jason Chaffetz
Phone: (202) 225-7751
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
Jim Jordan
T (202) 225-2676
F (202) 226-0577
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan
https://www.facebook.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)