Could Congress actually end lucrative tax credits for wind energy
production? Former Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles is optimistic that
lawmakers will not extend tax credits for wind energy as pressure mounts
to reform the tax code and cut spending.
“I think there is a good chance it won’t be extended,” Nickles told
The Daily Caller News Foundation. “I think a lot of members are really
focused on it. Members realize if you do it, it will cost billions
more.”
“I think they realized the sentiment has turned, the economics have
turned — big time,” said Nickles, who served as Oklahoma’s Republican
Senator from 1981 to 2005 and was around when wind was first subsidized
in the early 1990s.
Congressional Republicans have ramped up their campaign against the
Wind Production Tax Credit, or Wind PTC, arguing that the tax credit
should be cut as part comprehensive tax reform talks taken up in the House and Senate.
“As the House Ways and Means Committee takes on the commendable, but
difficult, task of enacting revenue-neutral tax reform legislation, the
PTC should be excluded from there or in any tax extenders legislation
that the committee may consider,” reads
a letter from 52 lawmakers to committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp, who is
heading up tax reform talks with Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus.
The wind industry and allied lawmakers have opposed ending the tax
credit, arguing that it would be a huge setback for the wind industry
and harm economic growth in wind-heavy states like Iowa.
Our nation has some of the best wind resources in the world, but the
lack of stable policy hinders the nation’s ability to develop them
fully,” reads
a letter from 11 state governors to House and Senate leadership. “The
nation’s wind industry developers do not need this tax credit forever,
but they do need policy certainty in the near term to bring their costs
to a fully competitive level.”
The Wind PTC was first enacted in 1992 and gave wind producers 1.5
cents for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated in the first ten
years of operation. The subsidy has ballooned to 2.3 cents per kilowatt
hour this year and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that
extending the tax credit for another year would cost $6 billion.
“I remember when it passed in ‘92 and we were assured it was
temporary,” Nickles told TheDCNF. “Since then it’s been extended seven
times.”
Nickles and his fellow Republicans argue that wind energy is not
reliable enough to provide baseload power, so it requires fossil fuels
to back it up — eliminating the touted environmental benefits of the
renewable energy source.
“Wind doesn’t blow all the time,” Nickles said. “For reliability,
utilities usually have to purchase a gas-fired generator as a back-up.
It blows at night when grids need the power least, it’s generating most
of its power off-peak and crowding out more economical power in the
process.”
Furthermore, wind producer could be facing increased legal trouble as
the Obama administration has finally started to prosecute wind farms
for the killing of federally protected birds and eagles.
A subsidiary of Duke Energy agreed
to pay $1 million in fines for the killing of 160 birds at two wind
farms in Wyoming — marking the first time the Obama administration has
prosecuted wind farm operators for killing federally protected birds.
“This case represents the first criminal conviction under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unlawful avian takings at wind projects,”
said Robert Dreher, acting assistant attorney general for the Department
of Justice’s environment division.
“No form of energy generation, or human activity for that matter, is
completely free of impacts and wind energy is no exception,” the
American Wind Energy Association said in a statement.
“When coupled with the fact that experts globally see climate change
as the single greatest threat to wildlife and their habitats, wind
energy – which is produced without creating air or water pollution,
greenhouse gases, use water, require mining, or drilling for or
transportation of fuel, or generate hazardous waste requiring permanent
storage – is a key to both meeting our nation’s energy needs and
protecting wildlife in the U.S. and abroad,” the statement continued.
Wind turbines kill 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats each year in the
U.S., according to an independent study published earlier this year.
“As wind energy continues to expand, there is urgent need to improve
fatality monitoring methods, especially in the implementation of
detection trials, which should be more realistically incorporated into
routine monitoring,” writes K. Shawn Smallwood, the study’s author.
Source
Thursday, November 28, 2013
First Wind Company Criminally Convicted for Bird Deaths
In the first criminal conviction of a wind company for killing
birds, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced they settled with Duke
Energy for $1 million.
Duke Energy Renewables pleaded guilty in the US District Court in Wyoming to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the deaths of endangered birds. This is the first-ever criminal enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for a wind farm.
Between 2009-2013, 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected birds - including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows - were killed at two Wyoming wind farms owned by Duke Energy. The Campbell Hill and Top of the World wind farms have 176 turbines and are sited on private agricultural land.
Until now, even though every death of a protected bird violates federal law, no wind company has been held liable. Wind companies can apply for a federal permit (which is opposed by the conservation community) but not a single company has done so.
Under the settlement, Duke will pay fines and restitution of $1 million and is placed on probation for five years, during which it must implement an environmental compliance plan to prevent bird deaths at its four Wyoming wind plants - expected to cost $600,000 a year. Duke must also apply for an Eagle Take Permit which, if granted, will provide a framework for how to minimize and mitigate golden eagle deaths at the wind farms, states DOJ.
"This is a welcome action by DOJ and one that we have long anticipated," says Dr. George Fenwick, President of American Bird Conservancy (ABC), a long-time advocate for stronger federal management of the wind industry. "We are pro-wind, but development needs to be Bird Smart. The unfortunate reality is that the flagrant violations of the law seen in this case are widespread."
In early 2012, the Fish & Wildlife Service published voluntary operating and siting guidelines for the wind industry, and this year, they released Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. ABC believes these guidelines would be much more effective at preventing bird deaths if they were mandatory, with project permits used to cover costs.
Because guidelines are voluntary, "companies have been able to pay lip service to bird protection laws and then largely do what they want. Poorly sited wind projects exist or are being planned that clearly ignore the advice of federal and state biologists who have few, if any, means of preventing them from going ahead," says Dr. Michael Hutchins, who coordinates the National Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign for ABC.
"In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths. To its credit, once the projects came on line and began causing avian deaths, Duke took steps to minimize the hazard, and with this plea agreement has committed to an extensive compliance plan to minimize bird deaths at its Wyoming facilities and to devote resources to eagle preservation and rehabilitation efforts," says Robert Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.
"We deeply regret the impacts of golden eagles at two of our wind facilities," says Greg Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables. "Our goal is to provide the benefits of wind energy in the most environmentally responsible way possible."
How the $1 million fine will be disbursed:
Several tools are available to help wind developers choose the best sites based on wind and environmental concerns, including one developed by National Renewable Energy Lab and another by ABC.
ABC estimates that as the wind industry has grown in the US, bird deaths have risen from 440,000 in 2009 to 600,000 in 2012.
How many birds will die as the wind industry continues to grow? Clearly, strong siting and operational regulations are needed, says Hutchins. "We believe it's necessary to enforce development restrictions on wind, such as avoiding bird migration corridors and places where protected species and sensitive habitats are present."
Enacted way back in 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements US commitments with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan and Russia. The Act protects over 1,000 species of birds.
Source
Duke Energy Renewables pleaded guilty in the US District Court in Wyoming to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the deaths of endangered birds. This is the first-ever criminal enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for a wind farm.
Between 2009-2013, 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected birds - including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows - were killed at two Wyoming wind farms owned by Duke Energy. The Campbell Hill and Top of the World wind farms have 176 turbines and are sited on private agricultural land.
Until now, even though every death of a protected bird violates federal law, no wind company has been held liable. Wind companies can apply for a federal permit (which is opposed by the conservation community) but not a single company has done so.
Under the settlement, Duke will pay fines and restitution of $1 million and is placed on probation for five years, during which it must implement an environmental compliance plan to prevent bird deaths at its four Wyoming wind plants - expected to cost $600,000 a year. Duke must also apply for an Eagle Take Permit which, if granted, will provide a framework for how to minimize and mitigate golden eagle deaths at the wind farms, states DOJ.
"This is a welcome action by DOJ and one that we have long anticipated," says Dr. George Fenwick, President of American Bird Conservancy (ABC), a long-time advocate for stronger federal management of the wind industry. "We are pro-wind, but development needs to be Bird Smart. The unfortunate reality is that the flagrant violations of the law seen in this case are widespread."
In early 2012, the Fish & Wildlife Service published voluntary operating and siting guidelines for the wind industry, and this year, they released Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. ABC believes these guidelines would be much more effective at preventing bird deaths if they were mandatory, with project permits used to cover costs.
Because guidelines are voluntary, "companies have been able to pay lip service to bird protection laws and then largely do what they want. Poorly sited wind projects exist or are being planned that clearly ignore the advice of federal and state biologists who have few, if any, means of preventing them from going ahead," says Dr. Michael Hutchins, who coordinates the National Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign for ABC.
"In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths. To its credit, once the projects came on line and began causing avian deaths, Duke took steps to minimize the hazard, and with this plea agreement has committed to an extensive compliance plan to minimize bird deaths at its Wyoming facilities and to devote resources to eagle preservation and rehabilitation efforts," says Robert Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.
"We deeply regret the impacts of golden eagles at two of our wind facilities," says Greg Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables. "Our goal is to provide the benefits of wind energy in the most environmentally responsible way possible."
How the $1 million fine will be disbursed:
- $400,000 for the federally-administered North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
- $100,000 for the State of Wyoming
- $160,000 for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, designated for golden eagle conservation projects and research on how they interact with wind turbines
- $340,000 to a conservation fund to buy golden eagle habitat in Wyoming
Several tools are available to help wind developers choose the best sites based on wind and environmental concerns, including one developed by National Renewable Energy Lab and another by ABC.
ABC estimates that as the wind industry has grown in the US, bird deaths have risen from 440,000 in 2009 to 600,000 in 2012.
How many birds will die as the wind industry continues to grow? Clearly, strong siting and operational regulations are needed, says Hutchins. "We believe it's necessary to enforce development restrictions on wind, such as avoiding bird migration corridors and places where protected species and sensitive habitats are present."
Enacted way back in 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements US commitments with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan and Russia. The Act protects over 1,000 species of birds.
Source
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
First Wind grows by aiming low
AURORA, Maine — The truck wound along the logging road in the deep
woods of this northern Maine community, snaking up a bump in the
landscape called Bull Hill. Only as the truck neared the base of a
95-meter-tall wind turbine did the silvery-white blades become visible
among the trees.
The 19-turbine wind farm at Bull Hill operates hundreds of feet lower than other industrial-scale wind farms, which typically spread along mountain ridges that are visible for miles. It is one of the latest developments of First Wind Holdings Inc. and an example of how the fast-growing Boston firm has become a dominant player in the Northeast.
First Wind, just over a decade old, has prospered by following an unconventional strategy that often avoids towering ridgelines, instead building at lower elevations and taking advantage of technological advances that allow turbines to generate electricity at lower wind speeds. Even so, the company’s projects have still attracted controversy, provoking outrage from some residents of rural and remote areas who say the peace, quiet, and beauty of natural landscapes is marred by the industrial developments.
Originally known as UPC Wind, the firm was founded in 2002 by Brian
Caffyn, a Massachusetts native who spent years working in the wind
industry in Italy. Gaynor, a former executive at a division of General
Electric, was the company’s fifth employee. He has led the firm since
2004.
Wind power was barely a speck on the energy landscape then, with oil prices as low as $33 a barrel.
Installations were few and far between, with about one-tenth of today’s generating capacity.
“God, it was uncharted waters,” Gaynor recalled recently at his company’s headquarters near South Station in Boston. “When I showed up, we had no money, no megawatts, virtually no people.”
First Wind built its first project in 2006 on the Hawaiian island of
Maui, a 30-megawatt wind farm along a ridge on the West Maui Mountains,
which tested another key component of its strategy: winning the support
of environmentalists. The ridge is home to three endangered bird species
and a type of endangered bat.
Before building, First Wind worked with experts on plans to protect those animals and committed a minimum of $1 million to make them happen.
“You have to find a way to coexist. You can’t look at a wind farm and say they have no environmental impacts,” Gaynor said. “That’s the ethic we took from there — I took from there — to every other project.”
First Wind has followed that ethic in New England, said Ted Koffman, executive director of Maine Audubon, a nonprofit wildlife conservation group that has monitored large wind developments for more than a decade. First Wind, he said, has proved its willingness to work with environmental organizations and communities to protect rare and sensitive habitats.
The company sends out analysts to study bird populations, talking to hikers who frequent the location where they plan to build, and sometimes helping to build wildlife sanctuaries.
“First Wind is not always going to agree with us because we want the Cadillac of all best-management practices, and to go above and beyond what the law requires,” Koffman said, but “they’re often very willing.”
While building its Bull Hill wind farm, First Wind worked to accommodate outdoor enthusiasts, improving some access roads, leaving the surrounding area open to snowmobiles and ATVs, and adding picnic tables for visitors to use. First Wind also limits the construction footprint of its projects, said Sean Mahoney, executive vice president for the nonprofit Conservation Law Foundation in Maine, which has supported several of First Wind’s projects.
The company often uses existing logging roads, as it did at Bull Hill, to transport equipment and parts, and does something else worth noting, said Mahoney. It clusters projects around existing transmission to avoid the need build new lines, which might have to cross sensitive natural areas.
Percy L. Brown Jr., a commissioner of Hancock County, where the wind farm is located, said he was initially wary of First Wind’s impact. But the project has brought benefits to the community, including an agreement by the company to pay the county $200,000 a year for the next two decades.
“We can utilize these funds for public purposes,” Brown said, “property tax reduction, economic development, [or] tourism and promotion, reduction of energy costs.”
But First Wind has also attracted fierce critics, who argue its industrial installations are out of place in remote, natural areas, destroying landscapes and property values. Some blame the rotating turbine blades for headaches and dizzy spells.
In Maine, community groups such as Friends of Maine’s Mountains have repeatedly opposed more wind development in favor of hydropower, which generates about quarter of Maine’s electricity. Christopher O’Neil, a spokesman for Friends of Maine’s Mountains, said the relatively small amount of power generated by wind energy, an intermittent source, is not worth the environmental damage.
In Hawaii, First Wind has come under scrutiny following several battery fires at a wind farm on Oahu Island, including one that shut the site for a year. On Maui, some critics say First Wind’s turbines have marred the view of the ridge, visible as planes descend onto the island. Still others say the wind projects have failed to lower electricity prices in Hawaii, the highest in the nation.
“If you heard the message as, ‘Your bill is going to drop,’ those people feel a sense of disappointment,” said Doug McLeod, Maui County’s energy commissioner.
First Wind said it has no control over electric rates set by the state, but knows that the energy its produces is cheaper than other sources of power in Hawaii. Gaynor added that he’s not surprised by criticism there and elsewhere.
“You are always going to have someone opposed to anything new,” he said, “whether it’s a shopping mall, or a house, or a telephone pole.”
In First Wind’s Boston headquarters, Gaynor strode past a room where employees watched a bank of screens, monitoring 17,000 data points, from energy production to weather conditions, coming in each second from the company’ turbines.
Gaynor said he sees more expansion ahead. The company, which employs more than 200, including 70 in Massachusetts, recently launched a solar power division. In addition, First Wind’s systems are built to monitor up to 3,000 megawatts of energy projects — triple today’s capacity.
“That’s why we have empty desks,” Gaynor said, pointing to vacant cubicles around the office. “We hope to continue to grow.”
Source
The 19-turbine wind farm at Bull Hill operates hundreds of feet lower than other industrial-scale wind farms, which typically spread along mountain ridges that are visible for miles. It is one of the latest developments of First Wind Holdings Inc. and an example of how the fast-growing Boston firm has become a dominant player in the Northeast.
First Wind, just over a decade old, has prospered by following an unconventional strategy that often avoids towering ridgelines, instead building at lower elevations and taking advantage of technological advances that allow turbines to generate electricity at lower wind speeds. Even so, the company’s projects have still attracted controversy, provoking outrage from some residents of rural and remote areas who say the peace, quiet, and beauty of natural landscapes is marred by the industrial developments.
First Wind today owns and operates 12
wind farms in six states, its portfolio comprising more than 500
turbines with a combined generating capacity of roughly 1,000 megawatts,
or enough to power about 285,000 homes. Its revenues have soared to
about $250 million a year from just $7.1 million in 2006, according to
the company and financial filings, as it has targeted states such as New
York, Maine, and Hawaii where high energy costs and friendly renewable
energy policies make wind power competitive.
“We’re focused on places where it makes economic sense,” said chief executive Paul J. Gaynor.
Wind power was barely a speck on the energy landscape then, with oil prices as low as $33 a barrel.
Installations were few and far between, with about one-tenth of today’s generating capacity.
“God, it was uncharted waters,” Gaynor recalled recently at his company’s headquarters near South Station in Boston. “When I showed up, we had no money, no megawatts, virtually no people.”
Before building, First Wind worked with experts on plans to protect those animals and committed a minimum of $1 million to make them happen.
“You have to find a way to coexist. You can’t look at a wind farm and say they have no environmental impacts,” Gaynor said. “That’s the ethic we took from there — I took from there — to every other project.”
First Wind has followed that ethic in New England, said Ted Koffman, executive director of Maine Audubon, a nonprofit wildlife conservation group that has monitored large wind developments for more than a decade. First Wind, he said, has proved its willingness to work with environmental organizations and communities to protect rare and sensitive habitats.
The company sends out analysts to study bird populations, talking to hikers who frequent the location where they plan to build, and sometimes helping to build wildlife sanctuaries.
“First Wind is not always going to agree with us because we want the Cadillac of all best-management practices, and to go above and beyond what the law requires,” Koffman said, but “they’re often very willing.”
While building its Bull Hill wind farm, First Wind worked to accommodate outdoor enthusiasts, improving some access roads, leaving the surrounding area open to snowmobiles and ATVs, and adding picnic tables for visitors to use. First Wind also limits the construction footprint of its projects, said Sean Mahoney, executive vice president for the nonprofit Conservation Law Foundation in Maine, which has supported several of First Wind’s projects.
The company often uses existing logging roads, as it did at Bull Hill, to transport equipment and parts, and does something else worth noting, said Mahoney. It clusters projects around existing transmission to avoid the need build new lines, which might have to cross sensitive natural areas.
Percy L. Brown Jr., a commissioner of Hancock County, where the wind farm is located, said he was initially wary of First Wind’s impact. But the project has brought benefits to the community, including an agreement by the company to pay the county $200,000 a year for the next two decades.
“We can utilize these funds for public purposes,” Brown said, “property tax reduction, economic development, [or] tourism and promotion, reduction of energy costs.”
But First Wind has also attracted fierce critics, who argue its industrial installations are out of place in remote, natural areas, destroying landscapes and property values. Some blame the rotating turbine blades for headaches and dizzy spells.
In Maine, community groups such as Friends of Maine’s Mountains have repeatedly opposed more wind development in favor of hydropower, which generates about quarter of Maine’s electricity. Christopher O’Neil, a spokesman for Friends of Maine’s Mountains, said the relatively small amount of power generated by wind energy, an intermittent source, is not worth the environmental damage.
In Hawaii, First Wind has come under scrutiny following several battery fires at a wind farm on Oahu Island, including one that shut the site for a year. On Maui, some critics say First Wind’s turbines have marred the view of the ridge, visible as planes descend onto the island. Still others say the wind projects have failed to lower electricity prices in Hawaii, the highest in the nation.
“If you heard the message as, ‘Your bill is going to drop,’ those people feel a sense of disappointment,” said Doug McLeod, Maui County’s energy commissioner.
First Wind said it has no control over electric rates set by the state, but knows that the energy its produces is cheaper than other sources of power in Hawaii. Gaynor added that he’s not surprised by criticism there and elsewhere.
“You are always going to have someone opposed to anything new,” he said, “whether it’s a shopping mall, or a house, or a telephone pole.”
In First Wind’s Boston headquarters, Gaynor strode past a room where employees watched a bank of screens, monitoring 17,000 data points, from energy production to weather conditions, coming in each second from the company’ turbines.
Gaynor said he sees more expansion ahead. The company, which employs more than 200, including 70 in Massachusetts, recently launched a solar power division. In addition, First Wind’s systems are built to monitor up to 3,000 megawatts of energy projects — triple today’s capacity.
“That’s why we have empty desks,” Gaynor said, pointing to vacant cubicles around the office. “We hope to continue to grow.”
Source
Friday, November 22, 2013
UTILITY COMPANY SENTENCED IN WYOMING FOR KILLING PROTECTED BIRDS AT WIND PROJECTS
WASHINGTON – Duke Energy Renewables Inc., a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.,
based in Charlotte, N.C., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Wyoming today
to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in connection with the
deaths of protected birds, including golden eagles, at two of the company’s wind
projects in Wyoming. This case represents the first ever criminal
enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unpermitted avian takings at
wind projects.
Under
a plea agreement with the government, the company was sentenced to pay fines,
restitution and community service totaling $1 million and was placed on
probation for five years, during which it must implement an environmental
compliance plan aimed at preventing bird deaths at the company’s four commercial
wind projects in the state. The company is also required to apply for an
Eagle Take Permit which, if granted, will provide a framework for minimizing and
mitigating the deaths of golden eagles at the wind projects.
The
charges stem from the discovery of 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected
birds, including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows by the company at
its “Campbell Hill” and “Top of the World” wind projects in Converse County
between 2009 and 2013. The two wind projects are comprised of 176 large
wind turbines sited on private agricultural land.
According to the charges and other information presented in court, Duke Energy
Renewables Inc. failed to make all reasonable efforts to build the projects in a
way that would avoid the risk of avian deaths by collision with turbine blades,
despite prior warnings about this issue from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). However, the company cooperated with the USFWS investigation and
has already implemented measures aimed at minimizing avian deaths at the
sites.
“This
case represents the first criminal conviction under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act for unlawful avian takings at wind projects,” said Robert G. Dreher, Acting
Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural
Resources Division. “In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables
acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it
knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths. To its credit, once
the projects came on line and began causing avian deaths, Duke took steps to
minimize the hazard, and with this plea agreement has committed to an extensive
compliance plan to minimize bird deaths at its Wyoming facilities and to devote
resources to eagle preservation and rehabilitation efforts.”
“The
Service works cooperatively with companies that make all reasonable efforts to
avoid killing migratory birds during design, construction and operation of
industrial facilities,” said William Woody, Assistant Director for Law
Enforcement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “But we will continue
to investigate and refer for prosecution cases in which companies - in any
sector, including the wind industry - fail to comply with the laws that protect
the public’s wildlife resources.”
More
than 1,000 species of birds, including bald and golden eagles, are protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA, enacted in 1918,
implements this country’s commitments under avian protection treaties with Great
Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan and Russia. The MBTA provides a
misdemeanor criminal sanction for the unpermitted taking of a listed species by
any means and in any manner, regardless of fault. The maximum penalty for
an unpermitted corporate taking under the MBTA is $15,000 or twice the gross
gain or loss resulting from the offense, and five years’ probation.
According to papers filed with the court, commercial wind power projects can
cause the deaths of federally protected birds in four primary ways: collision
with wind turbines, collision with associated meteorological towers, collision
with, or electrocution by, associated electrical power facilities, and nest
abandonment or behavior avoidance from habitat modification. Collision and
electrocution risks from power lines (collisions and electrocutions) and guyed
structures (collision) have been known to the utility and communication
industries for decades, and specific methods of minimizing and avoiding the
risks have been developed, in conjunction with the USFWS. The USFWS issued its
first interim guidance about how wind project developers could avoid impacts to
wildlife from wind turbines in 2003, and replaced these with a “tiered” approach
outlined in the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012 LBWEGs), developed with
the wind industry starting in 2007 and released in final form by the USFWS on
March 23, 2012. The Service also released Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance
in April 2013 and strongly recommends that companies planning or operating wind
power facilities in areas where eagles occur work with the agency to implement
that guidance completely.
For
wind projects, due diligence during the pre-construction stage—as described in
the 2003 Interim Guidelines and tiers I through III in the 2012 LBWEGs—by
surveying the wildlife present in the proposed project area, consulting with
agency professionals, determining whether the risk to wildlife is too high to
justify proceeding and, if not, carefully siting turbines so as to avoid and
minimize the risk as much as possible, is critically important because, unlike
electric distribution equipment and guyed towers, at the present time, no
post-construction remedies, except “curtailment” (i.e., shut-down), have been
developed that can “render safe” a wind turbine placed in a location of high
avian collision risk. Other experimental measures to reduce prey, detect
and deter avian proximity to turbines are being tested. In the western
United States, golden eagles may be particularly susceptible to wind turbine
blade collision by wind power facilities constructed in areas of high eagle use.
The
$400,000 fine imposed in the case will be directed to the federally-administered
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. The company will also pay
$100,000 in restitution to the State of Wyoming, and perform community service
by making a $160,000 payment to the congressionally-chartered National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, designated for projects aimed at preserving golden eagles
and increasing the understanding of ways to minimize and monitor interactions
between eagles and commercial wind power facilities, as well as enhance eagle
rehabilitation and conservation efforts in Wyoming. Duke Energy Renewables
is also required to contribute $340,000 to a conservation fund for the purchase
of land, or conservation easements on land, in Wyoming containing high-use
golden eagle habitat, which will be preserved and managed for the benefit of
that species. The company must implement a migratory bird compliance plan
containing specific measures to avoid and minimize golden eagle and other avian
wildlife mortalities at company’s four commercial wind projects in
Wyoming.
According to papers filed with the court, Duke Energy Renewables will spend
approximately $600,000 per year implementing the compliance plan. Within
24 months, the company must also apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
a Programmatic Eagle Take Permit at each of the two wind projects cited in the
case.
The
case was investigated by Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and prosecuted by Senior Counsel Robert S. Anderson of the Justice Department’s
Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division
and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Conder of the District of Wyoming.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Invenergy in New York: blade break
Invenergy's Orangeville Wind Farm (formerly known as the Stony Creek Wind project) experienced a catastrophic blade break. The project, which is still under construction includes 58 GE 1.6-100 wind turbines (94 megawatts). The turbines are scheduled for commission the second week of December 2013. Witnesses at the site told WindAction that blade debris flew past the 511-foot safety zone set by the town. This setback distance was requested by Eric Miller from Invenergy to get more turbines in a smaller area. General Electric said 1.5 times hub height plus rotor diameter or 885’ would be necessary.
Source
Northeast Wind bags refinancing
A First Wind-Emera joint venture has refinanced its debt with a new corporate credit facility consisting of a $320m term loan B debt facility and a $75m letter of credit facility.
Northeast Wind Partners’ own 419MW of wind power projects in the northeast United States.
Pricing on the new term loan was set at LIBOR plus 400 basis points with a 1% LIBOR floor, with 99% of original issue discount. The proceeds were used to refinance the joint venture’s existing debt.
Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, KeyBank, Union Bank, CIT Group, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China were joint lead arrangers and joint book-runners for the syndication of the term loan B facility.
Northeast Wind tried to refinance its debt this past summer but postponed efforts because of unfavorable market conditions.
Boston-based First Wind retains 51% and Nova Scotia-headquartered Emera owns 49% of Northeast Wind. First Wind is the managing partner, operating the wind energy projects.
Source
Northeast Wind Partners’ own 419MW of wind power projects in the northeast United States.
Pricing on the new term loan was set at LIBOR plus 400 basis points with a 1% LIBOR floor, with 99% of original issue discount. The proceeds were used to refinance the joint venture’s existing debt.
Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, KeyBank, Union Bank, CIT Group, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China were joint lead arrangers and joint book-runners for the syndication of the term loan B facility.
Northeast Wind tried to refinance its debt this past summer but postponed efforts because of unfavorable market conditions.
Boston-based First Wind retains 51% and Nova Scotia-headquartered Emera owns 49% of Northeast Wind. First Wind is the managing partner, operating the wind energy projects.
Source
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Suit Against First Wind Over Noise Pollution Dismissed
http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/30879/Default.aspx
The summary judgment for First Wind upholds a lower court ruling made earlier this year on a lawsuit brought by Michael Gosselin of Mars Hill.
"I'm feeling terribly disappointed in the justice system because I thought truth and justice would prevail," Gosselin says. "And I'm very disappointed and really, really shocked."
Gosselin, a disabled veteran who suffers from PTSD, claimed in the suit that noise created by the turbines, which are situated about 1.7 miles from his home, have made his life so stressful that he's had to build a noise proof bunker in his garage.
"I'm going to have to continue sleeping in the garage until we can move out of the area I guess," he says.
Gosselin was seeking a buyout of his property for fair market value. While First Wind settled similar disputes with 18 neighboring landowners last year, Gosselin was excluded from that case because he was judged to be too far from the turbines.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne says the company is pleased with the ruling, and glad that all parties are spared the ordeal of a trial.
"We work very hard to be good neighbors in the Mars Hill community," Lamontagne says, "and I think we've been very successful when it comes to that."
In the ruling, the justices say the lower court did not err when finding against Gosselin, who claimed the turbines created a nuisance and emotional distress.
Claims of personal and property damage from related activities were also tossed out, and a new claim of breach of contract was not heard. Gosselin says he may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.
The summary judgment for First Wind upholds a lower court ruling made earlier this year on a lawsuit brought by Michael Gosselin of Mars Hill.
"I'm feeling terribly disappointed in the justice system because I thought truth and justice would prevail," Gosselin says. "And I'm very disappointed and really, really shocked."
Gosselin, a disabled veteran who suffers from PTSD, claimed in the suit that noise created by the turbines, which are situated about 1.7 miles from his home, have made his life so stressful that he's had to build a noise proof bunker in his garage.
"I'm going to have to continue sleeping in the garage until we can move out of the area I guess," he says.
Gosselin was seeking a buyout of his property for fair market value. While First Wind settled similar disputes with 18 neighboring landowners last year, Gosselin was excluded from that case because he was judged to be too far from the turbines.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne says the company is pleased with the ruling, and glad that all parties are spared the ordeal of a trial.
"We work very hard to be good neighbors in the Mars Hill community," Lamontagne says, "and I think we've been very successful when it comes to that."
In the ruling, the justices say the lower court did not err when finding against Gosselin, who claimed the turbines created a nuisance and emotional distress.
Claims of personal and property damage from related activities were also tossed out, and a new claim of breach of contract was not heard. Gosselin says he may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)