We know for fact that UPC absolutely does not have a contiguous line from the windmills to the proposed substation in the Prattsburgh project. In addition, Ecogen, which has bought up lots of land, still can't get to its substation because (among other reasons) the County of Yates is not allowed by law to sell them 10 acres of land on Emerson (it has something to do with green acres) People upon whom pressure has been put have been standing firm and refusing to sign easements.
In talking to your neighbors and acquaintances please tell them:
Ecogen and UPC do not have a contiguous transmission route from the wind turbines to their substations
If UPC and Ecogen can't get to their substation then they can't make their projects work.
The town of Prattsburgh has said that UPC has permission to use town right of ways, saying that this is all that is required for UPC to bury its cable, but this is not true.
Landowners own land up to the middle of the road. The Town has 25 foot easements from the middle of the road in order to maintain the roads. The town does not own this land and cannot sublease this land. So while town permission is necessary to use this land to bury cable, landowners' permission is absolutely required. The town has intentionally misled the citizens.
In addition, UPC is misleading people by hiring an outside firm (Prospect Land services I believe) to contact people and act like they are representing the town. They are pressuring people to sign right of ways and easements for UPC to bury the cable.
No one is required to sign an easement. UPC is not an electric utility and does not have power of eminent domain.
And once a landowner signs an easement it is forever. Perhaps for this project they will bury the cable, but if the companies have easements and in the future want to put up huge power lines, there will be nothing a resident can do if those easements are signed. And remember it is not just the poles and wires -- there is also the 100 foot "tree clearing rights" that will be invoked.
Please make sure to share this information with everyone you know.
Ruthe Matilsky
Friday, October 26, 2007
Iberdrola to replace chief executive at ScottishPower
Spanish Energy group Iberdrola, which acquired ScottishPower earlier this year for £11.6bn, is searching for a new chief executive for the Glasgow-based utility, and hopes to replace the Spaniard who now heads the company with a Scot, a senior source at the group revealed yesterday.
At a private meeting at Iberdrola's offices on the north-western outskirts of Madrid, it emerged that Jose Luis de Valle, ScottishPower's current chief executive, will likely leave the company next spring.
He is expected to be transferred into a far more powerful role within the fast-expanding Bilboa-headquartered company. He will likely head its US and UK operations, as Iberdrola moves to consolidate itself as the world's leading producer of electricity from clean technologies such as wind farms.
advertisementThis means De Valle will have overall responsibility for Energy East, a US electricity and natural gas company that Iberdrola has agreed to acquire for $4.5bn (£2.2bn), PPM Energy in Oregon and other assets in the US, which Iberdrola has clearly earmarked as its next big growth market. He will also have overall control of ScottishPower.
De Valle, who was parachuted into ScottishPower as its chief executive just days after Iberdrola completed the acquisition in April, is widely regarded as the right hand man of the Spanish power company's executive chairman, Jose Ignacio Sanchez Galan. He has maintained a dual role as the group's global strategy director.
He is also the man who Iberdrola credits with originally identifying ScottishPower as a potential takeover target after the British utility rebuffed the advances of German behemoth E.ON in 2005. De Valle led the negotiations to buy ScottishPower and has headed up what Iberdrola now regards as a "model integration that took only five months".
He is also responsible for pushing through the 4.2bn (£2.9bn) investment in ScottishPower under Iberdrola's three year strategic plan - a third more than its Spanish investment plan - announced at the Madrid Stock Exchange on Wednesday.
The senior source, who asked that his name be withheld, said: "Jose Luis de Valle will be replaced by someone British who knows Scottish society.
"This is our style. An American runs our American operations and a Brazilian runs our business in Brazil. It makes sense. We are not moving around the world with a flag. We are moving around the world with common sense."
De Valle had also identified PPM and Energy East as a potential acquisition to increase its presence in the US as Iberdrola expands internationally, and he is widely expected to integrate that company with the same aplomb he demonstrated at ScottishPower.
The source added: "His position with ScottishPower was always going to be a transitory position. We are looking to replace him now with someone more permanent, and I can tell you we are looking both inside and outside the company."
Another source said De Valle's tenure at ScottishPower is likely to last until April 2008, by which time it is anticipated that a replacement chief executive will be recruited and the acquisition of Energy East will be completed.
"He is now basically in charge of everything he has brought to Iberdrola," the source said.
Asked about Iberdrola's relationship with First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government, particularly in light of the SNP's previous objections to the potential takeover by E.ON, the senior source highlighted the common cultural ground between the Basque utility and ScottishPower.
"Iberdrola and E.ON have very different styles. I need to be diplomatic here. We try to integrate, not impose," he said.
"We met Alex Salmond in July, and we found him to be extremely capable and committed, and we are also in touch with him regularly."
In spite of the fact that executive chairman Galan is originally from Salamanca, and not from the Basque region, the senior source added: "As a Basque company, we have the same complexes and frustrations as they do in Scotland, but when we are together we are very proud."
Meanwhile, he also reiterated that the "synergies" from its purchase of ScottishPower would reach 260m by 2009 - twice the amount originally forecast - but that this would not be achieved through job cuts.
He said: "The synergies will come from the integrations of the systems. We are always thinking about how can we be more efficient and more competitive.
"It's logical that we integrate the different systems. This is critical if we want to share our wealth with our customers and our shareholders.
"But we are also investing 350m in retraining. Otherwise it's bread today and nothing for tomorrow."
The company has around 9000 employees in the UK. The firm poured cold water on rumours that it has plans to move out of its ScottishPower headquarters at Atlantic Quay in Glasgow, where it employs around 70.
The senior source said: "Don't listen to all the noises you hear."
Since the April takeover, the cuts have occured in areas that had been involved in ScottishPower's activities as a stock market-listed company, but are no longer required as an Iberdrola subsidiary.
It is estimated that less than 20 such jobs have gone through a voluntary redundancy programme, and up to 80 in total are working out their notice across ScottishPower.
When asked about the cuts related to the recently announced synergies, a spokesman told The Herald: "No job cuts have been identified, although there may be some losses through natural attrition or early retirement."
At a private meeting at Iberdrola's offices on the north-western outskirts of Madrid, it emerged that Jose Luis de Valle, ScottishPower's current chief executive, will likely leave the company next spring.
He is expected to be transferred into a far more powerful role within the fast-expanding Bilboa-headquartered company. He will likely head its US and UK operations, as Iberdrola moves to consolidate itself as the world's leading producer of electricity from clean technologies such as wind farms.
advertisementThis means De Valle will have overall responsibility for Energy East, a US electricity and natural gas company that Iberdrola has agreed to acquire for $4.5bn (£2.2bn), PPM Energy in Oregon and other assets in the US, which Iberdrola has clearly earmarked as its next big growth market. He will also have overall control of ScottishPower.
De Valle, who was parachuted into ScottishPower as its chief executive just days after Iberdrola completed the acquisition in April, is widely regarded as the right hand man of the Spanish power company's executive chairman, Jose Ignacio Sanchez Galan. He has maintained a dual role as the group's global strategy director.
He is also the man who Iberdrola credits with originally identifying ScottishPower as a potential takeover target after the British utility rebuffed the advances of German behemoth E.ON in 2005. De Valle led the negotiations to buy ScottishPower and has headed up what Iberdrola now regards as a "model integration that took only five months".
He is also responsible for pushing through the 4.2bn (£2.9bn) investment in ScottishPower under Iberdrola's three year strategic plan - a third more than its Spanish investment plan - announced at the Madrid Stock Exchange on Wednesday.
The senior source, who asked that his name be withheld, said: "Jose Luis de Valle will be replaced by someone British who knows Scottish society.
"This is our style. An American runs our American operations and a Brazilian runs our business in Brazil. It makes sense. We are not moving around the world with a flag. We are moving around the world with common sense."
De Valle had also identified PPM and Energy East as a potential acquisition to increase its presence in the US as Iberdrola expands internationally, and he is widely expected to integrate that company with the same aplomb he demonstrated at ScottishPower.
The source added: "His position with ScottishPower was always going to be a transitory position. We are looking to replace him now with someone more permanent, and I can tell you we are looking both inside and outside the company."
Another source said De Valle's tenure at ScottishPower is likely to last until April 2008, by which time it is anticipated that a replacement chief executive will be recruited and the acquisition of Energy East will be completed.
"He is now basically in charge of everything he has brought to Iberdrola," the source said.
Asked about Iberdrola's relationship with First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government, particularly in light of the SNP's previous objections to the potential takeover by E.ON, the senior source highlighted the common cultural ground between the Basque utility and ScottishPower.
"Iberdrola and E.ON have very different styles. I need to be diplomatic here. We try to integrate, not impose," he said.
"We met Alex Salmond in July, and we found him to be extremely capable and committed, and we are also in touch with him regularly."
In spite of the fact that executive chairman Galan is originally from Salamanca, and not from the Basque region, the senior source added: "As a Basque company, we have the same complexes and frustrations as they do in Scotland, but when we are together we are very proud."
Meanwhile, he also reiterated that the "synergies" from its purchase of ScottishPower would reach 260m by 2009 - twice the amount originally forecast - but that this would not be achieved through job cuts.
He said: "The synergies will come from the integrations of the systems. We are always thinking about how can we be more efficient and more competitive.
"It's logical that we integrate the different systems. This is critical if we want to share our wealth with our customers and our shareholders.
"But we are also investing 350m in retraining. Otherwise it's bread today and nothing for tomorrow."
The company has around 9000 employees in the UK. The firm poured cold water on rumours that it has plans to move out of its ScottishPower headquarters at Atlantic Quay in Glasgow, where it employs around 70.
The senior source said: "Don't listen to all the noises you hear."
Since the April takeover, the cuts have occured in areas that had been involved in ScottishPower's activities as a stock market-listed company, but are no longer required as an Iberdrola subsidiary.
It is estimated that less than 20 such jobs have gone through a voluntary redundancy programme, and up to 80 in total are working out their notice across ScottishPower.
When asked about the cuts related to the recently announced synergies, a spokesman told The Herald: "No job cuts have been identified, although there may be some losses through natural attrition or early retirement."
‘Suspicious’ Stark fire under investigation by Janine Giordano
STARKVILLE – Officials are investigating a barn fire in the hamlet of Starkville that occurred just after midnight early Friday morning.
The barn belongs to Richard Whritenour and his wife, Denise Como, a town council candidate in the town of Stark.
According to Robert Vandawalker, director of emergency management in Herkimer County, “at this point we’re still sorting out the details. No determination has been made as to whether or not it is arson or who, if anyone, caused it. It is being treated as suspicious at this point. To say it is being treated as arson is not a correct statement.”
The approximately 30 by 40 foot barn had remained empty, Como said, since she and her husband purchased the house a few years ago. “I’m (angry). I loved my little barn. My daughter and I were going to open a coffee and tea shop and used book store,” she said.
Como said that around midnight her dog, Willow, began barking frantically, which alerted Como to a vehicle idling outside. She heard a door slam and the vehicle drove off. Shortly after this, all seven of her dogs began barking near the front of the house. She opened the front door “and saw the barn engulfed in flames,” she said.
The Van Hornesville Fire Department “was very efficient. They kept the fire contained until they could get close enough to put it out,” Como said. Despite their efforts, there was nothing they could do to save the structure. “They basically just had to watch it burn out,” said Como. Nothing but the framework is left.
While she spoke with the fire chief, Como said she noticed that one of three campaign signs she had put up a few hours earlier were missing. She mentioned this to the chief who went and inspected the area the signs had been displayed. When it was determined all three signs were missing, she called the state police.
The next day, she noticed gas cans she had filled the day before were also missing from her storage shed, which is located near where the old barn stood.
Thursday had been spent working on the yard, mowing, which is why Como said she had filled the gas containers. By the time she finished mowing and was about to put the signs up, it was near 7 p.m. and her running mate, Sue Brander, who is running for town supervisor, came and collected her for some campaigning.
She arrived home too late to eat dinner so she made some popcorn, which she burnt. It was about 10 p.m., she noted. At 10:30, she brought the burnt popcorn bag to the dumpster, which is located next to the barn.
At that time, she decided to put up the campaign signs which she didn’t get to earlier after her mowing was complete. “It took about 15 minutes,” she said. The signs displayed information about her and her fellow board candidate Steve Reichenbach, about town superintendent candidate Sue Brander and about the highway candidate, Ron Douglas.
The four are vying for two town council positions held by Ann Miller, Tom Puskarenko and Richard Bronner’s supervisor position. The highway superintendent seat is currently held by Tony Greschek Jr.
Como and her running mates are concerned the fire may have been started by someone or by people who do not want them to be elected to the board.
“The fire is under investigation,” said town supervisor Richard Bronner. “And until details are known I would hope people would not react in that manner. Too many people have too much to lose. I would hope no one would overreact. Let’s find out what happened first.”
Thursday, October 25, 2007
In Search of Effective Energy Policy: Is Industrial Wind Technology a Good Idea? by Jon Boone
Demand for electricity, a cornerstone of modern society, accounts for about 39 % of all energy use in the United States, even though electricity accounts for 30% of the energy used for heating. Electricity demand doubled from 1970-2000 and is on pace to increase another 20% by 2009. We expect electricity to be highly reliable, affordable, and secure, made more difficult because it must be used immediately at industrial levels; unlike the water supply, it can’t be stored. The key to success turns on providing power to supply demand precisely when consumers desire it, second by second. The goal is to forecast demand as accurately as possible, then assemble the most dependable, controllable supply in order to achieve confidant reliability, or capacity.
When gauging a power generator’s ability to perform, energy experts consider the machine’s design potential, then measure its actual performance over time while also assessing confidence in its availability for use during critical peak demand times, since heavy demand challenges the adequacy of supply. A power unit’s design potential is known as its rated or installed capacity, which is the average energy it should produce, usually over a year, if it worked at maximum without stoppage—expressed in thousands (kilowatts, kW) or millions (megawatts, MW) of watts. Engineers use the term capacity factor to project what percentage of its rated capacity a power plant will actually deliver over a specified time, since they realize no machine, for a variety of reasons, can function perpetually at full tilt. To express their level of confidence about a particular generator’s availability to produce as expected at whatever time it was needed, energy experts measure the unit’s capacity value or credit, again as a percentage of its rated capacity.
Conventional units must pass stringent tests for reliability and effectiveness. Generators that satisfy basic levels of demand, such as nuclear, large coal plants, and hydro, have capacity factors in the 90%+ range, with capacity values exceeding 99.99%. Smaller, more flexible units, such as natural gas, coal, or oil, which may be used only a few hours a year, may have capacity factors of as little as 5%, reflecting not the limitations of their potential so much as operator choice. When selected, however, their reliability produces a capacity credit in the range of virtual certainty.
Because of wind energy’s intermittency and relentless volatility, along with downtime for maintenance, the average national capacity factor for wind technology is about 25%; less than 1% of all wind plants achieve a capacity factor of 30%. The random, desultory nature of the wind, which rapidly changes energy levels at frequent intervals, limits what wind machinery can do, condemning wind turbines to intrinsically low capacity factors. The wind typically blows hardest at night, at times of least demand, and much less during the afternoon, at times of peak demand. And in summer months, when demand for electricity is greatest, there is often no wind at all. The capacity credit for wind technology is in the low single digits—and often it is zero.
Chautauqua County has the wind potential to absorb about 500-2.0MW turbines, each more than 400 feet tall and spread over 100 miles, with a collective installed capacity of 1000MW. Annually, projecting a capacity factor of 25%, these might provide about 250MW of very sporadic and highly volatile energy to the state’s grid, which has an installed capacity of 37,500MW and a summer peak demand of 34,000MW. Their capacity value at any peak demand period will vary from zero to no more than 5% of their installed capacity, which means they can be reliably expected to contribute no more than 50MW to augment power at times when it is needed most. Given the way that dependable conventional generation must mix with the wind energy to balance and smooth its skittering activity, wind technology can neither supplant those units nor assure that it could abate significant levels of carbon dioxide emissions throughout the energy production/transmission system. No independent, transparent measurement has demonstrated system-wide CO2 emissions abatement due to wind technology anywhere in the world, largely because wind developers insist on the confidentiality of proprietary performance information.
Wishful thinking about any technology, particularly such massively intrusive technology as industrial wind, should be filtered through and tested against reality before it is unleashed throughout the countryside. Wind energy for the production of electricity is not new. Nearly 18,000 wind turbines exist in the United States, revealing enough evidence about their actual performance, despite proprietary efforts to conceal it, to derive informed decisions about its potential effectiveness in New York.
When gauging a power generator’s ability to perform, energy experts consider the machine’s design potential, then measure its actual performance over time while also assessing confidence in its availability for use during critical peak demand times, since heavy demand challenges the adequacy of supply. A power unit’s design potential is known as its rated or installed capacity, which is the average energy it should produce, usually over a year, if it worked at maximum without stoppage—expressed in thousands (kilowatts, kW) or millions (megawatts, MW) of watts. Engineers use the term capacity factor to project what percentage of its rated capacity a power plant will actually deliver over a specified time, since they realize no machine, for a variety of reasons, can function perpetually at full tilt. To express their level of confidence about a particular generator’s availability to produce as expected at whatever time it was needed, energy experts measure the unit’s capacity value or credit, again as a percentage of its rated capacity.
Conventional units must pass stringent tests for reliability and effectiveness. Generators that satisfy basic levels of demand, such as nuclear, large coal plants, and hydro, have capacity factors in the 90%+ range, with capacity values exceeding 99.99%. Smaller, more flexible units, such as natural gas, coal, or oil, which may be used only a few hours a year, may have capacity factors of as little as 5%, reflecting not the limitations of their potential so much as operator choice. When selected, however, their reliability produces a capacity credit in the range of virtual certainty.
Because of wind energy’s intermittency and relentless volatility, along with downtime for maintenance, the average national capacity factor for wind technology is about 25%; less than 1% of all wind plants achieve a capacity factor of 30%. The random, desultory nature of the wind, which rapidly changes energy levels at frequent intervals, limits what wind machinery can do, condemning wind turbines to intrinsically low capacity factors. The wind typically blows hardest at night, at times of least demand, and much less during the afternoon, at times of peak demand. And in summer months, when demand for electricity is greatest, there is often no wind at all. The capacity credit for wind technology is in the low single digits—and often it is zero.
Chautauqua County has the wind potential to absorb about 500-2.0MW turbines, each more than 400 feet tall and spread over 100 miles, with a collective installed capacity of 1000MW. Annually, projecting a capacity factor of 25%, these might provide about 250MW of very sporadic and highly volatile energy to the state’s grid, which has an installed capacity of 37,500MW and a summer peak demand of 34,000MW. Their capacity value at any peak demand period will vary from zero to no more than 5% of their installed capacity, which means they can be reliably expected to contribute no more than 50MW to augment power at times when it is needed most. Given the way that dependable conventional generation must mix with the wind energy to balance and smooth its skittering activity, wind technology can neither supplant those units nor assure that it could abate significant levels of carbon dioxide emissions throughout the energy production/transmission system. No independent, transparent measurement has demonstrated system-wide CO2 emissions abatement due to wind technology anywhere in the world, largely because wind developers insist on the confidentiality of proprietary performance information.
Wishful thinking about any technology, particularly such massively intrusive technology as industrial wind, should be filtered through and tested against reality before it is unleashed throughout the countryside. Wind energy for the production of electricity is not new. Nearly 18,000 wind turbines exist in the United States, revealing enough evidence about their actual performance, despite proprietary efforts to conceal it, to derive informed decisions about its potential effectiveness in New York.
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT INDUSTRIAL WIND TECHNOLOGY by Jon Boone
On May 3, 2007, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science, at the behest of Congress, published its conclusions after a year of study about the Environmental Effects of Wind Energy Projects in the nation’s Mid-Atlantic region
(www.vawind.org/Assets/NRC/NRC_Wind.htm). It comprehensively evaluates the problems and limitations of the wind industry over a range of issues. See especially Chapter 2 for a Context for Analysis of Effects of Wind-Powered Electricity Generation in the United States and the Mid-Atlantic Highlands.
Jesse Ausubel, noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher, and Director for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, recently published a brief essay, Renewable and Nuclear Heresies in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Vol. 1, No.3, 2007 (http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf). He discusses the importance of conserving important natural habitats on land and the oceans, shows the intrusive nature of renewable energy projects, and summarizes the continuing per capita decline in the use of carbon for energy.
Britain’s David White wrote Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Estimating the Potential Contribution from Wind-Power, commissioned and published by the Renewable Energy Foundation, December 2004: www.windaction.org/documents/225 . It is a thorough, beautifully reasoned analysis of the limitations of industrial wind as a source of energy and as a method of reducing CO2 emissions.
Tom Adam’s Review of Wind Power Results in Ontario: May to October 2006 published in Energy Probe, November 15, 2006: . Adams is executive director of Energy Probe, an independent consumer and environmental research team in Canada. He provides a detailed analysis that reports accurately about the subject, despite Energy Probe’s active support of industrial wind development.
E.ON Netz GmbH Wind Report, 2004: www.ref.org.uk/pages/press/061004.html...REPORT.
E.ON Netz GmbH Wind Report, 2005: www.ref.org.uk/images/pdfs/eon.2005. These reports provide the most comprehensive summary of the way in which extensive wind facilities affect grid operations in Germany.
National Wind Watch: (www.wind-watch.org) was the first nation-wide organization dedicated to understanding industrial wind issues, in the process gathering thousands of articles and news stories about the industry, and then providing informed interpretations for the public’s edification and education. Many newer organizations stand on NWW’s shoulders. Now the president of National Wind Watch, Eric Rosenbloom is a science writer who lives in Vermont. He also maintains perhaps the nation’s best wind blog: http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com, as well as the website, Industrial Wind Energy Opposition: www.aweo.org, which contains a cornucopia of facts and research about the subject.
Industrial Wind Action Group: www.windaction.org is dedicated to providing educational material to communities and government officials in order to enable better public policy. The site contains over 6,500 items comprised of news articles, opinion pieces, research, photos and quotes pertinent to industrial wind energy. The organization’s executive director is Lisa Linowes, a New Hampshire resident concerned about providing, among other issues, the best consumer value for alternate energy sources.
Jon Boone wrote three major essays over the last two years that appear on his website: www.stopillwind.org, one of the first websites to feature the problems with industrial wind in the eastern United States. Start with The Aesthetic Dissonance of Industrial Wind Machines (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=Downloads), which was published in Contemporary Aesthetics on September 28, 2005. The Wayward Wind (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=WaywardWind), a speech delivered in June, 2006 to the citizens of Wyoming County, New York, and, in January, 2007, Less for More: The Rube Goldberg Nature of Industrial Wind Development (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=WaywardWind) will be published next Spring by McGraw-Hill in an anthology of essays entitled, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues, edited by Thomas Easton.
Also note the Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Wind Industry Makes for Projects in the Eastern United States: www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=topten_intro. Detailed debunking follows.
For those interested in a comprehensive analysis of the issue vis a vis a regulatory wind hearing, consult Jon Boone’s Maryland Public Service Commission testimony (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=Downloads) as an intervenor in the Synergic Wind case, including his Responses to a variety of Data Requests and his Appeal to the Proposed Order of the Hearing Examiner.
Both his speech tonight in Westfield, Industrial Wind: A Bill of Goods and his introductory remarks at the League of Women’s Voters wind debate in Fredonia, will also soon appear on stopillwind.
Life Under a Windplant, Jon Boone’s documentary about the Meyersdale, PA wind facility, which he produced and directed with David Beaudoin, can now be seen in three parts on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&mode=related&search= . It features how the wind plant affects the lives of the people in the community and shows the sights and sounds that emanate from 375-foot tall wind turbines sited atop surrounding ridgetops.
(www.vawind.org/Assets/NRC/NRC_Wind.htm). It comprehensively evaluates the problems and limitations of the wind industry over a range of issues. See especially Chapter 2 for a Context for Analysis of Effects of Wind-Powered Electricity Generation in the United States and the Mid-Atlantic Highlands.
Jesse Ausubel, noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher, and Director for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, recently published a brief essay, Renewable and Nuclear Heresies in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Vol. 1, No.3, 2007 (http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf). He discusses the importance of conserving important natural habitats on land and the oceans, shows the intrusive nature of renewable energy projects, and summarizes the continuing per capita decline in the use of carbon for energy.
Britain’s David White wrote Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Estimating the Potential Contribution from Wind-Power, commissioned and published by the Renewable Energy Foundation, December 2004: www.windaction.org/documents/225 . It is a thorough, beautifully reasoned analysis of the limitations of industrial wind as a source of energy and as a method of reducing CO2 emissions.
Tom Adam’s Review of Wind Power Results in Ontario: May to October 2006 published in Energy Probe, November 15, 2006: . Adams is executive director of Energy Probe, an independent consumer and environmental research team in Canada. He provides a detailed analysis that reports accurately about the subject, despite Energy Probe’s active support of industrial wind development.
E.ON Netz GmbH Wind Report, 2004: www.ref.org.uk/pages/press/061004.html...REPORT.
E.ON Netz GmbH Wind Report, 2005: www.ref.org.uk/images/pdfs/eon.2005. These reports provide the most comprehensive summary of the way in which extensive wind facilities affect grid operations in Germany.
National Wind Watch: (www.wind-watch.org) was the first nation-wide organization dedicated to understanding industrial wind issues, in the process gathering thousands of articles and news stories about the industry, and then providing informed interpretations for the public’s edification and education. Many newer organizations stand on NWW’s shoulders. Now the president of National Wind Watch, Eric Rosenbloom is a science writer who lives in Vermont. He also maintains perhaps the nation’s best wind blog: http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com, as well as the website, Industrial Wind Energy Opposition: www.aweo.org, which contains a cornucopia of facts and research about the subject.
Industrial Wind Action Group: www.windaction.org is dedicated to providing educational material to communities and government officials in order to enable better public policy. The site contains over 6,500 items comprised of news articles, opinion pieces, research, photos and quotes pertinent to industrial wind energy. The organization’s executive director is Lisa Linowes, a New Hampshire resident concerned about providing, among other issues, the best consumer value for alternate energy sources.
Jon Boone wrote three major essays over the last two years that appear on his website: www.stopillwind.org, one of the first websites to feature the problems with industrial wind in the eastern United States. Start with The Aesthetic Dissonance of Industrial Wind Machines (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=Downloads), which was published in Contemporary Aesthetics on September 28, 2005. The Wayward Wind (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=WaywardWind), a speech delivered in June, 2006 to the citizens of Wyoming County, New York, and, in January, 2007, Less for More: The Rube Goldberg Nature of Industrial Wind Development (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=WaywardWind) will be published next Spring by McGraw-Hill in an anthology of essays entitled, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues, edited by Thomas Easton.
Also note the Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Wind Industry Makes for Projects in the Eastern United States: www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=topten_intro. Detailed debunking follows.
For those interested in a comprehensive analysis of the issue vis a vis a regulatory wind hearing, consult Jon Boone’s Maryland Public Service Commission testimony (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=Downloads) as an intervenor in the Synergic Wind case, including his Responses to a variety of Data Requests and his Appeal to the Proposed Order of the Hearing Examiner.
Both his speech tonight in Westfield, Industrial Wind: A Bill of Goods and his introductory remarks at the League of Women’s Voters wind debate in Fredonia, will also soon appear on stopillwind.
Life Under a Windplant, Jon Boone’s documentary about the Meyersdale, PA wind facility, which he produced and directed with David Beaudoin, can now be seen in three parts on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&mode=related&search= . It features how the wind plant affects the lives of the people in the community and shows the sights and sounds that emanate from 375-foot tall wind turbines sited atop surrounding ridgetops.
Introductory remarks at a League of Women Voters - Oct 17, 2007 Jon Boone
As an artist and environmentalist who values aesthetics and the methods of science—and wants an effective energy policy, I’ve looked for evidence substantiating claims made for wind technology by those who would profit from it, financially and ideologically. By evidence, I mean real world encounters with actual performance to see if its key premises are true. Of all people, environmentalists should embrace the skepticism of science, rather than be seduced by deceits of fashion. They should not confuse the trappings of science—the engineering grandeur of a huge wind turbine, for example—with the real work of science, which would insist upon verifying the machine’s performance. My values are green; I believe we should conserve, minimizing our footprint on the earth, not intruding on it with bombast and self-serving incivility. Although I understand why well-intentioned people support the wind industry, I’m mindful the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Environmental history is the chronicle of how adverse consequences flowed from the uninformed decisions of the well intentioned.
Weren’t we enthralled by images of the Grand Coolee and Hoover Dams a few generations ago? Because it generated bulk levels of reliable, responsive power, hydroelectricity became the symbol for clean, sustainable energy during much of the twentieth century; it still provides New York with 20% of its electricity generation. But it’s now clear that renewable hydro is so environmentally treacherous, responsible for degrading millions of acres of invaluable watersheds, that no one outside China and some third world countries is building new hydro plants; many are being dismantled across the continent, at taxpayer expense.
The renewable du jour is wind. Because it’s perceived as non-polluting, it has become popular with the public and politicians. However, claims it will help end our reliance on fossil fuels, be competitive with coal, and make air cleaner and the country safer are sound bites Enron honed years ago to sell wind technology as an environment-coated tax avoidance scheme for corporations in search of increased bottom lines. Wind energy is a sideshow technology with great potential for mainline environmental harm.
Wind plants produce little energy relative to demand and what little they do produce is incompatible with the standards of reliability and cost characteristic of our electricity system. Mathematically, it would take more than 2,000 2.0MW turbines spread over 400 miles to equal the average annual output of one 1600 MW coal farm, although, operationally, it would take many more than this. Because they’re not reliable, they have virtually no capacity value, which is critical, since the whole point of the modern grid is that one can count on power precisely when it’s needed. A recent analysis of over 7000 German wind turbines showed that, more than half the time, they produced less than 11% of their designed potential. Therefore, they can’t replace existing dependable coal plants or obviate the need for more as demand increases —or even augment power during critical times of peak demand. Ironically, as more wind installations are added, almost equal conventional generation must also come on line for grid security. Crucially important: Because of the inherently random variations of the wind and the nature of grid operations, wind technology will not reduce meaningful levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which is its reason for being.
The grid deploys a combination of nuclear, hydro, coal and natural gas generators to produce capacity—controllable, steady, reliable power—precisely matching fluctuating demand second-by-second. Wind energy is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. The challenge is how to integrate the square peg of firm reliability with the round hole of wind’s fluttering caprice. As it skitters unbidden on and off the grid, like sandpipers at the beach, wind is indistinguishable from demand fluctuations: when it appears, it’s equivalent to people turning off their appliances; when it departs, it’s like people turning the lights back on. But the fluctuations of wind are much greater than those from demand --and much less predictable. At small levels of wind penetration, grid operators must maintain flexible rapid start generators—the spinning reserves used to balance demand flux—to also follow and balance the additional flux of wind energy, for desultory wind can’t be loosed on the grid by itself. The larger the wind penetration into the grid, the greater need for the spinning reserves as the wind energy bounces around both slowly and quickly. Wind integration is Rube Goldbergesque, costly in dollars and increased greenhouse gases.
Given its rapid fluctuations, wind energy will not displace slowly responsive large coal and nuclear plants, as many believe, but rather rapidly responsive plants like hydro and natural gas, and be balanced by them as well. If wind displaces hydro, there will be no carbon savings—and very little carbon savings if it displaces natural gas, which burns 60% cleaner than coal. And if wind flux were balanced by natural gas, any carbon emissions saving would be negligible. Just the torrent of CO2 alone given off in the making of gigantic concrete footpads for each turbine would take years to offset.
No independent, transparent measurement has demonstrated system-wide CO2 emissions abatement due to wind technology anywhere in the world.. Currently, the United States has over 17,500 wind turbines in 26 states, more than two-thirds built in the first five years of this decade. Altogether, these machines produce less that one-fourth of 1% of the nation’s electricity supply. California’s arsenal of over 13,000 turbines contributes about 1% of that state’s actual generation; last year, California’s carbon emissions increased 2% over those in 2005. Europe’s wind poster child, Denmark, has built nearly 6,000 turbines that, on paper, provide 20% of that tiny country’s installed capacity. But, for grid security reasons, 84% of Denmark’s actual wind production is shunted to other countries, replacing hydro—with no carbon savings. According to a prominent Danish energy official, “Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions.” Germany, now the world’s wind leader with nearly 20,000 turbines producing about 5% of its annual generation, must add additional conventional generating capacity to integrate the fidgety wind energy. But it achieves no real CO2savings; last year Germany increased them by .6%. There are reasons public subsidies for wind technology are not indexed to reductions in carbon emissions.
Wind is not David to coal’s Goliath. It’s a foster sibling to coal, related because the same corporations that own most of the nation’s wind plants also own and control the majority of the nation’s coal operations. Contrary to public perception, wind technology has been around since the Bronze Age, and over the last 25 years has received more than $1 billion of public financing, making it, on a per kilowatt hour basis, the country’s most heavily subsidized form of industrial electricity. Enron owned the country’s largest stock of wind facilities before selling them to General Electric. Today, G.E., along with the nation’s third largest utility, Florida Power and Light, BP, and AES, control most of the nation’s wind projects—as well as most of the country’s dirtiest burning coal facilities. They use wind’s unearned environmental cachet as public relations while cashing in on wind’s lucrative subsidies. What’s particularly galling is their practice of using wind’s cap-and-trade and renewable energy credits—provided by the most cynical or gullible of politicians—to avoid the cost of cleaning up their coal plants. These politicians give the appearance of challenging Big Coal when in reality they're reinforcing it, especially since more wind facilities very likely will result in more coal plants. Although conventional power is also heavily subsidized, these subsidies result in reliable service. The subsidies for industrial wind, which can provide virtually no capacity to the system while delivering energy in fits and starts, will be used to make ineffective and uneconomical technology falsely appear to be effective and economical.
My opposition to this technology is a considered response to the fact it doesn’t work very well, even as an occasional fuel substitute, certainly not commensurate with the damage it causes and the monies it drains from rate and taxpayers. Like many celebrities born of spin, it’s famous for being famous, not for its actual performance. Chautauqua County could absorb 500 wind turbines, each more than 400 feet tall and spread over 100 miles, with blades spinning 175 mph at their tips. Annually, these might provide about 250MW of highly sporadic energy to the state’s 37,000MW installed grid total, unable, however, to replace any conventional power, including coal, since they will have virtually no capacity value, and with no hard evidence they would save any carbon emissions. Their massive footprint will transform the landscape, changing its appearance from natural views into those dominated by gargantuan industrial machinery. How green is this? In the process, nearby property values will plummet while a number of residents will experience relentless noise, at times exceeding the legal limit. The county will likely receive only a fraction of promised revenues and taxes, and it’s extremely unlikely the wind facilities will employ more than a handful of county residents or union workers. And like all tall structures that are lit at night, they will kill thousands of migrating birds and especially bats. All of these problems have been well documented—many of them admitted in “confidential” property leases that exculpate wind companies for creating them. This is dystopia, a nightmare, and not effective energy policy.
Chautauqua County represents low hanging fruit for distant wind capital seeking to exploit the people and resources of rural America, made even more shameless by the Orwellian charge that those who oppose its intrusions are NIMBYs when the corporate shills themselves live hundreds of miles away. If industrial wind succeeds here, it will be because the gullible are led by the pretentious, a process made easier because of a lack of accountability, no penalty for lying, and the pervasive vacuity of our political culture.
Weren’t we enthralled by images of the Grand Coolee and Hoover Dams a few generations ago? Because it generated bulk levels of reliable, responsive power, hydroelectricity became the symbol for clean, sustainable energy during much of the twentieth century; it still provides New York with 20% of its electricity generation. But it’s now clear that renewable hydro is so environmentally treacherous, responsible for degrading millions of acres of invaluable watersheds, that no one outside China and some third world countries is building new hydro plants; many are being dismantled across the continent, at taxpayer expense.
The renewable du jour is wind. Because it’s perceived as non-polluting, it has become popular with the public and politicians. However, claims it will help end our reliance on fossil fuels, be competitive with coal, and make air cleaner and the country safer are sound bites Enron honed years ago to sell wind technology as an environment-coated tax avoidance scheme for corporations in search of increased bottom lines. Wind energy is a sideshow technology with great potential for mainline environmental harm.
Wind plants produce little energy relative to demand and what little they do produce is incompatible with the standards of reliability and cost characteristic of our electricity system. Mathematically, it would take more than 2,000 2.0MW turbines spread over 400 miles to equal the average annual output of one 1600 MW coal farm, although, operationally, it would take many more than this. Because they’re not reliable, they have virtually no capacity value, which is critical, since the whole point of the modern grid is that one can count on power precisely when it’s needed. A recent analysis of over 7000 German wind turbines showed that, more than half the time, they produced less than 11% of their designed potential. Therefore, they can’t replace existing dependable coal plants or obviate the need for more as demand increases —or even augment power during critical times of peak demand. Ironically, as more wind installations are added, almost equal conventional generation must also come on line for grid security. Crucially important: Because of the inherently random variations of the wind and the nature of grid operations, wind technology will not reduce meaningful levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which is its reason for being.
The grid deploys a combination of nuclear, hydro, coal and natural gas generators to produce capacity—controllable, steady, reliable power—precisely matching fluctuating demand second-by-second. Wind energy is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. The challenge is how to integrate the square peg of firm reliability with the round hole of wind’s fluttering caprice. As it skitters unbidden on and off the grid, like sandpipers at the beach, wind is indistinguishable from demand fluctuations: when it appears, it’s equivalent to people turning off their appliances; when it departs, it’s like people turning the lights back on. But the fluctuations of wind are much greater than those from demand --and much less predictable. At small levels of wind penetration, grid operators must maintain flexible rapid start generators—the spinning reserves used to balance demand flux—to also follow and balance the additional flux of wind energy, for desultory wind can’t be loosed on the grid by itself. The larger the wind penetration into the grid, the greater need for the spinning reserves as the wind energy bounces around both slowly and quickly. Wind integration is Rube Goldbergesque, costly in dollars and increased greenhouse gases.
Given its rapid fluctuations, wind energy will not displace slowly responsive large coal and nuclear plants, as many believe, but rather rapidly responsive plants like hydro and natural gas, and be balanced by them as well. If wind displaces hydro, there will be no carbon savings—and very little carbon savings if it displaces natural gas, which burns 60% cleaner than coal. And if wind flux were balanced by natural gas, any carbon emissions saving would be negligible. Just the torrent of CO2 alone given off in the making of gigantic concrete footpads for each turbine would take years to offset.
No independent, transparent measurement has demonstrated system-wide CO2 emissions abatement due to wind technology anywhere in the world.. Currently, the United States has over 17,500 wind turbines in 26 states, more than two-thirds built in the first five years of this decade. Altogether, these machines produce less that one-fourth of 1% of the nation’s electricity supply. California’s arsenal of over 13,000 turbines contributes about 1% of that state’s actual generation; last year, California’s carbon emissions increased 2% over those in 2005. Europe’s wind poster child, Denmark, has built nearly 6,000 turbines that, on paper, provide 20% of that tiny country’s installed capacity. But, for grid security reasons, 84% of Denmark’s actual wind production is shunted to other countries, replacing hydro—with no carbon savings. According to a prominent Danish energy official, “Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions.” Germany, now the world’s wind leader with nearly 20,000 turbines producing about 5% of its annual generation, must add additional conventional generating capacity to integrate the fidgety wind energy. But it achieves no real CO2savings; last year Germany increased them by .6%. There are reasons public subsidies for wind technology are not indexed to reductions in carbon emissions.
Wind is not David to coal’s Goliath. It’s a foster sibling to coal, related because the same corporations that own most of the nation’s wind plants also own and control the majority of the nation’s coal operations. Contrary to public perception, wind technology has been around since the Bronze Age, and over the last 25 years has received more than $1 billion of public financing, making it, on a per kilowatt hour basis, the country’s most heavily subsidized form of industrial electricity. Enron owned the country’s largest stock of wind facilities before selling them to General Electric. Today, G.E., along with the nation’s third largest utility, Florida Power and Light, BP, and AES, control most of the nation’s wind projects—as well as most of the country’s dirtiest burning coal facilities. They use wind’s unearned environmental cachet as public relations while cashing in on wind’s lucrative subsidies. What’s particularly galling is their practice of using wind’s cap-and-trade and renewable energy credits—provided by the most cynical or gullible of politicians—to avoid the cost of cleaning up their coal plants. These politicians give the appearance of challenging Big Coal when in reality they're reinforcing it, especially since more wind facilities very likely will result in more coal plants. Although conventional power is also heavily subsidized, these subsidies result in reliable service. The subsidies for industrial wind, which can provide virtually no capacity to the system while delivering energy in fits and starts, will be used to make ineffective and uneconomical technology falsely appear to be effective and economical.
My opposition to this technology is a considered response to the fact it doesn’t work very well, even as an occasional fuel substitute, certainly not commensurate with the damage it causes and the monies it drains from rate and taxpayers. Like many celebrities born of spin, it’s famous for being famous, not for its actual performance. Chautauqua County could absorb 500 wind turbines, each more than 400 feet tall and spread over 100 miles, with blades spinning 175 mph at their tips. Annually, these might provide about 250MW of highly sporadic energy to the state’s 37,000MW installed grid total, unable, however, to replace any conventional power, including coal, since they will have virtually no capacity value, and with no hard evidence they would save any carbon emissions. Their massive footprint will transform the landscape, changing its appearance from natural views into those dominated by gargantuan industrial machinery. How green is this? In the process, nearby property values will plummet while a number of residents will experience relentless noise, at times exceeding the legal limit. The county will likely receive only a fraction of promised revenues and taxes, and it’s extremely unlikely the wind facilities will employ more than a handful of county residents or union workers. And like all tall structures that are lit at night, they will kill thousands of migrating birds and especially bats. All of these problems have been well documented—many of them admitted in “confidential” property leases that exculpate wind companies for creating them. This is dystopia, a nightmare, and not effective energy policy.
Chautauqua County represents low hanging fruit for distant wind capital seeking to exploit the people and resources of rural America, made even more shameless by the Orwellian charge that those who oppose its intrusions are NIMBYs when the corporate shills themselves live hundreds of miles away. If industrial wind succeeds here, it will be because the gullible are led by the pretentious, a process made easier because of a lack of accountability, no penalty for lying, and the pervasive vacuity of our political culture.
INDUSTRIAL WIND: A BILL OF GOODS by Jon Boone
Of all people, environmentalists should embrace the skepticism of science, rather than be seduced by deceits of fashion. They should not confuse the trappings of science (the engineering grandeur of a huge wind turbine, for example), with the real work of science, which would insist upon verifying the machine's performance in a real world setting.
My values are green; I believe we should conserve: minimize our footprint on the earth, not intrude on it with bombast and self-serving incivility.
Although I understand why well-intentioned people support the wind industry, I'm mindful that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Environmental history is the chronicle of how adverse consequences flowed from the uninformed decisions of the well intentioned.
(CLICK below link to read entire speech)
IndustrialWInd-ABillofGoods.pdf
My values are green; I believe we should conserve: minimize our footprint on the earth, not intrude on it with bombast and self-serving incivility.
Although I understand why well-intentioned people support the wind industry, I'm mindful that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Environmental history is the chronicle of how adverse consequences flowed from the uninformed decisions of the well intentioned.
(CLICK below link to read entire speech)
IndustrialWInd-ABillofGoods.pdf
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
IRS Creates Safe Harbor for Wind Energy "Flip" Transactions
The Internal Revenue Service has published a revenue procedure establishing a safe harbor with respect to allocation of production tax credits from wind energy facilities. Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) provides for a renewable electricity production credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced by the taxpayer from a qualified energy resource, including wind, at a qualified facility and sold to an unrelated person during the taxable year. The credit continues for 10 years from the time the facility was originally placed in service. Wind energy projects frequently are owned and operated by LLCs formed between a wind developer and one or more investors interested in earning returns from operating cash flow and IRC ? 45 credits from the project. The IRS previously had announced that it would no longer rule on any issues for partnerships (LLCs generally are treated as partnerships for federal tax purposes) claiming the IRC ? 45 production tax credit.
The newly issued revenue procedure, Rev Proc 2007-65, establishes a safe harbor for the allocation of a partnership’s IRC § 45 production tax credits from wind. It does not apply to any other tax credits, or to the allocation of a partnership’s IRC § 45 credits from other qualified energy resources. If "each and every requirement" of the safe harbor is satisfied the IRS will respect the allocation of IRC § 45 credits in the operating agreement.
In brief, the safe harbor sets forth eight primary requirements:
Minimum Interest. The developer must have an interest of at least 1 percent in each material item of partnership income, gain, loss, deduction and credit at all times during the existence of the partnership. Each investor must have an interest in each material item of partnership income and gain, at all times while it owns an interest in the partnership, at least equal to 5 percent of the interest it will have in the year in which its interest is largest.
Investor’s Minimum Investment. Each investor must maintain, as long as it owns its partnership interest, an investment at least equal to 20 percent of the sum of its fixed capital contributions pursuant to the operating agreement, plus reasonably anticipated contingent capital contributions. The required minimum can be reduced by distributions of project cash flow or in connection with a sale pursuant to the exercise of an option as described in 4 below. Stop-loss arrangements are not permitted.
75% Fixed Obligation. At least 75 percent of an investor’s total capital contributions must be fixed and determinable obligations that are not contingent either in amount or in certainty of payment.
Only Fair Market Value Purchase Options. The exercise price of any call option held by the developer, an investor or any related party to purchase the project or any interest in the partnership must be at fair market value as determined on the date of exercise of the option. In the case of an option held by the developer or a related party, the option may not be exercisable earlier than five years after the qualified facility is placed in service. Special limitations are provided with respect to the effect of certain contractual arrangements on value for this purpose.
No Put Rights. The partnership may not have a right to require any party to buy any or all of the project, and an investor may not have a right to require any party to buy its interest in the partnership.
No Wind Guarantee. There can be no guarantee to an investor of any allocation of credit. Among other things, this means that the partnership must bear the risk that the wind does not blow as predicted. So long as the partnership or the investor pays the premium or cost, however, the partnership or the investor may acquire a weather derivative contract from an unrelated insurance company or other unrelated party. A long-term power purchase agreement with an unrelated party would not be a guarantee for this purpose.
No Developer Loans or Loan Gaurantees. Neither the developer nor a related party may loan any funds to an investor to invest in the partnership, or may guarantee any debt connected to that investment.
Proper Allocation. The IRC § 45 credit must be allocated in accordance with Treasury Regulation § 1.704-1(b)(4)(ii). Among other requirements, this means that the credit must be allocated the same way gross income from sale of electricity is allocated.
The new revenue procedure includes two helpful examples. The examples appear to clarify several issues, including the fact that a 0 percent interest in cash distributions for a period of time does not violate the safe harbor, and the fact that flips in sharing ratios do not violate the safe harbor.
If you have any questions about this alert or if you would like our assistance in connection with this matter, please contact Ashley Henry, Energy Industry Liaison.
The newly issued revenue procedure, Rev Proc 2007-65, establishes a safe harbor for the allocation of a partnership’s IRC § 45 production tax credits from wind. It does not apply to any other tax credits, or to the allocation of a partnership’s IRC § 45 credits from other qualified energy resources. If "each and every requirement" of the safe harbor is satisfied the IRS will respect the allocation of IRC § 45 credits in the operating agreement.
In brief, the safe harbor sets forth eight primary requirements:
Minimum Interest. The developer must have an interest of at least 1 percent in each material item of partnership income, gain, loss, deduction and credit at all times during the existence of the partnership. Each investor must have an interest in each material item of partnership income and gain, at all times while it owns an interest in the partnership, at least equal to 5 percent of the interest it will have in the year in which its interest is largest.
Investor’s Minimum Investment. Each investor must maintain, as long as it owns its partnership interest, an investment at least equal to 20 percent of the sum of its fixed capital contributions pursuant to the operating agreement, plus reasonably anticipated contingent capital contributions. The required minimum can be reduced by distributions of project cash flow or in connection with a sale pursuant to the exercise of an option as described in 4 below. Stop-loss arrangements are not permitted.
75% Fixed Obligation. At least 75 percent of an investor’s total capital contributions must be fixed and determinable obligations that are not contingent either in amount or in certainty of payment.
Only Fair Market Value Purchase Options. The exercise price of any call option held by the developer, an investor or any related party to purchase the project or any interest in the partnership must be at fair market value as determined on the date of exercise of the option. In the case of an option held by the developer or a related party, the option may not be exercisable earlier than five years after the qualified facility is placed in service. Special limitations are provided with respect to the effect of certain contractual arrangements on value for this purpose.
No Put Rights. The partnership may not have a right to require any party to buy any or all of the project, and an investor may not have a right to require any party to buy its interest in the partnership.
No Wind Guarantee. There can be no guarantee to an investor of any allocation of credit. Among other things, this means that the partnership must bear the risk that the wind does not blow as predicted. So long as the partnership or the investor pays the premium or cost, however, the partnership or the investor may acquire a weather derivative contract from an unrelated insurance company or other unrelated party. A long-term power purchase agreement with an unrelated party would not be a guarantee for this purpose.
No Developer Loans or Loan Gaurantees. Neither the developer nor a related party may loan any funds to an investor to invest in the partnership, or may guarantee any debt connected to that investment.
Proper Allocation. The IRC § 45 credit must be allocated in accordance with Treasury Regulation § 1.704-1(b)(4)(ii). Among other requirements, this means that the credit must be allocated the same way gross income from sale of electricity is allocated.
The new revenue procedure includes two helpful examples. The examples appear to clarify several issues, including the fact that a 0 percent interest in cash distributions for a period of time does not violate the safe harbor, and the fact that flips in sharing ratios do not violate the safe harbor.
If you have any questions about this alert or if you would like our assistance in connection with this matter, please contact Ashley Henry, Energy Industry Liaison.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
NPR radio interviews today in Ellenburg Wind Turbine area
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/audio/71023windlift.mp3
Lifting giant windmills into the sky
Few issues have generated as much controversy as wind power. Supporters love the green energy and the economic boost they bring to struggling rural communities. Detractors hate the noise, the view, and what they call deceptive claims made by big corporations. Tomorrow, we look at the challenges facing local town boards stuck in the middle of the debate. Today, an upclose look at the giants themselves, and two neighbors’ reactions. Noble Environmental Power has already erected 60 of 122 turbines in the western Clinton County towns of Clinton and Ellenburg. David Sommerstein was there as turbine #6 went up, and has our story.
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/archive.php?id=10178
Lifting giant windmills into the sky
Few issues have generated as much controversy as wind power. Supporters love the green energy and the economic boost they bring to struggling rural communities. Detractors hate the noise, the view, and what they call deceptive claims made by big corporations. Tomorrow, we look at the challenges facing local town boards stuck in the middle of the debate. Today, an upclose look at the giants themselves, and two neighbors’ reactions. Noble Environmental Power has already erected 60 of 122 turbines in the western Clinton County towns of Clinton and Ellenburg. David Sommerstein was there as turbine #6 went up, and has our story.
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/archive.php?id=10178
Governor Spitzer October 23, 2007 Letter by Donna Marmuscak
Dear Mr. Spitzer,
How can you be so worried about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and keeping track of them, when our state is being overtaken by foreign companies who are destroying our environment, health, property values, source of income,(tourism, hunting etc.) and more, by allowing them to put up false towers called wind turbines under the guise of creating electricity? Not everyone here is a dumb country bumpkin and will not succumb to governmental and corporate corruption and greed. Iberdrola is trying to worm its way into NYSEG so that they will be able to control more of the state and national electrical grid. I am sure they are in cahoots with the other wind power companies, just waiting for projects to be completed so that they can take over the whole mess.
It is only a matter of time before they start using eminent domain and steal our property. A public outcry prevented the sale of our ports to a foreign entity. When New York State residents start paying exorbitant electrical rates and discover that they have been sold down the river to foreign companies who are gleefully lining their pockets with governmental approval, I can only imagine the firestorm that will erupt!!
If local farmers would advertise available work at decent paying wages, I know many desperate teenagers who would love a job, especially since the laws prevent so many of them from working in gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants etc because of alcohol and tobacco sales. If large local farms would not just have to mention the fact to certain people that they needed some Mexicans and they would show up on their doorstep the next morning ( an actual comment made to Randy Kuhl in public), We would not have so many here. I have nothing personal against them but we need the jobs for out own.
Donna Marmuscak-Tuscarora, New York
How can you be so worried about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and keeping track of them, when our state is being overtaken by foreign companies who are destroying our environment, health, property values, source of income,(tourism, hunting etc.) and more, by allowing them to put up false towers called wind turbines under the guise of creating electricity? Not everyone here is a dumb country bumpkin and will not succumb to governmental and corporate corruption and greed. Iberdrola is trying to worm its way into NYSEG so that they will be able to control more of the state and national electrical grid. I am sure they are in cahoots with the other wind power companies, just waiting for projects to be completed so that they can take over the whole mess.
It is only a matter of time before they start using eminent domain and steal our property. A public outcry prevented the sale of our ports to a foreign entity. When New York State residents start paying exorbitant electrical rates and discover that they have been sold down the river to foreign companies who are gleefully lining their pockets with governmental approval, I can only imagine the firestorm that will erupt!!
If local farmers would advertise available work at decent paying wages, I know many desperate teenagers who would love a job, especially since the laws prevent so many of them from working in gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants etc because of alcohol and tobacco sales. If large local farms would not just have to mention the fact to certain people that they needed some Mexicans and they would show up on their doorstep the next morning ( an actual comment made to Randy Kuhl in public), We would not have so many here. I have nothing personal against them but we need the jobs for out own.
Donna Marmuscak-Tuscarora, New York
Monday, October 22, 2007
Christopher B. Vaughan photo tour of Cohocton UPC Wind Turbine project
Dear Friends and/or Soon-to-be-Enemies,
Today Jim Fitzgibbons and I jumped in a plane and did a photo tour of the Cohocton Turbine sites as well as the Wind Farm built just west of Letchworth Park near the town of Pike. Jim took around 70 pictures which we will be sharing with you soon. I counted about 60 turbines near Pike. The Cohocton site seems to have around 16 sites with the concrete foundation poured in 10 of them.
In addition, Jim attended the last Jerusalem town board meeting and to sum it up, these guys have no clue as to the detriment these turbines will be.
I propose:
-Spread the word and get out the vote this November 6 to vote against anyone for the turbines. We have time to make a difference. Call the candidates. Flood them with telephone calls and make this an issue! Find out what their commitment is. Niel Simmons is FOR! Daryl Jones says there are no health issues! I have yet to hear Ray Stewart's or Loretta Hopkins' views. Call them!
-Let's have a get together of anti-turbine people and consolidate our efforts against these things. We need to share time at town board meetings and figure ways to get the word out. Even non Jerusalem residents should attend because your town may be next! I'm not so ignorant as to think that pro-turbine people will not attend. Talk to everyone you can and simply ask, "how do feel about wind turbines in your town". I bet 80% will say they need more info. Get them to this meeting. I will work on a time and place and let you know. Any feedback on convenient times is welcome.
-With enough signatures we can get this issue to be put to the public as a referendum. I am looking into that.
I will leave you with this. Those Cohocton turbines will be visible for 30 miles or more. As I was flying over them I could line-of-site my vision to Naples, Wayland, Dansville, Springwater, Cohocton as well as hills for miles. I ask, What right does a group of just 5 individuals have to pollute the skies and vision of every town in a 30 mile radius!? Turbines in Jerusalem will be visible in Ovid! We have a duty to protect the beauty and integrity of our lakes and hills (PLURAL) for all residents of and visitors to the Finger Lakes.
Christopher B. Vaughan
Today Jim Fitzgibbons and I jumped in a plane and did a photo tour of the Cohocton Turbine sites as well as the Wind Farm built just west of Letchworth Park near the town of Pike. Jim took around 70 pictures which we will be sharing with you soon. I counted about 60 turbines near Pike. The Cohocton site seems to have around 16 sites with the concrete foundation poured in 10 of them.
In addition, Jim attended the last Jerusalem town board meeting and to sum it up, these guys have no clue as to the detriment these turbines will be.
I propose:
-Spread the word and get out the vote this November 6 to vote against anyone for the turbines. We have time to make a difference. Call the candidates. Flood them with telephone calls and make this an issue! Find out what their commitment is. Niel Simmons is FOR! Daryl Jones says there are no health issues! I have yet to hear Ray Stewart's or Loretta Hopkins' views. Call them!
-Let's have a get together of anti-turbine people and consolidate our efforts against these things. We need to share time at town board meetings and figure ways to get the word out. Even non Jerusalem residents should attend because your town may be next! I'm not so ignorant as to think that pro-turbine people will not attend. Talk to everyone you can and simply ask, "how do feel about wind turbines in your town". I bet 80% will say they need more info. Get them to this meeting. I will work on a time and place and let you know. Any feedback on convenient times is welcome.
-With enough signatures we can get this issue to be put to the public as a referendum. I am looking into that.
I will leave you with this. Those Cohocton turbines will be visible for 30 miles or more. As I was flying over them I could line-of-site my vision to Naples, Wayland, Dansville, Springwater, Cohocton as well as hills for miles. I ask, What right does a group of just 5 individuals have to pollute the skies and vision of every town in a 30 mile radius!? Turbines in Jerusalem will be visible in Ovid! We have a duty to protect the beauty and integrity of our lakes and hills (PLURAL) for all residents of and visitors to the Finger Lakes.
Christopher B. Vaughan
Green Power Pseudo-Environmentalism
1%20Whole%20Foods%20Wind%20Energy%20Pseudo%20environmentalism.pdf
Dear Mr. Ryan,
Perhaps you and your colleagues -- all of whom are living on our tax dollars -- should spend a little time in objective analysis of "green energy" purchases. I'm attaching an analysis of Whole Foods Markets December 2005 decision to buy credits for electricity generated from wind. Everything in it applies to the organizations 2007 purchases, except that a few more wind turbines will be needed..
Three of the interesting conclusions from the analysis:
" "109 huge (32+ story, 350+ foot), low electricity producing wind turbines will be needed to produce the 458,000,000 kWh of "wind generated" electricity that Whole Foods has (in theory) purchased."
" "$1 million spent for energy efficient light bulbs would avoid the use of 171,550,000 kWh of electricity over 5 years -- which is more than 3 times the 56,064,000 kWh of electricity that a $1,000,000 wind turbine might be able to produce over 20 years!"
" "Like the leaders in other organizations that have undertaken similar pseudo-environmental actions, it appears that Whole Foods executives thought only about the favorable PR benefits they would enjoy, while failing to consider the adverse impacts of their action."
It has become increasingly apparent that you folks now in government have:
a. Forgotten how to do objective benefit cost analysis.
b. Apparently have no ability to tell the difference between facts and blatant propaganda.
c. Chosen to ignore adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic or property value impacts of your favorite energy solutions -- as long as they don't affect you; i.e., not in YOUR back yard (NIYBY).
Glenn Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Dear Mr. Ryan,
Perhaps you and your colleagues -- all of whom are living on our tax dollars -- should spend a little time in objective analysis of "green energy" purchases. I'm attaching an analysis of Whole Foods Markets December 2005 decision to buy credits for electricity generated from wind. Everything in it applies to the organizations 2007 purchases, except that a few more wind turbines will be needed..
Three of the interesting conclusions from the analysis:
" "109 huge (32+ story, 350+ foot), low electricity producing wind turbines will be needed to produce the 458,000,000 kWh of "wind generated" electricity that Whole Foods has (in theory) purchased."
" "$1 million spent for energy efficient light bulbs would avoid the use of 171,550,000 kWh of electricity over 5 years -- which is more than 3 times the 56,064,000 kWh of electricity that a $1,000,000 wind turbine might be able to produce over 20 years!"
" "Like the leaders in other organizations that have undertaken similar pseudo-environmental actions, it appears that Whole Foods executives thought only about the favorable PR benefits they would enjoy, while failing to consider the adverse impacts of their action."
It has become increasingly apparent that you folks now in government have:
a. Forgotten how to do objective benefit cost analysis.
b. Apparently have no ability to tell the difference between facts and blatant propaganda.
c. Chosen to ignore adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic or property value impacts of your favorite energy solutions -- as long as they don't affect you; i.e., not in YOUR back yard (NIYBY).
Glenn Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Judith Hall will be the guest on the Eric Massa radio program Sunday, Oct. 21, 2007 - 10:00AM to NOON
Tune in to the WHHO - 1320 AM from 10:00 AM to NOON, Sunday, October 21, 2007.
CWW Treasurer Judith Hall and Refrm Cohocton Candidate for Town of Cohocton Supervisor will be Eric Massa's guest.
Telephone: 607-654-0322 for the call in number to the radion program.
http://hornellradio.com/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3
CWW Treasurer Judith Hall and Refrm Cohocton Candidate for Town of Cohocton Supervisor will be Eric Massa's guest.
Telephone: 607-654-0322 for the call in number to the radion program.
http://hornellradio.com/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3
Global Warming by Tom McClintock
Speech: At the Western Conservative Political Action Conference, October 12, 2007
Global%20Warming.pdf
Global%20Warming.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)