LONDON (SHARECAST) - The private equity arm of JPMorgan Chase has agreed to invest $150m in AIM quoted wind turbine specialist Clipper Windpower.
The money from One Equity Partners will help with the manufacturing, delivery and commissioning of Clipper's 2.5 megawatt (MW) Liberty Turbine into the US wind energy market.
“The investment fortifies Clipper's balance sheet, allows the company to strengthen its core wind turbine business and provides additional working capital to support growth,” said the group.
One Equity will subscribe for around 15.8m shares at the lower of 480p per share and the volume weighted average trading price of the shares over the five business days preceding 4 May.
This will bag Clipper £76m and give One Equity a 12.3% stake in the business. It will also nominate two representatives to Clipper's board.
Completion of the deal is subject to US anti-trust approval and the approval by shareholders at a general meeting on 6 May.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Hamlin first in county to craft wind farm policies
HAMLIN — Town residents will have a chance Thursday to air their grievances over proposed laws to regulate wind turbines.
The town's debate is one that is playing out in communities throughout western New York that are wrestling with the issue of wind power.
In late 2006, wind farm developer Competitive Power Ventures Inc. erected two devices in northwest Hamlin to study whether it would be a good place for a wind farm.
That's when leaders of the 9,000-resident town realized they had no rules to govern where such a farm could go. In March 2007, the board enacted a moratorium on wind farms in order to draft new laws.
"Under the law we have now, all they'd need to put up a wind tower is a height variance and a building permit," said Town Supervisor Dennis Roach.
His community is the first in Monroe County to face pressure from wind developers, and other communities may look to Hamlin's guidelines to establish their own. Northern Hamlin is one of only a handful of places in Monroe County — mostly near the shore of Lake Ontario — where wind power is viable because of abundant available land and a regular supply of wind.
After more than a year of study and consultation with lawyers and town residents, Hamlin's Town Board is getting ready to adopt wind power rules. They would require creating a special zoning district as the only place suitable for towers; minimum distances between towers and residences; studies of how each proposed tower might affect migratory bird and bat populations; and noise restrictions.
"The Town Board has considered all the issues, we've had numerous public hearings and at this point, I consider the regulations as something that protects the town," said Roach.
But some residents disagree, saying the proposal doesn't go far enough, doesn't protect homeowners living near where towers might go and overlooks critical health and safety issues.
"These things (the towers) should never be in a residential area where there are a lot of people, said Paul Lapinski of Redman Road.
Not an approval
The Town Board is not considering any proposals for wind farms right now, although one may be on the horizon. When Competitive Power Ventures put up the meteorological towers to study weather conditions, the company said it might want 40 to 50 commercial turbines in an area roughly bounded by Redman, Cook, Monroe-Orleans County Line and Morton roads.
The project has been taken over by Iberdrola Renewable Energies USA, a subsidiary of the Spanish company Iberdrola, S.A., which calls itself the world's leading wind energy company.
An Iberdrola representative, who did not return a call seeking comment, visited Hamlin earlier this year to extol the virtues of wind power.
Roach said he was certain the company — which has already negotiated turbine site leases with some landowners — will make an official proposal soon after the laws are adopted. Adopting the laws does not approve a wind farm, he said.
"All we are doing is providing the process by which an application for a farm can be considered," said Roach.
Before any tower could be built, developers would first need a zoning variance, then a special use permit for each turbine. And the new law requires environmental studies for each tower regarding birds, traffic, decommissioning, noise, flicker, aesthetics and more.
Too close
Lapinski, a member of the citizen activist Hamlin Preservation Group, doesn't want to look out his windows and see clusters of 400-foot-tall wind turbines. He doesn't want to hear the droning "whump, whump, whump" of the towers when they're generating power. And he doesn't want to sit through backyard picnics while the sun flickers intermittently through spinning turbine blades.
"The town is not listening to the residents. The majority of people who've attended the public meetings aren't in favor of the proposed setbacks — this is about the health, welfare and safety of the people of Hamlin."
Lapinski's group — which has provided the town with testimonials from various experts and complaints from people who live near wind farms — wants even stronger laws.
"I'm not against green power, but other places where they're putting these kinds of farms aren't as populated as Hamlin," he said, noting there are about 120 homes in the area under consideration.
Paul Carr, a professor of engineering management at Cornell University, wrote to Hamlin officials in February about the law's proposed setbacks, which the town would require at a minimum of 1,200 feet from any residence and 600 feet from any roadway or property line.
Carr said those distances are "dangerously inadequate."
He said his conclusion is a simple "matter of physics," when it comes to such issues as ice chunks flinging off of spinning blades or blades breaking. He's calculated that hurled ice could potentially fly as far as 1,700 feet from a tower.
"My opinion is that setbacks for these towers should be at least four times the height of the tower," he said.
But industry group American Wind Energy Association says such fears are overblown.
According to the group, turbines can sense the build up of ice and stop spinning, thereby eliminating ice throw. And, the group asserts, broken blades being thrown by a turbine is "unheard of," given today's "better turbine design and engineering."
Hamlin the first
Hamlin is the first town in Monroe County to catch the eye of wind power developers, although there are other projects completed or under way in New York. Turbines are popping up in areas such as Alabama, Genesee County, and elsewhere in Madison, Lewis, Erie, Clinton and Wyoming counties. Towns in Wayne County are partnering with a wind company.
State officials have set a goal of producing 25 percent of power in the state from renewable energy by 2012. According to AWEA, wind power is generating just over 1 percent of all electricity consumed in the United States, roughly enough to power 4.5 million homes.
Last year alone, enough new turbines went online nationally to account for about a third of all domestic wind power produced, and AWEA expects as many new wind projects in 2008.
The push for wind farms "isn't something that's going to go away," said Lapinski, who hopes for a big turnout at Thursday's public hearing. "If we're going to make these laws, we have to make sure they're done right."
Roach said the Town Board would take two weeks to consider issues raised by residents, then plans to meet to approve a proposal on April 24.
The new laws would go into effect 30 days after approval.
"I really think this will help Hamlin maintain its rural, agricultural environment," said Roach. "We are making the town safer by putting these regulations in effect."
MCDERMOT@DemocratandChronicle.com
The town's debate is one that is playing out in communities throughout western New York that are wrestling with the issue of wind power.
In late 2006, wind farm developer Competitive Power Ventures Inc. erected two devices in northwest Hamlin to study whether it would be a good place for a wind farm.
That's when leaders of the 9,000-resident town realized they had no rules to govern where such a farm could go. In March 2007, the board enacted a moratorium on wind farms in order to draft new laws.
"Under the law we have now, all they'd need to put up a wind tower is a height variance and a building permit," said Town Supervisor Dennis Roach.
His community is the first in Monroe County to face pressure from wind developers, and other communities may look to Hamlin's guidelines to establish their own. Northern Hamlin is one of only a handful of places in Monroe County — mostly near the shore of Lake Ontario — where wind power is viable because of abundant available land and a regular supply of wind.
After more than a year of study and consultation with lawyers and town residents, Hamlin's Town Board is getting ready to adopt wind power rules. They would require creating a special zoning district as the only place suitable for towers; minimum distances between towers and residences; studies of how each proposed tower might affect migratory bird and bat populations; and noise restrictions.
"The Town Board has considered all the issues, we've had numerous public hearings and at this point, I consider the regulations as something that protects the town," said Roach.
But some residents disagree, saying the proposal doesn't go far enough, doesn't protect homeowners living near where towers might go and overlooks critical health and safety issues.
"These things (the towers) should never be in a residential area where there are a lot of people, said Paul Lapinski of Redman Road.
Not an approval
The Town Board is not considering any proposals for wind farms right now, although one may be on the horizon. When Competitive Power Ventures put up the meteorological towers to study weather conditions, the company said it might want 40 to 50 commercial turbines in an area roughly bounded by Redman, Cook, Monroe-Orleans County Line and Morton roads.
The project has been taken over by Iberdrola Renewable Energies USA, a subsidiary of the Spanish company Iberdrola, S.A., which calls itself the world's leading wind energy company.
An Iberdrola representative, who did not return a call seeking comment, visited Hamlin earlier this year to extol the virtues of wind power.
Roach said he was certain the company — which has already negotiated turbine site leases with some landowners — will make an official proposal soon after the laws are adopted. Adopting the laws does not approve a wind farm, he said.
"All we are doing is providing the process by which an application for a farm can be considered," said Roach.
Before any tower could be built, developers would first need a zoning variance, then a special use permit for each turbine. And the new law requires environmental studies for each tower regarding birds, traffic, decommissioning, noise, flicker, aesthetics and more.
Too close
Lapinski, a member of the citizen activist Hamlin Preservation Group, doesn't want to look out his windows and see clusters of 400-foot-tall wind turbines. He doesn't want to hear the droning "whump, whump, whump" of the towers when they're generating power. And he doesn't want to sit through backyard picnics while the sun flickers intermittently through spinning turbine blades.
"The town is not listening to the residents. The majority of people who've attended the public meetings aren't in favor of the proposed setbacks — this is about the health, welfare and safety of the people of Hamlin."
Lapinski's group — which has provided the town with testimonials from various experts and complaints from people who live near wind farms — wants even stronger laws.
"I'm not against green power, but other places where they're putting these kinds of farms aren't as populated as Hamlin," he said, noting there are about 120 homes in the area under consideration.
Paul Carr, a professor of engineering management at Cornell University, wrote to Hamlin officials in February about the law's proposed setbacks, which the town would require at a minimum of 1,200 feet from any residence and 600 feet from any roadway or property line.
Carr said those distances are "dangerously inadequate."
He said his conclusion is a simple "matter of physics," when it comes to such issues as ice chunks flinging off of spinning blades or blades breaking. He's calculated that hurled ice could potentially fly as far as 1,700 feet from a tower.
"My opinion is that setbacks for these towers should be at least four times the height of the tower," he said.
But industry group American Wind Energy Association says such fears are overblown.
According to the group, turbines can sense the build up of ice and stop spinning, thereby eliminating ice throw. And, the group asserts, broken blades being thrown by a turbine is "unheard of," given today's "better turbine design and engineering."
Hamlin the first
Hamlin is the first town in Monroe County to catch the eye of wind power developers, although there are other projects completed or under way in New York. Turbines are popping up in areas such as Alabama, Genesee County, and elsewhere in Madison, Lewis, Erie, Clinton and Wyoming counties. Towns in Wayne County are partnering with a wind company.
State officials have set a goal of producing 25 percent of power in the state from renewable energy by 2012. According to AWEA, wind power is generating just over 1 percent of all electricity consumed in the United States, roughly enough to power 4.5 million homes.
Last year alone, enough new turbines went online nationally to account for about a third of all domestic wind power produced, and AWEA expects as many new wind projects in 2008.
The push for wind farms "isn't something that's going to go away," said Lapinski, who hopes for a big turnout at Thursday's public hearing. "If we're going to make these laws, we have to make sure they're done right."
Roach said the Town Board would take two weeks to consider issues raised by residents, then plans to meet to approve a proposal on April 24.
The new laws would go into effect 30 days after approval.
"I really think this will help Hamlin maintain its rural, agricultural environment," said Roach. "We are making the town safer by putting these regulations in effect."
MCDERMOT@DemocratandChronicle.com
Citizen Power Alliance April 9, 2008 Letter to U.S. Senators - S. 2821, the Clean Energy Act Stimulus
CITIZEN POWER ALLIANCE
Po Box 657, Naples, NY 14512 (585) 534-5581
citizenpoweralliance@gmail.com
RE: S. 2821, the Clean Energy Act Stimulus
April 9, 2008
Dear Senator,
Citizen Power Alliance strongly opposes the inclusion of industrial wind subsidy in this bill. Extension of the investment tax credit (ITC) and providing incentives for an inefficient technology will only cause a further tax burden on the public. The following points are compelling:
1. The original purposes of tax credits for wind energy – i.e., to encourage technology development and commercialization, gain a foothold in energy markets, and are more competitive with older, established energy sources – have been more than satisfied:
• Wind turbines, blades and towers are now produced by multiple commercial suppliers.
• Thousands of turbines have been installed and more have been ordered.
• The prices of traditional energy sources for electric generation – natural gas, coal, oil, uranium -- have increased dramatically since tax credits were first adopted.
2. Other existing federal tax breaks are huge. For example, most “wind farm” equipment is eligible for 5-year 200% declining balance depreciation for tax purposes – which already permitted recovery of 52% of the capital investment in the first 2 tax years and nearly 3/4th in the first 3 tax years. The recently enacted 50% 1st year “bonus” depreciation allowance further accelerates the recovery of capital costs for “wind farms”; i.e., 60% in the 1st tax year and an additional 16% in the 2nd tax year. In either case, a “wind farm” owner has all his equity back in 18 months or less!
3. Numerous other federal and state tax breaks and subsidies are now available for renewable energy.
4. Tax breaks – not environmental or energy benefits -- have become THE principal reason for building “wind farms.”
5. Excessive tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy are:
• Transferring millions of dollars annually from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to a few large corporations (many foreign owned) that own “wind farms.”
• Misdirecting billions in capital investment dollars to energy projects (“wind farms”) that produce very little electricity. The electricity is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produce at night and in winter – not on hot late afternoons in July and August when electricity is needed. Because the output from wind turbines is unreliable, they cannot be counted on at the time of peak demand. They are not a substitute for adding reliable generating capacity to meet growing electricity demand or replace old generating units.
6. Claims of job growth and other economic benefits from investments in renewable energy have been grossly overstated. Results being reported are being driven by unrealistic assumptions, not facts.
7. Claims of environmental benefits have been grossly overstated and adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts have been ignored by the wind industry.
8. Tax breaks and subsidies for renewables further exacerbate the federal deficit situation.
The Citizen Power Alliance is a coalition of independent groups organized to promote sound energy and environmental policy. CPA holds public officials and regulators accountable, while seeking the protection of the public interest.
Eco preservation demands fiscal responsibility and viable technological solutions. Community power requires government transparency and effective industrial regulation. Commerce must balance development and profit with responsible civic stewardship.
Vote NO on S. 2821, the Clean Energy Stimulus Act or eliminate industrial wind from any other legislative bills that provide investment tax credits (ITC).
CITIZEN POWER ALLIANCE http://citizenpoweralliance.org/
Po Box 657, Naples, NY 14512 (585) 534-5581
citizenpoweralliance@gmail.com
RE: S. 2821, the Clean Energy Act Stimulus
April 9, 2008
Dear Senator,
Citizen Power Alliance strongly opposes the inclusion of industrial wind subsidy in this bill. Extension of the investment tax credit (ITC) and providing incentives for an inefficient technology will only cause a further tax burden on the public. The following points are compelling:
1. The original purposes of tax credits for wind energy – i.e., to encourage technology development and commercialization, gain a foothold in energy markets, and are more competitive with older, established energy sources – have been more than satisfied:
• Wind turbines, blades and towers are now produced by multiple commercial suppliers.
• Thousands of turbines have been installed and more have been ordered.
• The prices of traditional energy sources for electric generation – natural gas, coal, oil, uranium -- have increased dramatically since tax credits were first adopted.
2. Other existing federal tax breaks are huge. For example, most “wind farm” equipment is eligible for 5-year 200% declining balance depreciation for tax purposes – which already permitted recovery of 52% of the capital investment in the first 2 tax years and nearly 3/4th in the first 3 tax years. The recently enacted 50% 1st year “bonus” depreciation allowance further accelerates the recovery of capital costs for “wind farms”; i.e., 60% in the 1st tax year and an additional 16% in the 2nd tax year. In either case, a “wind farm” owner has all his equity back in 18 months or less!
3. Numerous other federal and state tax breaks and subsidies are now available for renewable energy.
4. Tax breaks – not environmental or energy benefits -- have become THE principal reason for building “wind farms.”
5. Excessive tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy are:
• Transferring millions of dollars annually from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to a few large corporations (many foreign owned) that own “wind farms.”
• Misdirecting billions in capital investment dollars to energy projects (“wind farms”) that produce very little electricity. The electricity is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produce at night and in winter – not on hot late afternoons in July and August when electricity is needed. Because the output from wind turbines is unreliable, they cannot be counted on at the time of peak demand. They are not a substitute for adding reliable generating capacity to meet growing electricity demand or replace old generating units.
6. Claims of job growth and other economic benefits from investments in renewable energy have been grossly overstated. Results being reported are being driven by unrealistic assumptions, not facts.
7. Claims of environmental benefits have been grossly overstated and adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts have been ignored by the wind industry.
8. Tax breaks and subsidies for renewables further exacerbate the federal deficit situation.
The Citizen Power Alliance is a coalition of independent groups organized to promote sound energy and environmental policy. CPA holds public officials and regulators accountable, while seeking the protection of the public interest.
Eco preservation demands fiscal responsibility and viable technological solutions. Community power requires government transparency and effective industrial regulation. Commerce must balance development and profit with responsible civic stewardship.
Vote NO on S. 2821, the Clean Energy Stimulus Act or eliminate industrial wind from any other legislative bills that provide investment tax credits (ITC).
CITIZEN POWER ALLIANCE http://citizenpoweralliance.org/
U.S. Senate Introduces Bipartisan Renewable Energy Tax Credit Legislation
CWW Friends and Supporters,
Now is the time to contact U.S. Senators to oppose the inclusion of industrial wind subsidies in this bill. STOP THE WIND Investment Tax Credit from being part of any legislation.
United States Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) have introduced the Clean Energy Stimulus Act of 2008. The bill, which has bipartisan support extends the commercial Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and fuel cell projects for eight years and removes the utility exemption.
The bill authored by Ensign and Cantwell will also extend the placed-in-service deadline through 2009 for the Production Tax Credit for geothermal, wind, biomass and hydropower facilities.
(Click to read entire report)
CleanEnergyTaxStimulusActSummary.pdf
Now is the time to contact U.S. Senators to oppose the inclusion of industrial wind subsidies in this bill. STOP THE WIND Investment Tax Credit from being part of any legislation.
United States Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) have introduced the Clean Energy Stimulus Act of 2008. The bill, which has bipartisan support extends the commercial Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and fuel cell projects for eight years and removes the utility exemption.
The bill authored by Ensign and Cantwell will also extend the placed-in-service deadline through 2009 for the Production Tax Credit for geothermal, wind, biomass and hydropower facilities.
(Click to read entire report)
CleanEnergyTaxStimulusActSummary.pdf
Push for ethics reform falls flat by IRENE JAY LIU
More than a year after state leaders passed what they called "landmark" ethics legislation, the commission that is supposed to make sure legislators aren't breaking the law is itself not following the law.
The legislation called for reorganizing the Legislative Ethics Committee into the Legislative Ethics Commission, as well as appointing a nine-member board of legislators and non-legislators, building a Web site and posting generic advisory opinions of the commission to the Web, among other things.
On nearly all fronts, the commission has so far failed to implement the law.
(Click to read entire article)
The legislation called for reorganizing the Legislative Ethics Committee into the Legislative Ethics Commission, as well as appointing a nine-member board of legislators and non-legislators, building a Web site and posting generic advisory opinions of the commission to the Web, among other things.
On nearly all fronts, the commission has so far failed to implement the law.
(Click to read entire article)
State Power Legislation Has Local Municipalities Concerned
New York State’s Article X expired January 1, 2003, forcing power companies and developers to seek permits through local town zoning laws for electric generating projects.
In the North Country, this has been a hot bed topic thanks to several wind farm projects being developed in the area.
Lewis County has one of New York State’s most successful and largest wind farms, Maple Ridge.
Cape Vincent has two proposed wind projects and those have been put on hold multiple times for a lack of zoning regulations specifically pertaining to the construction and location of the wind farms.
The Town of Clayton has a proposed project, Horse Creek Wind Farm, that is currently being researched by independent contractors for environmental and health studies.
Town officials and residents have thrown themselves into researching the pros and cons of the projects, but if Article X is passed local citizens may not have as much of a say in the project’s development.
Article X essentially would allow the state to bypass town zoning laws, creating more of a freeway of access to building power projects.
Clayton Town Supervisor Justin Taylor said that while Article X addresses all power supply companies, not specifically wind farms, it should be up to local governments to decide how to manage proposed projects since they will be the ones who will have to live with them.
“This legislation as it is written right now takes away the zoning authority the local government control of where these power producing plants would be located,” he said.
The NYS Public Service Commission could overrule town zoning regulations that have both stalled and propelled wind farm projects in the area, allowing towns to create necessary ordinance and compile data.
Attorney Mark Gebo, who represents several local governments, said that there would be a provision included in Article X stating that the power companies would have to follow zoning regulations, but to what extent is the question.
“To what extent they follow (zoning laws) and to what extent they will be required to follow them is an open issue, because the legislation is far from final.”
“When you deal with local government, you deal with local people. When you’re dealing with state government, you’re dealing with someone as far away as Albany who you may not be able to reach out and touch,” Justin Taylor concluded.
In the North Country, this has been a hot bed topic thanks to several wind farm projects being developed in the area.
Lewis County has one of New York State’s most successful and largest wind farms, Maple Ridge.
Cape Vincent has two proposed wind projects and those have been put on hold multiple times for a lack of zoning regulations specifically pertaining to the construction and location of the wind farms.
The Town of Clayton has a proposed project, Horse Creek Wind Farm, that is currently being researched by independent contractors for environmental and health studies.
Town officials and residents have thrown themselves into researching the pros and cons of the projects, but if Article X is passed local citizens may not have as much of a say in the project’s development.
Article X essentially would allow the state to bypass town zoning laws, creating more of a freeway of access to building power projects.
Clayton Town Supervisor Justin Taylor said that while Article X addresses all power supply companies, not specifically wind farms, it should be up to local governments to decide how to manage proposed projects since they will be the ones who will have to live with them.
“This legislation as it is written right now takes away the zoning authority the local government control of where these power producing plants would be located,” he said.
The NYS Public Service Commission could overrule town zoning regulations that have both stalled and propelled wind farm projects in the area, allowing towns to create necessary ordinance and compile data.
Attorney Mark Gebo, who represents several local governments, said that there would be a provision included in Article X stating that the power companies would have to follow zoning regulations, but to what extent is the question.
“To what extent they follow (zoning laws) and to what extent they will be required to follow them is an open issue, because the legislation is far from final.”
“When you deal with local government, you deal with local people. When you’re dealing with state government, you’re dealing with someone as far away as Albany who you may not be able to reach out and touch,” Justin Taylor concluded.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Wind - Production Tax Credit - Senator Alexander
Senate%2004%2007%202008%20Renewable%20Energy%20Tax%20PTC.pdf
NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - April 07, 2008)
Thanks to Andy McEvoy for selections in yellow from this Senate Bill.
Highly recommend that you read this one. Contact your Senators that you opposite the inclusion of Wind Subsidies in any bill that is approved by the Senate.
Note the several Senate amendments that need to be opposed. Send emails and FAX letters to the Senate ASAP.
NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - April 07, 2008)
Thanks to Andy McEvoy for selections in yellow from this Senate Bill.
Highly recommend that you read this one. Contact your Senators that you opposite the inclusion of Wind Subsidies in any bill that is approved by the Senate.
Note the several Senate amendments that need to be opposed. Send emails and FAX letters to the Senate ASAP.
Monday, April 07, 2008
CASE 07-M-0906 - Joint Petition of Iberdrola, S.A., Energy East Corporation
STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
CASE 07-M-0906 - Joint Petition of Iberdrola, S.A., Energy East Corporation, RGS Energy Group, Inc., Green Acquisition Capital, Inc., New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for Approval of the Acquisition of Energy East Corporation by Iberdrola, S.A.
PROCEDURAL RULING ON SCHEDULING
(Issued April 2, 2008)
RAFAEL A. EPSTEIN, Administrative Law Judge:
A previous ruling noted that a new schedule for post-hearing briefs would be adopted after further clarification of the schedule of evidentiary hearings.1 In fact, the hearings commenced March 17, 20082 and continued through March 20, 2008. At the conclusion of the hearings, the parties proposed a schedule which I reviewed and adopted insofar as it provides for initial post-hearing briefs April 11, 2008, and reply briefs April 25, 2008.3 Those are the deadlines for electronic service on active parties and me by close of business; and for mailing originals and hard copies to the Secretary and active parties that have not waived hard copy, by depositing them with the U.S. Postal Service or other courier.
(SIGNED) RAFAEL A. EPSTEIN
CASE 07-M-0906 - Joint Petition of Iberdrola, S.A., Energy East Corporation, RGS Energy Group, Inc., Green Acquisition Capital, Inc., New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for Approval of the Acquisition of Energy East Corporation by Iberdrola, S.A.
PROCEDURAL RULING ON SCHEDULING
(Issued April 2, 2008)
RAFAEL A. EPSTEIN, Administrative Law Judge:
A previous ruling noted that a new schedule for post-hearing briefs would be adopted after further clarification of the schedule of evidentiary hearings.1 In fact, the hearings commenced March 17, 20082 and continued through March 20, 2008. At the conclusion of the hearings, the parties proposed a schedule which I reviewed and adopted insofar as it provides for initial post-hearing briefs April 11, 2008, and reply briefs April 25, 2008.3 Those are the deadlines for electronic service on active parties and me by close of business; and for mailing originals and hard copies to the Secretary and active parties that have not waived hard copy, by depositing them with the U.S. Postal Service or other courier.
(SIGNED) RAFAEL A. EPSTEIN
Congressman Randy April 7, 2008 Kuhl Letter by James Hall
April 7, 2008
Congressman Randy Kuhl
1505 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Kuhl,
At our meeting on April 4, 2008 you requested information on the Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Maria Cantwell , D-Wash., one-year, $6 billion extension as an amendment to the housing legislation. Refer to the article: Senate May Add Extension of Renewable Energy Tax Credits to Housing Bill, for details:
Cohocton Wind Watch strongly opposes any extension of renewal tax credits for the industrial wind industry. Please read the following from Glenn R. Schleede, 18220 Turnberry Drive, Round Hill, VA 20141-2574. 540-338-9958; for a concise argument why wind subsidies is detrimental to a rational alternative energy policy.
EIGHT REASONS WHY RENEWABLE TAX CREDITS SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED
1. The original purposes of tax credits for wind energy – i.e., to encourage technology development and commercialization, gain a foothold in energy markets, and be more competitive with older, established energy sources – have been more than satisfied:
• Wind turbines, blades and towers are now produced by multiple commercial suppliers.
• Thousands of turbines have been installed and more have been ordered.
• The prices of traditional energy sources for electric generation – natural gas, coal, oil, uranium -- have increased dramatically since tax credits were first adopted.
2. Other existing federal tax breaks are huge. For example, most “wind farm” equipment is eligible for 5-year 200% declining balance depreciation for tax purposes – which already permitted recovery of 52% of the capital investment in the first 2 tax years and nearly 3/4th in the first 3 tax years.
The recently enacted 50% 1st year “bonus” depreciation allowance further accelerates the recovery of capital costs for “wind farms”; i.e., 60% in the 1st tax year and an additional 16% in the 2nd tax year.
In either case, a “wind farm” owner has all his equity back in 18 months or less!
3. Numerous other federal and state tax breaks and subsidies are now available for renewable energy.
4. Tax breaks – not environmental or energy benefits -- have become THE principal reason for building “wind farms.”
5. Excessive tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy are:
• Transferring millions of dollars annually from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to a few large corporations (many foreign owned) that own “wind farms.”
• Misdirecting billions in capital investment dollars to energy projects (“wind farms”) that produce very little electricity. The electricity is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produce at night and in winter – not on hot late afternoons in July and August when electricity is needed. Because the output from wind turbines is unreliable, they cannot be counted on at the time of peak demand. They are not a substitute for adding reliable generating capacity to meet growing electricity demand or replace old generating units.
6. Claims of job growth and other economic benefits from investments in renewable energy have been grossly overstated. Results being reported are being driven by unrealistic assumptions, not facts.
7. Claims of environmental benefits have been grossly overstated and adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts have been ignored by the wind industry.
8. Tax breaks and subsidies for renewables further exacerbate the federal deficit situation.
As you see from this analysis, the false claims of the wind industry have suspect economic of energy generation merit. Add alleged Anti-trust violations that are currently under investigation and it would be imprudent for the Congress or the Senate to include industrial wind in any future federal subsidies.
A constituent of your, Brad Jones, offers this assessment:
“It is kind of amazing that the wind developers have actually admitted to price fixing, but they have.
An article in the Hornell Evening Tribune dated 4-3-08 has a quote from Eric Miller of Invenergy that the "going rate in the state is $8,000 per megawatt for Payment In Lieu Of Taxes agreements."
Since wind projects vary greatly in profitability due to factors such as wind resource, density of turbine sites, and proximity to high voltage transmission lines a competitive market would drive a range of PILOT agreements based on ability to pay.
But because of absolute market allocation there is no negotiation possible and local jurisdictions have to settle for the 8k per MW, or take nothing.
If taxed at normal real estate rates the payments to local governments would be about 10X the "going rate".”
It is crucial that the federal government not include deceitful schemes to defraud the tax payers in any future legislation. This is not a local issue like so many New York State representatives want to believe to absolve themselves of the their duty to protect the public. New York State elected officials on all levels have a responsibility to demand that any developer must prove that their enterprise has economic substance before any government subsidy is granted.
Western New York and many townships in your district are being extorted by companies that have refined the Enron model for energy fraud. No empirical proof or data evidence has been submitted to verify that our region has sufficient and consistent wind patterns to justice the consideration of industrial wind projects. Without such validation, it would be outrageous for Congress to include industrial wind in any alternative energy subsidy.
Also enclosed is a copy of a June 28, 2006 letter to Senator Hillary Clinton.
At this time we now formally request that your office intercede with the U.S. Attorney General and demand a formal investigation into the business practices of the wind industry. Cohocton Wind Watch has detailed documents and reports that can substantiate that illegal conduct is systemic.
CWW is part of the CITIZEN POWER ALLIANCE which is a coalition of independent groups organized to promote sound energy and environmental policy. CPA holds public officials and regulators accountable, while seeking the protection of the public interest.
Our member groups constitute concern citizens from every part of New York State and beyond. Several CPA groups reside within your district. It is important that a credible and comprehensive investigation be conducted before any future review of federal funds would be provided to industrial wind projects.
Current wind turbine technology is flawed and new technology is being developed that could offer a viable alternative. Compare these designs verses the failed wind technology now being used, which totally ignores the extensive adverse European experience that cause health and public safety risks and damages.
Congressman Kuhl, your constituents deserve federal intervention and enforceable regulation to hold the wind industry accountable for their culture of corruption. Local, state and federal officials and agencies have acted as willful accomplices. The United States faces a far greater energy scam than Enron. When this bubble blows, there will be no electricity generated, but every taxpayer will bear the financial burden of de-commissioning and fiduciary malfeasance.
Appreciate your prompt reply with a thorough plan for your involvement to resolve this urgent issue.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Congressman Randy Kuhl
1505 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Kuhl,
At our meeting on April 4, 2008 you requested information on the Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Maria Cantwell , D-Wash., one-year, $6 billion extension as an amendment to the housing legislation. Refer to the article: Senate May Add Extension of Renewable Energy Tax Credits to Housing Bill, for details:
Cohocton Wind Watch strongly opposes any extension of renewal tax credits for the industrial wind industry. Please read the following from Glenn R. Schleede, 18220 Turnberry Drive, Round Hill, VA 20141-2574. 540-338-9958; for a concise argument why wind subsidies is detrimental to a rational alternative energy policy.
EIGHT REASONS WHY RENEWABLE TAX CREDITS SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED
1. The original purposes of tax credits for wind energy – i.e., to encourage technology development and commercialization, gain a foothold in energy markets, and be more competitive with older, established energy sources – have been more than satisfied:
• Wind turbines, blades and towers are now produced by multiple commercial suppliers.
• Thousands of turbines have been installed and more have been ordered.
• The prices of traditional energy sources for electric generation – natural gas, coal, oil, uranium -- have increased dramatically since tax credits were first adopted.
2. Other existing federal tax breaks are huge. For example, most “wind farm” equipment is eligible for 5-year 200% declining balance depreciation for tax purposes – which already permitted recovery of 52% of the capital investment in the first 2 tax years and nearly 3/4th in the first 3 tax years.
The recently enacted 50% 1st year “bonus” depreciation allowance further accelerates the recovery of capital costs for “wind farms”; i.e., 60% in the 1st tax year and an additional 16% in the 2nd tax year.
In either case, a “wind farm” owner has all his equity back in 18 months or less!
3. Numerous other federal and state tax breaks and subsidies are now available for renewable energy.
4. Tax breaks – not environmental or energy benefits -- have become THE principal reason for building “wind farms.”
5. Excessive tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy are:
• Transferring millions of dollars annually from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to a few large corporations (many foreign owned) that own “wind farms.”
• Misdirecting billions in capital investment dollars to energy projects (“wind farms”) that produce very little electricity. The electricity is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produce at night and in winter – not on hot late afternoons in July and August when electricity is needed. Because the output from wind turbines is unreliable, they cannot be counted on at the time of peak demand. They are not a substitute for adding reliable generating capacity to meet growing electricity demand or replace old generating units.
6. Claims of job growth and other economic benefits from investments in renewable energy have been grossly overstated. Results being reported are being driven by unrealistic assumptions, not facts.
7. Claims of environmental benefits have been grossly overstated and adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts have been ignored by the wind industry.
8. Tax breaks and subsidies for renewables further exacerbate the federal deficit situation.
As you see from this analysis, the false claims of the wind industry have suspect economic of energy generation merit. Add alleged Anti-trust violations that are currently under investigation and it would be imprudent for the Congress or the Senate to include industrial wind in any future federal subsidies.
A constituent of your, Brad Jones, offers this assessment:
“It is kind of amazing that the wind developers have actually admitted to price fixing, but they have.
An article in the Hornell Evening Tribune dated 4-3-08 has a quote from Eric Miller of Invenergy that the "going rate in the state is $8,000 per megawatt for Payment In Lieu Of Taxes agreements."
Since wind projects vary greatly in profitability due to factors such as wind resource, density of turbine sites, and proximity to high voltage transmission lines a competitive market would drive a range of PILOT agreements based on ability to pay.
But because of absolute market allocation there is no negotiation possible and local jurisdictions have to settle for the 8k per MW, or take nothing.
If taxed at normal real estate rates the payments to local governments would be about 10X the "going rate".”
It is crucial that the federal government not include deceitful schemes to defraud the tax payers in any future legislation. This is not a local issue like so many New York State representatives want to believe to absolve themselves of the their duty to protect the public. New York State elected officials on all levels have a responsibility to demand that any developer must prove that their enterprise has economic substance before any government subsidy is granted.
Western New York and many townships in your district are being extorted by companies that have refined the Enron model for energy fraud. No empirical proof or data evidence has been submitted to verify that our region has sufficient and consistent wind patterns to justice the consideration of industrial wind projects. Without such validation, it would be outrageous for Congress to include industrial wind in any alternative energy subsidy.
Also enclosed is a copy of a June 28, 2006 letter to Senator Hillary Clinton.
At this time we now formally request that your office intercede with the U.S. Attorney General and demand a formal investigation into the business practices of the wind industry. Cohocton Wind Watch has detailed documents and reports that can substantiate that illegal conduct is systemic.
CWW is part of the CITIZEN POWER ALLIANCE which is a coalition of independent groups organized to promote sound energy and environmental policy. CPA holds public officials and regulators accountable, while seeking the protection of the public interest.
Our member groups constitute concern citizens from every part of New York State and beyond. Several CPA groups reside within your district. It is important that a credible and comprehensive investigation be conducted before any future review of federal funds would be provided to industrial wind projects.
Current wind turbine technology is flawed and new technology is being developed that could offer a viable alternative. Compare these designs verses the failed wind technology now being used, which totally ignores the extensive adverse European experience that cause health and public safety risks and damages.
Congressman Kuhl, your constituents deserve federal intervention and enforceable regulation to hold the wind industry accountable for their culture of corruption. Local, state and federal officials and agencies have acted as willful accomplices. The United States faces a far greater energy scam than Enron. When this bubble blows, there will be no electricity generated, but every taxpayer will bear the financial burden of de-commissioning and fiduciary malfeasance.
Appreciate your prompt reply with a thorough plan for your involvement to resolve this urgent issue.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Hamlin's Turbine Tiff
As you now know from my last report, it appears likely that a final decision on Hamlin’s much debated wind turbine regulation law will come later this month. For nearly two years this clash of neighbors, farmers, and town leaders, has swirled about this Lake Ontario community.
We’ve covered this issue extensively at 13WHAM News, and the arguments on both sides have blown onto our airwaves frequently. From my many conversations with folks, the two sides of this debate can be best defined as follows.
Those in favor of this proposed law…
-Want a local voice clearly defined when the seemingly inevitable occurs; a wind farm developer decides to build.
-Hope this local law will trump any future legislation from the state level on this issue. (The state’s restrictions could be much more lenient when it comes to wind turbine placement.)
-Want to leave the possibility of a wind farm open for consideration; it could lead to revenue for farmers who lease their land for these turbines, and it could lower property taxes by increasing the tax base.
-May favor restrictions, but don’t want to prohibit economic growth and the possibility that Hamlin plays a key role in generating an alternative source of energy.
Those who worry about this proposed law…
-Want to see restrictions that push wind turbines further away from residential homes. (The currently proposed law says 1,200 feet from a home; opponents would like it to be 1,700 feet from neighboring property lines.)
-Aren’t opposed to alternative energy, but don’t think Hamlin is the ideal community given a relatively dense population as compared to other wind farm communities. (see: Cohocton, Steuben County)
-Worry that town leaders aren’t listening to their concerns, despite public meetings they don’t feel their suggestions are being added to these regulations.
-Worry about safety, especially when other communities with wind farms are telling them that frozen ice chunks can be hurled 400 feet or more.
-Do have concerns about wildlife and the effect a wind farm would have on local bird populations.
One thing to keep in mind, no matter what legislation the Hamlin Town Board agrees on, is the possibility of a lawsuit.
While it’s not addressed much in public, I’ve been told by some that an overly restrictive wind turbine law could open up the board to a lawsuit from farmers and landowners who feel their right to do what they want with their own land is being prohibited.
At the same time, a large number of concerned neighbors could consider legal action if they feel this local law doesn’t take into account their concerns about property values and quality of life.
We’ve covered this issue extensively at 13WHAM News, and the arguments on both sides have blown onto our airwaves frequently. From my many conversations with folks, the two sides of this debate can be best defined as follows.
Those in favor of this proposed law…
-Want a local voice clearly defined when the seemingly inevitable occurs; a wind farm developer decides to build.
-Hope this local law will trump any future legislation from the state level on this issue. (The state’s restrictions could be much more lenient when it comes to wind turbine placement.)
-Want to leave the possibility of a wind farm open for consideration; it could lead to revenue for farmers who lease their land for these turbines, and it could lower property taxes by increasing the tax base.
-May favor restrictions, but don’t want to prohibit economic growth and the possibility that Hamlin plays a key role in generating an alternative source of energy.
Those who worry about this proposed law…
-Want to see restrictions that push wind turbines further away from residential homes. (The currently proposed law says 1,200 feet from a home; opponents would like it to be 1,700 feet from neighboring property lines.)
-Aren’t opposed to alternative energy, but don’t think Hamlin is the ideal community given a relatively dense population as compared to other wind farm communities. (see: Cohocton, Steuben County)
-Worry that town leaders aren’t listening to their concerns, despite public meetings they don’t feel their suggestions are being added to these regulations.
-Worry about safety, especially when other communities with wind farms are telling them that frozen ice chunks can be hurled 400 feet or more.
-Do have concerns about wildlife and the effect a wind farm would have on local bird populations.
One thing to keep in mind, no matter what legislation the Hamlin Town Board agrees on, is the possibility of a lawsuit.
While it’s not addressed much in public, I’ve been told by some that an overly restrictive wind turbine law could open up the board to a lawsuit from farmers and landowners who feel their right to do what they want with their own land is being prohibited.
At the same time, a large number of concerned neighbors could consider legal action if they feel this local law doesn’t take into account their concerns about property values and quality of life.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Wind Turbines In Herkimer County
Wind turbines are a hot topic in Herkimer County. Some approve of them, while others say "not in my backyard." Today, everyone from local officials to the general public heard how to properly regulate them.
This wind energy seminar wasn't like others in the past. No one came to lash out against wind turbines or defend the right to have them, most came simply to hear what they're all about. Department of State officials covered everything from construction, to site review, to the appearance of the turbines.
These windmills won't be constructed in a day, it takes time and planning. But with the state pushing for an increase in renewable energy levels by 2013, more could be dotting the horizon within the next few years.
(Click to view the video report)
This wind energy seminar wasn't like others in the past. No one came to lash out against wind turbines or defend the right to have them, most came simply to hear what they're all about. Department of State officials covered everything from construction, to site review, to the appearance of the turbines.
These windmills won't be constructed in a day, it takes time and planning. But with the state pushing for an increase in renewable energy levels by 2013, more could be dotting the horizon within the next few years.
(Click to view the video report)
Wind Farm Decision Nears
By the end of this month, a law regulating wind turbines in the Town of Hamlin could be passed. But not without much debate. A public meeting this week will serve as a last ditch effort from some neighbors who say this proposed law doesn't protect them.
The debate has raged on for nearly two years in the Town of Hamlin. At stake is how to craft a local law that would protect the interests of taxpayers should wind turbines, or a wind farm, be built.
Meeting after meeting has led to a proposed law, worked and re-worked, that would at last regulate any wind turbine built in Hamlin.
"It is important to note that the culmination that we're coming to now on the wind tower regulation does not approve any wind towers," Hamlin Town Supervisor Denny Roach said.
What it would regulate is where developers could build a wind farm, and under what restrictions. The benefits of building wind turbines in Hamlin would be reaped by farmers who are paid by developers to build on their land, and by taxpayers who could see property taxes drop as a result.
"We're very concerned about it and we do want to get regulations in place," Roach said.
However, neighbors opposed to the currently proposed wind tower law are voicing various concerns. Noise is one, the effect on birds and wildlife is another. Property values appears to be the overwhelming concern. Some feel “setback distances” would address those worries. Meaning, if you're going to allow wind turbines in Hamlin, they’d like to see them placed further away from homes.
The setback distance being considered in this proposed law is 1,200 feet from any structure, and 600 feet from any road. Details show that it a turbine must be at least 600 feet from the end of any neighboring property line.
"That's of great concern to us," Kathy Habgood said. Habgood is among those neighbors who'd like to see this law require setback distances of at least 1,700 feet. That, she and others say, would limit noise problems and protect property values.
"There are a lot of people who would not want to live across from a wind turbine,” Habgood explained. “And we think that's been reflected, there's been two houses on Redman Road that have been for sale for over a year that aren't selling, and they're right across from one of the test towers that's up "
A public hearing on this issue is scheduled for Thursday night (April 10th) at the Gymnasium at St. John Lutheran Church on Lake Road in Hamlin.
The town board could pass the proposed regulations into law later this month. Town Supervisor Denny Roach said stricter noise regulations in this proposed law could theoretically push a wind turbine further than 1,200 feet from homes.
The debate has raged on for nearly two years in the Town of Hamlin. At stake is how to craft a local law that would protect the interests of taxpayers should wind turbines, or a wind farm, be built.
Meeting after meeting has led to a proposed law, worked and re-worked, that would at last regulate any wind turbine built in Hamlin.
"It is important to note that the culmination that we're coming to now on the wind tower regulation does not approve any wind towers," Hamlin Town Supervisor Denny Roach said.
What it would regulate is where developers could build a wind farm, and under what restrictions. The benefits of building wind turbines in Hamlin would be reaped by farmers who are paid by developers to build on their land, and by taxpayers who could see property taxes drop as a result.
"We're very concerned about it and we do want to get regulations in place," Roach said.
However, neighbors opposed to the currently proposed wind tower law are voicing various concerns. Noise is one, the effect on birds and wildlife is another. Property values appears to be the overwhelming concern. Some feel “setback distances” would address those worries. Meaning, if you're going to allow wind turbines in Hamlin, they’d like to see them placed further away from homes.
The setback distance being considered in this proposed law is 1,200 feet from any structure, and 600 feet from any road. Details show that it a turbine must be at least 600 feet from the end of any neighboring property line.
"That's of great concern to us," Kathy Habgood said. Habgood is among those neighbors who'd like to see this law require setback distances of at least 1,700 feet. That, she and others say, would limit noise problems and protect property values.
"There are a lot of people who would not want to live across from a wind turbine,” Habgood explained. “And we think that's been reflected, there's been two houses on Redman Road that have been for sale for over a year that aren't selling, and they're right across from one of the test towers that's up "
A public hearing on this issue is scheduled for Thursday night (April 10th) at the Gymnasium at St. John Lutheran Church on Lake Road in Hamlin.
The town board could pass the proposed regulations into law later this month. Town Supervisor Denny Roach said stricter noise regulations in this proposed law could theoretically push a wind turbine further than 1,200 feet from homes.
Lots of interesting things in wind contracts by EDNA McGINNETT
Having read several different industrial wind energy landowner contracts, I really have to hand it to wind developers. In exchange for a few thousand dollars, the wind company can preempt landowners’ rights to: extract sand and gravel from their property, develop mineral rights on their property, allow hunting, build additional outbuildings or plant trees, etc.
If, in the sole discretion of the wind developer, such activities would interfere with or alter the flow of wind currents over the property, or interfere in any way with the building or operation of the wind project.
The wind company has the sole discretion as to what electrical generation equipment will be placed where and when on leased property. In addition, these leases contain language which allows the wind developer to use other land owned by the landowner even if such acreage is not included in the lease agreement.
These landowner contracts subordinate the landowners’ rights in favor of the wind developers. Once landowners sign an option they are under obligation to sign the lease agreement if the developer decides to exercise the option.
One of the reasons these contracts are so restrictive is explained in comments made by NYSERDA about wind energy lease agreements: “Before allowing wind turbines to be purchased and installed, project investors, financing organizations, and power purchasers will want to be sure the lease provides clear, unimpeded rights to use of the land over the expected life of the project.”
“Termination clauses need to be ‘reasonable’ so that the risk of installing the wind turbine equipment and having the lease terminated is low and manageable. If the risk of termination is deemed too high, it will be difficult for the project developer to obtain financing for the project.”
These leases typically prevent a landowner from complaining or taking action against the wind company because of noise, flicker, visual, audio, vibrations, air turbulence, electromagnetic, electric and radio frequency disturbances and other side effects caused by the operation of the project.
Yes, I really have to hand it to these wind developers, and if you have signed one of these leases, you probably already have.
If, in the sole discretion of the wind developer, such activities would interfere with or alter the flow of wind currents over the property, or interfere in any way with the building or operation of the wind project.
The wind company has the sole discretion as to what electrical generation equipment will be placed where and when on leased property. In addition, these leases contain language which allows the wind developer to use other land owned by the landowner even if such acreage is not included in the lease agreement.
These landowner contracts subordinate the landowners’ rights in favor of the wind developers. Once landowners sign an option they are under obligation to sign the lease agreement if the developer decides to exercise the option.
One of the reasons these contracts are so restrictive is explained in comments made by NYSERDA about wind energy lease agreements: “Before allowing wind turbines to be purchased and installed, project investors, financing organizations, and power purchasers will want to be sure the lease provides clear, unimpeded rights to use of the land over the expected life of the project.”
“Termination clauses need to be ‘reasonable’ so that the risk of installing the wind turbine equipment and having the lease terminated is low and manageable. If the risk of termination is deemed too high, it will be difficult for the project developer to obtain financing for the project.”
These leases typically prevent a landowner from complaining or taking action against the wind company because of noise, flicker, visual, audio, vibrations, air turbulence, electromagnetic, electric and radio frequency disturbances and other side effects caused by the operation of the project.
Yes, I really have to hand it to these wind developers, and if you have signed one of these leases, you probably already have.
Plans for controversial wind farm in limbo
A Massachusetts-based energy company is running into roadblocks as it tries to develop a wind farm on the hills above this Columbia Gorge town.
It has been nearly a year since UPC Wind first asked state regulators to review the 40-turbine project in the windy stretches of the gorge. Revisions promised more than six months ago have yet to materialize.
UPC is faced with problems trying to rearrange the turbines to make them less visible from a federally protected scenic area, but still in breezy enough spots to produce a moneymaking venture.
The company also is also trying to mollify angry residents near the proposed site, on Sevenmile Hill.
"When virtually everyone for miles around says this is a terrible location for a wind farm, you'd think they'd take the hint," said Jim Yuhas, a nearby homeowner.
UPC Wind said it is studying that site and locations farther from the scenic area's boundaries.
"We are still very much interested in the area and the project," said company spokesman John Lamontagne.
The northern perimeter of the project would abut the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Some of the 400-foot-tall turbines would be visible from popular lookouts and along highways and roads that cut through the gorge in Oregon and Washington.
The gorge already has hundreds of turbines, but they lie among wheat fields and scrubland far from people or protected grounds.
The faceoff represents a new level of appraisal in which one environmental ideal must be weighed against another.
UPC Wind's project, Cascade Wind, would be of modest size. With a 60-megawatt capacity, it would produce enough electricity to power the equivalent of 18,000 homes continuously.
Congress created the National Scenic Area in 1986 to "protect and enhance the scenic, natural, cultural and recreational resources of the Columbia River Gorge."
A 13-member commission carries out the act's rules and regulations, but it has no jurisdiction over projects outside the designated boundary, no matter how close they might lie.
The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council holds most of the regulatory muscle and will decide if the project would cause a "significant adverse impact to scenic and aesthetic values."
In June 2007, the Oregon Department of Energy, which provides staff support for the siting council, deemed UPC Wind's application incomplete and asked for more information on a wide range of issues.
UPC Wind said it would respond by Aug. 31, 2007, but missed the deadline, submitted a few sketchy revisions in October, and it has been silent ever since.
Regulators met with developers in February in an effort to nudge the process forward.
"The best they could tell us was that they're looking at changing the project to respond to the public comments," said Adam Bless, who heads the Energy Department's review.
UPC Wind confirmed only that it might move turbines from some spots and add them elsewhere.
Under the most likely scenario, UPC Wind would eliminate some of the 22 turbines planned for the northern section of the project and add some to the southern end six miles away.
Moving the massive towers even a few yards can dramatically cut the amount of wind that hits the blades. Because developers are paid for each kilowatt-hour of energy produced, less generation means less cash.
Any changes also would require further environmental impact studies, which could take months.
"The revisions will be extensive and will replace the original application almost entirely," Bless said. That means the state's review could stretch well into next year.
It has been nearly a year since UPC Wind first asked state regulators to review the 40-turbine project in the windy stretches of the gorge. Revisions promised more than six months ago have yet to materialize.
UPC is faced with problems trying to rearrange the turbines to make them less visible from a federally protected scenic area, but still in breezy enough spots to produce a moneymaking venture.
The company also is also trying to mollify angry residents near the proposed site, on Sevenmile Hill.
"When virtually everyone for miles around says this is a terrible location for a wind farm, you'd think they'd take the hint," said Jim Yuhas, a nearby homeowner.
UPC Wind said it is studying that site and locations farther from the scenic area's boundaries.
"We are still very much interested in the area and the project," said company spokesman John Lamontagne.
The northern perimeter of the project would abut the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Some of the 400-foot-tall turbines would be visible from popular lookouts and along highways and roads that cut through the gorge in Oregon and Washington.
The gorge already has hundreds of turbines, but they lie among wheat fields and scrubland far from people or protected grounds.
The faceoff represents a new level of appraisal in which one environmental ideal must be weighed against another.
UPC Wind's project, Cascade Wind, would be of modest size. With a 60-megawatt capacity, it would produce enough electricity to power the equivalent of 18,000 homes continuously.
Congress created the National Scenic Area in 1986 to "protect and enhance the scenic, natural, cultural and recreational resources of the Columbia River Gorge."
A 13-member commission carries out the act's rules and regulations, but it has no jurisdiction over projects outside the designated boundary, no matter how close they might lie.
The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council holds most of the regulatory muscle and will decide if the project would cause a "significant adverse impact to scenic and aesthetic values."
In June 2007, the Oregon Department of Energy, which provides staff support for the siting council, deemed UPC Wind's application incomplete and asked for more information on a wide range of issues.
UPC Wind said it would respond by Aug. 31, 2007, but missed the deadline, submitted a few sketchy revisions in October, and it has been silent ever since.
Regulators met with developers in February in an effort to nudge the process forward.
"The best they could tell us was that they're looking at changing the project to respond to the public comments," said Adam Bless, who heads the Energy Department's review.
UPC Wind confirmed only that it might move turbines from some spots and add them elsewhere.
Under the most likely scenario, UPC Wind would eliminate some of the 22 turbines planned for the northern section of the project and add some to the southern end six miles away.
Moving the massive towers even a few yards can dramatically cut the amount of wind that hits the blades. Because developers are paid for each kilowatt-hour of energy produced, less generation means less cash.
Any changes also would require further environmental impact studies, which could take months.
"The revisions will be extensive and will replace the original application almost entirely," Bless said. That means the state's review could stretch well into next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)