Rochester billionaire Tom Golisano plans to make a "major announcement" about his involvement in this year's elections next week, an aide said Tuesday, and a published report said it's going to be good news for Democrats trying to win control of the state Senate.
Golisano, who has run unsuccessfully for governor three times and owns the Buffalo Sabres, may spend $1 million on behalf of each of several Democrats seeking to capture seats now held by Republicans, according to The Capitol, a magazine that covers state government.
Golisano aide Stephen Pigeon said Tuesday the announcement will be July 8 in Albany involving "New York state government and politics." He wouldn't comment further, and Golisano didn't return a call seeking comment.
Democrat Richard Dollinger of Brighton in Monroe County, who is challenging Republican Joseph Robach, as well as challengers for two Erie County seats now held by Republicans, could be beneficiaries of Golisano's largesse, according to the magazine, which cited an unnamed source.
Dollinger said Tuesday he hadn't heard of any potential help coming from Golisano. But he called him a "friend" who "has a passion to help upstate."
Elmira Mayor John Tonello, a Democrat running against Sen. George H. Winner Jr., R-Elmira, said the races that could receive funding from Golisano seem to center around the Rochester-Monroe County-western New York area.
(Click to read entire article)
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Wind-power pioneer admits to inflated bills
Greg Jaunich, a longtime Minnesota wind-power entrepreneur, pleaded guilty Tuesday to mail fraud in connection with federal charges that he bilked Xcel Energy of up to $400,000 with false meter readings from a couple of mostly inactive turbines.
Jaunich's plea was accepted by U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson. Jaunich, 47, who will be sentenced by Magnuson at a later date, faces a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
Jaunich was the manager of Northern Alternative Energy-Shaokatan Power Partners, one of numerous projects he owned or ran through several entities in Lincoln County in the blustery southwest corner of Minnesota.
On Sept. 25, 2003, Jaunich received from a Shaokatan employee meter readings for power produced by Shaokatan's wind turbines of 13,800 kilowatt hours and 6,200 kilowatt hours, according to the plea agreement. Jaunich instructed employees to bill Xcel for 1.84 million kilowatt hours, an amount that Jaunich knew was inaccurate. In fact, Jaunich knew that one of the turbines was not even up and operating some of the period.
(Click to read entire article)
Jaunich's plea was accepted by U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson. Jaunich, 47, who will be sentenced by Magnuson at a later date, faces a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
Jaunich was the manager of Northern Alternative Energy-Shaokatan Power Partners, one of numerous projects he owned or ran through several entities in Lincoln County in the blustery southwest corner of Minnesota.
On Sept. 25, 2003, Jaunich received from a Shaokatan employee meter readings for power produced by Shaokatan's wind turbines of 13,800 kilowatt hours and 6,200 kilowatt hours, according to the plea agreement. Jaunich instructed employees to bill Xcel for 1.84 million kilowatt hours, an amount that Jaunich knew was inaccurate. In fact, Jaunich knew that one of the turbines was not even up and operating some of the period.
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Group Targets Congestion of Wind Power Project
First Wind's Stetson Mountain project is unnecessarily creating congestion on Maine's New England power grid transmission lines, thanks to state policymakers' rush to create more wind energy in the state, an anti-wind energy group's leader charged Sunday.
"They pushed through the project without contemplating the interconnection problems of the existing projects and the new ones that may come on line," said Lisa Linowes, executive director of Industrial Wind Action Group.
"It's more about getting wind [turbines] on the ridgelines or whatever than making smart choices about wind power," Linowes added.
First Wind and officials from Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. of Millinocket, one of the companies affected by the congestion, according to Linowes' scenario, denied her claims.
Linowes pointed to a June 2007 report written by RLC Engineering for ISO-New England, which manages the grid, and Bangor Hydro- Electric Co. stating that Brookfield Power's 126-megawatt hydroelectric system in Millinocket and East Millinocket and Indeck's 25-megawatt biomass boiler in Enfield would have to power down significantly or go off line to accommodate electricity from the Stetson Mountain project when that comes on line by the end of this year.
(Click to read entire article)
"They pushed through the project without contemplating the interconnection problems of the existing projects and the new ones that may come on line," said Lisa Linowes, executive director of Industrial Wind Action Group.
"It's more about getting wind [turbines] on the ridgelines or whatever than making smart choices about wind power," Linowes added.
First Wind and officials from Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. of Millinocket, one of the companies affected by the congestion, according to Linowes' scenario, denied her claims.
Linowes pointed to a June 2007 report written by RLC Engineering for ISO-New England, which manages the grid, and Bangor Hydro- Electric Co. stating that Brookfield Power's 126-megawatt hydroelectric system in Millinocket and East Millinocket and Indeck's 25-megawatt biomass boiler in Enfield would have to power down significantly or go off line to accommodate electricity from the Stetson Mountain project when that comes on line by the end of this year.
(Click to read entire article)
NY regulators: Lock in Iberdrola wind power pledge
ALBANY, N.Y. - New York utility analysts say Iberdrola SA should have to make a binding commitment, not just a promise, to spend $2 billion developing wind energy in the state if it is allowed to buy Energy East Corp.
The company pledged the spending if the Public Service Commission _ whose staff questions whether the $4.6 billion deal would be in the public's interest _ approves it.
In a recent brief, PSC analysts maintain their opposition to the Spanish company owning wind-energy plants in the state.
But they say that if the agency's five-member decision-making panel "wishes to recognize the proposed $2 billion investment as a benefit, that benefit should be rendered concrete, through a binding obligation."
A decision on the proposed deal isn't expected until mid-August at the earliest.
The company pledged the spending if the Public Service Commission _ whose staff questions whether the $4.6 billion deal would be in the public's interest _ approves it.
In a recent brief, PSC analysts maintain their opposition to the Spanish company owning wind-energy plants in the state.
But they say that if the agency's five-member decision-making panel "wishes to recognize the proposed $2 billion investment as a benefit, that benefit should be rendered concrete, through a binding obligation."
A decision on the proposed deal isn't expected until mid-August at the earliest.
PSC may compromise on Iberdrola deal
The staff of the state Public Service Commission has again advised its five-member board to disapprove the $4.5 billion sale of Energy East Corp. to Iberdrola SA, but staffers have added a big “however” on wind farms.
In a brief filed in the long-running case, the PSC staff has offered alternatives if the five public service commissioners approve the sale, according to James Denn, PSC spokesman.
Iberdrola, the European utility giant and global leader in wind turbine farms, would be allowed to own and operate wind farms within Energy East territory, but with public benefits attached to the agreement.
The staff recommended that Iberdrola’s $2 billion proposal to invest in New York be tied to possible ratepayer rebates. The PSC staff said that to ensure the promise to build more wind farms in New York, the state could set aside $200 million of Iberdrola cash to be returned to ratepayers if the investment never happens.
The alternative proposal, known as Exception 6 in the PSC reply brief, comes after months of criticism and speculation regarding PSC’s opposition to letting Iberdrola buy Energy East.
Energy East owns Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and services 1.3 million customers in New York state. Iberdrola plans to keep and build wind farms in the service area have brought controversy, but also support from public officials and environmentalists.
The PSC has disallowed distributors of electricity from owning sources of electricity.
In a June 16 ruling by Administrative Law Judge Rafael Epstein, the five-member board of the PSC was encouraged to disapprove the deal, a decision which backed up PSC staff but brought howls from such leaders as Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Energy East, which owns RG&E and New York State Electricity and Gas, made the offer in May 2007.
Iberdrola officials said the Madrid-based company would walk away from the bid if New York enforced the rule.
The sale of Energy East has already been approved by the federal government and every other state Energy East operates in.
In a brief filed in the long-running case, the PSC staff has offered alternatives if the five public service commissioners approve the sale, according to James Denn, PSC spokesman.
Iberdrola, the European utility giant and global leader in wind turbine farms, would be allowed to own and operate wind farms within Energy East territory, but with public benefits attached to the agreement.
The staff recommended that Iberdrola’s $2 billion proposal to invest in New York be tied to possible ratepayer rebates. The PSC staff said that to ensure the promise to build more wind farms in New York, the state could set aside $200 million of Iberdrola cash to be returned to ratepayers if the investment never happens.
The alternative proposal, known as Exception 6 in the PSC reply brief, comes after months of criticism and speculation regarding PSC’s opposition to letting Iberdrola buy Energy East.
Energy East owns Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and services 1.3 million customers in New York state. Iberdrola plans to keep and build wind farms in the service area have brought controversy, but also support from public officials and environmentalists.
The PSC has disallowed distributors of electricity from owning sources of electricity.
In a June 16 ruling by Administrative Law Judge Rafael Epstein, the five-member board of the PSC was encouraged to disapprove the deal, a decision which backed up PSC staff but brought howls from such leaders as Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Energy East, which owns RG&E and New York State Electricity and Gas, made the offer in May 2007.
Iberdrola officials said the Madrid-based company would walk away from the bid if New York enforced the rule.
The sale of Energy East has already been approved by the federal government and every other state Energy East operates in.
Monday, June 30, 2008
The photo that's really worth the 1000 words
Alas, I had never even heard of Tundra Swans until my husband Tom and I recently became involved in the siting of the swans' deadliest enemies ... industrial wind turbines. Now I can and do identify with them. The field shown in Ken Bell's photo is one of many Canadian Tundra Swan migration areas where thousands of these birds congregate annually as they migrate between Alaska and the Chesapeake Bay. The Canadian field is marked for wind turbines. Who will monitor the carnage?
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the makeup of New York, each county is divided into towns which are, in turn, further divided. Within the Town of Clayton, there are inhabited islands, individual villages, large farms, residential areas, ponds, streams and marshlands. Our northern-most boundary is the St. Lawrence River, with Canada on the other side. Bell's photo symbolizes the Horse Creek Residential Area within the Town of Clayton where 330 houses are threatened by a plan to build 62 industrial wind turbines (Phase One) much much too close to the 1,000 people. Apparently, neither the Town nor PPM could find a better location. I question whether they even tried. If 1,000 people live where winds are considered adequate, and if the Town ignores warnings of documented risks, it is likely the developer will be allowed to build them there.
(Click to read entire report)
The fraud and monopoly of Iberdrola s Pennsylvania operations
Dear PSC Chairman Brown and Ms. Jodi Fansler:
Please immediately step up and permanently rescind NYSERDA's ruling that 635 MW wind generation facilities located in Pennsylvania are eligible to be paid NY State residential utility ratepayers’ monies (from all of NY State’s residential ratepayers).
There are three other significant reasons why New York State must remove NY State's taxpayers money and residential ratepayers' monies from Pennsylvania: (1) those wind farms are unscrupulously claiming far more megawatts than they can actually produce to rake in those monies; (2) those wind farms are raking in those monies years before any actual electricity is ever produced; and (3) NY State has no authority to oversee business pursuits in Pennsylvania.
Iberdrola SA (under wholly-owned affiliate names such as PPM Energy, Community Energy Inc, and Gamesa) owns and operates numerous wind generation facilities located in Pennsylvania.
Iberdrola's (Community Energy Inc's) Bear Creek project was "...largely made possible by commitments from PPL Corporation and leading wind energy customers such as the University of Pennsylvania and PECO Energy Services, says Paul Copleman, CEI's sales and marketing operations manager." PECO is Philadelphia Electric Company. PPL is Pennsylvania Power and Light. After filling its contracts and orders in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and elsewhere, the Bear Creek Wind Project, which has an effective output capacity of 2.4 MW (10% of its 24 MW nameplate bogus capacity) has no REAL ELECTRICITY left for NY State use. So for what in tarnations is NYSERDA doling out NY State's taxpayers money and residential ratepayers' monies to Pennsylvania?
As for the Casselman Wind Power Project (PA) and the Waymart Wind Power Project (PA), Iberdrola (etc.) markets its electricity to First Energy Corporation which sells that electricity to a very large clientele throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
So for what in tarnations is NYSERDA doling out NY State's taxpayers money and residential ratepayers' monies to Pennsylvania?
GAMESA -- its takeover by Iberdrola SA:
On the same date of 16 June 2008 that NY PSC Administrative Judge Rafael A. Epstein announced his decision recommending that the NY State PSC not approve Iberdrola’s takeover of Energy East, Iberdrola (at its headquarters in Spain) was already announcing its next monopolization conquest – it’s 70% ownership takeover of Gamesa.
At the Bear Creek Wind Power Project operational since 2006 in Pennsylvania, Iberdrola SA-owned Gamesa ‘s wind turbines are used to generate the wind power electricity. Gamesa and Iberdrola SA are both Spanish companies.
Gamesa wind turbines -- Gamesa’s wind turbine division is 76% owned by Iberdrola SA as of 16 June 2008.
As announced on 16 June 2008. Iberdrola SA and Gamesa have agreed to a turbine building partnership deal in joint company in which Iberdrola SA has bought a 76% controlling ownership.
Stated another way, Gamesa’s four wind turbine factories located in Pennsylvania (PA being adjacent to NY State) and Gamesa’s wind turbine division office in Pennsylvania, are all now 76% owned by Iberdrola SA.
Iberdrola's fraud at the BEAR CREEK WIND PROJECT (PA) funded by NY State:
Nameplate capacity maximum electrical output placed on wind turbines by wind turbine manufacturers is a useless predictor of actual electrical output.
Actual output is about 90% less than turbine nameplate capacity.
Iberdrola SA knows this. So do other wind companies.
The Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) owned Bear Creek Wind Project (in Pennsylvania) has 12 Gamesa 2.0 MW nameplate capacity turbines for a total of 24 MW.
Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) deceptively and fraudulently issues Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) for the Bear Creek Wind Project based on that unrealistically very high 24 MW output. That fraudulent practice results in a massive cash fleecing of New York State taxpayers' money and of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania taxpayers' money.
NYISO states that wind turbines will likely produce only 23.5 percent of those megawatts at any given time, that according to the 13th paragraph of Schenectady Gazette news reporter Jason Subek’s 01 June 2008 article “Companies poised to profit from state wind-power push”. Using NYISO's calculation percentage, the Bear Creek Wind Project is a 5.64 MW wind farm, not a 24 MW wind farm as Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) have misled us to believe in order to fleece taxpayers.
Wind power company FPL's community outreach manager Mary Wells, the community outreach manager at FPL's Lancaster, PA office [FPL operates a wind power generation facility in Pennsylvania], was on 02 April 2007 quoted as saying that: “…a 30 percent capacity factor… is standard for a Pennsylvania wind farm.”
Using FPL's calculation percentage (which is likely too high), the Bear Creek Wind Project is a 7.2 MW wind farm, not a 24 MW wind farm as Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) have misled us to believe in order to fleece taxpayers.
General Electric [aka GE Energy], the turbine manufacturer, in a report to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) on 04 March 2005, stated: “Capacity factors of inland sites in New York are on the order of 30% of their rated [nameplate] capacity. Their effective capacities, however, are about 10% [of rated capacity], due to both the seasonal and daily patterns of the wind generation being largely ‘out of phase’ with the NYISO [New York Independent System Operator] load patterns.”
Using GE's 10% effective capacity calculation percentage, the Bear Creek Wind Project is a 2.4 MW wind farm, not a 24 MW wind farm as Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) have misled us to believe in order to fleece taxpayers.
Iberdrola SA submitted its own brief to the NY State Public Service Commission judge [Rafael Epstein], In that brief, Iberdrola SA said it couldn't exercise vertical market power with wind generation because wind power is an "intermittent and unpredictable" power source. That means it's difficult to sell wind power into NYISO's "day-ahead" market, the company said. As a result, energy from these wind projects cannot reasonably be sold in NYISO's day-ahead market, in which the substantial majority of New York electricity is bought and sold," Iberdrola's brief states.”
Intermittent and unpredictable wind, coupled with many lulls in grid demand, make the 10% effective capacity calculation percentage viable for the Bear Creek Wind Project.
Iberdrola SA's fraud remains. Iberdrola SA is using nameplate capacity to issue far more RECs than Iberdrola's capacity to produce.
And what makes this fraud even worse is that Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) is issuing RECs for contracts which don't receive any wind electricity whatsoever for the first few years. Cash was flowing from RECs, absent any generated product.
In July 2003 the Bear Creek Wind Farm in Pennsylvania was being planned by Community Energy Inc (CEI) for future construction and for future operation.
In July 2003, Community Energy Inc (CEI) was already selling long-term contracts for the wind electricity to be someday generated at the Bear Creek Wind Project (PA).
No electricity would be produced at the Bear Creek Wind Project (PA) for another 31 months.
Nevertheless, Community Energy Inc (CEI) was in July 2003 already making contracts and issuing transferable Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to CEI's customers to enable those customers to purchase CEI contracts for Bear Creek Wind Project (PA) wind electricity.
The very same 23 July 2003 media announcement by Community Energy Inc's (CEI’s) and Pepco Energy Services that stated that all of that contract wind electricity will be Community Energy Inc (CEI) produced/marketed electricity and that 90% of that electricity is from CEI’s Bear Creek Wind Farm, then contradictorily and deceptively states that only 12 MW of the 24 MW [only 50%] of that contract wind electricity is NewWind Energy® purchased from Community Energy Inc (CEI).
Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) is using this deceptive and market monopolizing marketing tactic throughout New York State, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, etc. by marketing about 50% of its product under the Iberdrola (CEI) name/brand; and by marketing (either directly or indirectly) the other almost 50% of its same Iberdrola product anonymously under other names. ESCOs and utility companies throughout New York State and Pennsylvania and New Jersey are carrying: (1) what have been named to look like competitor brands (but which in truth are Iberdrola CEI marketed products) and (2) Iberdrola CEI brands, deceiving the citizenry that there are competing products in the statewide marketplace when, in truth, its virtually all a Community Energy Inc (CEI) product.
There are three elements of fraud to the foregoing scheme.
1. The State of New York and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are likely paying cash for a double-issuance of each REC, enabling double-dipping fraud.
2. The transferability of the RECs (a wind industry designed very confusing shell game) allows for massive defrauding of that unscrupulous system.
3. The State of New York and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are paying out money for each 1 MW (equaling 1 REC) of generated electricity, without any actual generation of that 1 MW of electricity occurring.
Bear Creek Wind Farm, PA is supplying its electricity into Pennsylvania and into New Jersey by having Iberdrola's own Community Energy Inc market it to: PPL Energy Plus.
PEPCO Energy Services.
“PEPCO specializes in developing innovative, cost-effective energy solutions for commercial, government, education, health care, and industrial customers throughout the mid-Atlantic region.”
In other words, this is simply just another energy company participating in the wind industry corrupt scheme to offer significant electricity price discounts to Governments (NJ; U.S., NY; etc.) and large private companies, by creating long-term large quantity bulk contracts to drive down the wind electricity price for those large purchasers, and by transferring tradable renewable energy credit (REC) certificates to those large purchasers so those purchasers can cash in those RECs to obtain large amounts of taxpayers’ monies; then paying those large amounts of taxpayers’ monies in this particular case to energy company PEPCO Energy Services which takes its cut and sends all the remaining money to Community Energy Inc (CEI) – often many months/years before any wind-generated electricity is actually generated and delivered.
The University of Pennsylvania.
One hundred eighty (180) State Government Agencies of New Jersey (NJ is adjacent to NY State) such as Rutgers [State University of New Jersey], New Jersey Highway Administration, New Jersey Transit, and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
The mid-2003 made 33-month wind electricity contract with the 180 State Government Agencies of New Jersey was made between the State of New Jersey Government and that Government’s supplier Pepco Energy Services.
However, Community Energy, Inc (CEI) is the generator and power marketer of all the wind electricity that PEPCO Energy Services received and sold under that 33-month contract with the State of New Jersey Government.
Ninety percent (90%) of the wind electricity for that 33-month contract was stipulated as coming from Community Energy Inc's (CEI’s) Bear Creek Wind Farm near Wilkes-Barre, PA, within 60 miles of New Jersey. The other 10% of the wind electricity for that contract came from another CEI-owned wind farm in Pennsylvania.
Corruptly, for 28 months of that 33-month July 2003-made contract, the Bear Creek Wind Farm was not completed nor operational nor generating any electricity.
Preposterously, the very same 23 July 2003 media announcement by Community Energy Inc's (CEI’s) and Pepco Energy Services that stated 100% of that contract wind electricity will be Community Energy Inc (CEI) produced/marketed electricity of which 90% of that electricity is from CEI’s Bear Creek Wind Farm, then contradictorily and deceptively states that only 12 MW of the 24 MW [only 50%] of that contract wind electricity is NewWind Energy® purchased from Community Energy Inc CEI). (see link)
In other words, in order to defraud the public into falsely believing that there are other brands of wind electricity competing with the Community Energy Inc (CEI) product, Community Energy is marketing half of their same product under their own brand name and half under a name not associated with Community Energy Inc.
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Wing, Jr.
(ph: 585-224-6758)
139 Thistledown Dr.
Rochester, NY 14617-3020
Please immediately step up and permanently rescind NYSERDA's ruling that 635 MW wind generation facilities located in Pennsylvania are eligible to be paid NY State residential utility ratepayers’ monies (from all of NY State’s residential ratepayers).
There are three other significant reasons why New York State must remove NY State's taxpayers money and residential ratepayers' monies from Pennsylvania: (1) those wind farms are unscrupulously claiming far more megawatts than they can actually produce to rake in those monies; (2) those wind farms are raking in those monies years before any actual electricity is ever produced; and (3) NY State has no authority to oversee business pursuits in Pennsylvania.
Iberdrola SA (under wholly-owned affiliate names such as PPM Energy, Community Energy Inc, and Gamesa) owns and operates numerous wind generation facilities located in Pennsylvania.
Iberdrola's (Community Energy Inc's) Bear Creek project was "...largely made possible by commitments from PPL Corporation and leading wind energy customers such as the University of Pennsylvania and PECO Energy Services, says Paul Copleman, CEI's sales and marketing operations manager." PECO is Philadelphia Electric Company. PPL is Pennsylvania Power and Light. After filling its contracts and orders in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and elsewhere, the Bear Creek Wind Project, which has an effective output capacity of 2.4 MW (10% of its 24 MW nameplate bogus capacity) has no REAL ELECTRICITY left for NY State use. So for what in tarnations is NYSERDA doling out NY State's taxpayers money and residential ratepayers' monies to Pennsylvania?
As for the Casselman Wind Power Project (PA) and the Waymart Wind Power Project (PA), Iberdrola (etc.) markets its electricity to First Energy Corporation which sells that electricity to a very large clientele throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
So for what in tarnations is NYSERDA doling out NY State's taxpayers money and residential ratepayers' monies to Pennsylvania?
GAMESA -- its takeover by Iberdrola SA:
On the same date of 16 June 2008 that NY PSC Administrative Judge Rafael A. Epstein announced his decision recommending that the NY State PSC not approve Iberdrola’s takeover of Energy East, Iberdrola (at its headquarters in Spain) was already announcing its next monopolization conquest – it’s 70% ownership takeover of Gamesa.
At the Bear Creek Wind Power Project operational since 2006 in Pennsylvania, Iberdrola SA-owned Gamesa ‘s wind turbines are used to generate the wind power electricity. Gamesa and Iberdrola SA are both Spanish companies.
Gamesa wind turbines -- Gamesa’s wind turbine division is 76% owned by Iberdrola SA as of 16 June 2008.
As announced on 16 June 2008. Iberdrola SA and Gamesa have agreed to a turbine building partnership deal in joint company in which Iberdrola SA has bought a 76% controlling ownership.
Stated another way, Gamesa’s four wind turbine factories located in Pennsylvania (PA being adjacent to NY State) and Gamesa’s wind turbine division office in Pennsylvania, are all now 76% owned by Iberdrola SA.
Iberdrola's fraud at the BEAR CREEK WIND PROJECT (PA) funded by NY State:
Nameplate capacity maximum electrical output placed on wind turbines by wind turbine manufacturers is a useless predictor of actual electrical output.
Actual output is about 90% less than turbine nameplate capacity.
Iberdrola SA knows this. So do other wind companies.
The Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) owned Bear Creek Wind Project (in Pennsylvania) has 12 Gamesa 2.0 MW nameplate capacity turbines for a total of 24 MW.
Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) deceptively and fraudulently issues Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) for the Bear Creek Wind Project based on that unrealistically very high 24 MW output. That fraudulent practice results in a massive cash fleecing of New York State taxpayers' money and of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania taxpayers' money.
NYISO states that wind turbines will likely produce only 23.5 percent of those megawatts at any given time, that according to the 13th paragraph of Schenectady Gazette news reporter Jason Subek’s 01 June 2008 article “Companies poised to profit from state wind-power push”. Using NYISO's calculation percentage, the Bear Creek Wind Project is a 5.64 MW wind farm, not a 24 MW wind farm as Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) have misled us to believe in order to fleece taxpayers.
Wind power company FPL's community outreach manager Mary Wells, the community outreach manager at FPL's Lancaster, PA office [FPL operates a wind power generation facility in Pennsylvania], was on 02 April 2007 quoted as saying that: “…a 30 percent capacity factor… is standard for a Pennsylvania wind farm.”
Using FPL's calculation percentage (which is likely too high), the Bear Creek Wind Project is a 7.2 MW wind farm, not a 24 MW wind farm as Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) have misled us to believe in order to fleece taxpayers.
General Electric [aka GE Energy], the turbine manufacturer, in a report to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) on 04 March 2005, stated: “Capacity factors of inland sites in New York are on the order of 30% of their rated [nameplate] capacity. Their effective capacities, however, are about 10% [of rated capacity], due to both the seasonal and daily patterns of the wind generation being largely ‘out of phase’ with the NYISO [New York Independent System Operator] load patterns.”
Using GE's 10% effective capacity calculation percentage, the Bear Creek Wind Project is a 2.4 MW wind farm, not a 24 MW wind farm as Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) have misled us to believe in order to fleece taxpayers.
Iberdrola SA submitted its own brief to the NY State Public Service Commission judge [Rafael Epstein], In that brief, Iberdrola SA said it couldn't exercise vertical market power with wind generation because wind power is an "intermittent and unpredictable" power source. That means it's difficult to sell wind power into NYISO's "day-ahead" market, the company said. As a result, energy from these wind projects cannot reasonably be sold in NYISO's day-ahead market, in which the substantial majority of New York electricity is bought and sold," Iberdrola's brief states.”
Intermittent and unpredictable wind, coupled with many lulls in grid demand, make the 10% effective capacity calculation percentage viable for the Bear Creek Wind Project.
Iberdrola SA's fraud remains. Iberdrola SA is using nameplate capacity to issue far more RECs than Iberdrola's capacity to produce.
And what makes this fraud even worse is that Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) is issuing RECs for contracts which don't receive any wind electricity whatsoever for the first few years. Cash was flowing from RECs, absent any generated product.
In July 2003 the Bear Creek Wind Farm in Pennsylvania was being planned by Community Energy Inc (CEI) for future construction and for future operation.
In July 2003, Community Energy Inc (CEI) was already selling long-term contracts for the wind electricity to be someday generated at the Bear Creek Wind Project (PA).
No electricity would be produced at the Bear Creek Wind Project (PA) for another 31 months.
Nevertheless, Community Energy Inc (CEI) was in July 2003 already making contracts and issuing transferable Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to CEI's customers to enable those customers to purchase CEI contracts for Bear Creek Wind Project (PA) wind electricity.
The very same 23 July 2003 media announcement by Community Energy Inc's (CEI’s) and Pepco Energy Services that stated that all of that contract wind electricity will be Community Energy Inc (CEI) produced/marketed electricity and that 90% of that electricity is from CEI’s Bear Creek Wind Farm, then contradictorily and deceptively states that only 12 MW of the 24 MW [only 50%] of that contract wind electricity is NewWind Energy® purchased from Community Energy Inc (CEI).
Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) is using this deceptive and market monopolizing marketing tactic throughout New York State, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, etc. by marketing about 50% of its product under the Iberdrola (CEI) name/brand; and by marketing (either directly or indirectly) the other almost 50% of its same Iberdrola product anonymously under other names. ESCOs and utility companies throughout New York State and Pennsylvania and New Jersey are carrying: (1) what have been named to look like competitor brands (but which in truth are Iberdrola CEI marketed products) and (2) Iberdrola CEI brands, deceiving the citizenry that there are competing products in the statewide marketplace when, in truth, its virtually all a Community Energy Inc (CEI) product.
There are three elements of fraud to the foregoing scheme.
1. The State of New York and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are likely paying cash for a double-issuance of each REC, enabling double-dipping fraud.
2. The transferability of the RECs (a wind industry designed very confusing shell game) allows for massive defrauding of that unscrupulous system.
3. The State of New York and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are paying out money for each 1 MW (equaling 1 REC) of generated electricity, without any actual generation of that 1 MW of electricity occurring.
Bear Creek Wind Farm, PA is supplying its electricity into Pennsylvania and into New Jersey by having Iberdrola's own Community Energy Inc market it to: PPL Energy Plus.
PEPCO Energy Services.
“PEPCO specializes in developing innovative, cost-effective energy solutions for commercial, government, education, health care, and industrial customers throughout the mid-Atlantic region.”
In other words, this is simply just another energy company participating in the wind industry corrupt scheme to offer significant electricity price discounts to Governments (NJ; U.S., NY; etc.) and large private companies, by creating long-term large quantity bulk contracts to drive down the wind electricity price for those large purchasers, and by transferring tradable renewable energy credit (REC) certificates to those large purchasers so those purchasers can cash in those RECs to obtain large amounts of taxpayers’ monies; then paying those large amounts of taxpayers’ monies in this particular case to energy company PEPCO Energy Services which takes its cut and sends all the remaining money to Community Energy Inc (CEI) – often many months/years before any wind-generated electricity is actually generated and delivered.
The University of Pennsylvania.
One hundred eighty (180) State Government Agencies of New Jersey (NJ is adjacent to NY State) such as Rutgers [State University of New Jersey], New Jersey Highway Administration, New Jersey Transit, and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
The mid-2003 made 33-month wind electricity contract with the 180 State Government Agencies of New Jersey was made between the State of New Jersey Government and that Government’s supplier Pepco Energy Services.
However, Community Energy, Inc (CEI) is the generator and power marketer of all the wind electricity that PEPCO Energy Services received and sold under that 33-month contract with the State of New Jersey Government.
Ninety percent (90%) of the wind electricity for that 33-month contract was stipulated as coming from Community Energy Inc's (CEI’s) Bear Creek Wind Farm near Wilkes-Barre, PA, within 60 miles of New Jersey. The other 10% of the wind electricity for that contract came from another CEI-owned wind farm in Pennsylvania.
Corruptly, for 28 months of that 33-month July 2003-made contract, the Bear Creek Wind Farm was not completed nor operational nor generating any electricity.
Preposterously, the very same 23 July 2003 media announcement by Community Energy Inc's (CEI’s) and Pepco Energy Services that stated 100% of that contract wind electricity will be Community Energy Inc (CEI) produced/marketed electricity of which 90% of that electricity is from CEI’s Bear Creek Wind Farm, then contradictorily and deceptively states that only 12 MW of the 24 MW [only 50%] of that contract wind electricity is NewWind Energy® purchased from Community Energy Inc CEI). (see link)
In other words, in order to defraud the public into falsely believing that there are other brands of wind electricity competing with the Community Energy Inc (CEI) product, Community Energy is marketing half of their same product under their own brand name and half under a name not associated with Community Energy Inc.
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Wing, Jr.
(ph: 585-224-6758)
139 Thistledown Dr.
Rochester, NY 14617-3020
Stop Iberdrola SA's takeover of Energy East and its Community Energy Inc is already a monopolistic marketer in NYS
Dear PSC Chairman Brown and Ms. Jodi Fansler:
Every e-mail I've sent to you, I've separately also sent to the Secretary of the Commission.
As you will see below, through deceptive marketing practices, Iberdrola SA's Community Energy has already monopolized the renewable energies which are the public is being offered in NY State. Virtually all of the product offerings are coming from Iberdrola (Community Energy Inc), with a variety of names to make the NY State public falsely believe there is product competition when, in reality, there is no substantive competition.
For this reason, please clamp down on the Iberdrola SA nightmare and reject in its entirety Iberdrola's takeover bid for Energy East.
Each of the utility companies in NY State (NIMO-National Grid; Energy East / RG&E / NYSEG Solutions; LIPA; ConEdison; Orange & Rockland) offer a choice of Community Energy Inc (Iberdrola Product) or a competing ESCO-named product [which in reality is also an Iberdrola CEI marketed product whose name has simply been changed].
In fact, Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) has taken its marketing secrecy of its product line / product deceptions to such an extreme that Iberdrola SA has labeled with the State of NY their Community Energy Inc MARKETING CONTRACT (DPS-123, IBER-0197) with Energy East as being "HIGHLY TRADE SECRET".
People want to know who the marketer is that the energy services companies (ESCOs) wind power offerings actually come from. The ESCOs listed on NYPIRG’s website as Renewable Electricity Suppliers[marketers]are not the source marketer of any of the actual renewable energy products that the ESCO is offering to NY State’s residential consumer:
ConEd Solutions:
NYPIRG, on its website (see link), tries to deceive the residential consumers and the government regulators/investigators that regulated “utility companies” (e.g., RG&E; NYSEG; O&R; ConEd) are selling “ConEd Solutions” brand renewable energy electricity options.
But “utility companies” are not allowed to “sell” ESCO company products to the consumer, so why is NYPIRG involved in such deception.
Only an ESCO itself can sell the ESCO’s own products.
The ConEd Solutions Green Power brand blend of 35% wind / 65% small hydro which is offered by ConEd Solutions to falsely make it appear that Iberdrola / CEI is not monopolizing the allegedly competitive brands of wind /renewable energies offered by ConEd Solutions when, in truth the ConEd Solutions Green Power brand blend of 35% wind / 65% small hydro is exactly the same stuff marketed to ConEd Solutions by the same power marketer Iberdrola SA’s wholly-owned CEI affiliate.
The Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) website reveals that Iberdrola-owned CEI is the electrical power marketer of that “35% wind [CEI’s NewWind Energy trademark] / 65% small hydro” blend.
The ConEd Solutions Wind Power brand of 100% wind electricity is offered by ConEd Solutions to falsely make it appear that Iberdrola / CEI is not monopolizing the allegedly competitive brands of wind energies offered by ConEd Solutions when, in truth the ConEd Solutions Wind Power brand is exactly the same stuff marketed to ConEd Solutions by the same power marketer Iberdrola SA’s wholly-owned CEI affiliate. The Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) website reveals that Iberdrola-owned CEI is the electrical power marketer of that “100% wind” [CEI’s NewWind Energy trademark].
In the earlier years, starting in 2003 of For example, under the name CEI “Green-E certified blend” of “…New York-based wind (25%) and [small] hydropower (75%)”, ConEd Solutions offered that Community Energy Inc (CEI) marketed renewables-blend energy from May 2003 to May 2006 and clearly identified it as a CEI product.
Energetix:
[Energetix offers Energetix Option 1; and Energetix Option 2; and Energetix Option 3 (the latter only in the Long Island region of NY State) -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to Energetix from a marketer monopololizer Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
Energetix Option 1 is a 50% wind / 50% small damless hydro mix, blended with conventionally generated electricity, forming a 50% renewables / 50% conventional electricity blend.
This is the same exact Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) supplied renewables portion of 50% wind / 50% small hydro that Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) markets to the State of Connecticut under the Community Energy Inc. name and its NewWind Energy registered trademark.
Energetix Option 2 is a 50% wind / 50% small damless hydro mix of electricity.
This is the same exact Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) supplied 50% wind / 50% small hydro that CEI markets to the State of Connecticut under the Community Energy Inc. name and its NewWind Energy registered trademark.
Energetix Option 3 (offered only to customers in the Long Island region serviced by utility company LIPA).
This is also an Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) supplied and marketed wind / small hydro product, only in a slightly different percentage blend of 60% wind / 40% small hydro which has had all “labels” removed that would otherwise show it is an Iberdrola-owned CEI power marketer product.
NYSEG Solutions:
Using the NYSEG Solutions name, without mentioning that Iberdrola-owned Community Energy is the marketer/provider of its wind electricity products, NYSEG Solutions is only offering various blends of Community Energy Inc (CEI) products.
Central Hudson Enterprises Corporation (CHEC),: This subsidiary of CH Energy Group, Inc. owns Lyonsdale Biomass in Lyonsdale, NY. The Lyonsdale Biomass facility burns wood to produce electricity. Wood burning, on the scale needed to produce electricity, pollutes the air, but the company and State of NY ignore the pollution because there is a lot of freebies (tax credits, Renewal Energy Certificates (REC) monies, and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) monies) to be corporately gained.
Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) markets the CHEC Lyonsdale Biomass electricity product by marketing blends of it mixed with Iberdrola-produced / Iberdrola (CEI)-marketed wind power electricity, offered under various names to deceive the NY State citizenry from recognizing the fact that Iberdrola (CEI) has a stranglehold in NY State of virtually all power marketing of all renewable energies, giving the public a false belief that there are competitive choices when in fact Iberdrola’s Community Energy Inc has a product power marketing stranglehold on the entire State of New York.
A cozy marketing arrangement exists between Iberdrola (Community Energy Inc) and Central Hudson being that Central Hudson is one of the co-owners which support Iberdrola’s (Community Energy Inc’s) ownership of the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project, NJ.
EnviroGen:
[EnviroGen offers its renewable energy product under the name EnviroGen; -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to EnviroGen directly (or indirectly) from an unrevealed power marketer, most likely from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
In fact, EnviroGen is one of the companies listed as buying wind power electricity generated at the Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) owned Bear Creek Wind Farm, PA.
Sterling Planet:
[Sterling Planet offers its renewable energy product under the name Sterling Planet; -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to Sterling Planet directly (or indirectly) from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
Sterling Planet buys the same 50% wind / 50% small hydro electricity blend from the same power marketer of the same 50% wind / 50% small hydro electricity blend that Energetix is buying from, (that being from Iberdola SA-owned power marketer Community Energy Inc), and, in the same manner as Energetix is doing, has had all “labels” removed that would otherwise show it is an Iberdrola-owned CEI power marketer product.
Sterling Planet also buys a 50% wind / 50% small hydro / 30% landfill gas (biomass) blend, but it won’t disclose who the power marketer is that it buys from, and then markets that blend as Sterling Green.
However, it is known that Iberdrola-owned CEI has, under the Community Energy Inc product name, marketed landfill gas dating back to March 2005 when CEI marketed from its NY City office a 50% wind / 50% landfill gas blend.
Thus, Iberdrola SA-owned CEI is the probable unnamed power marketer who is providing the landfill gas that Sterling Planet is now (in 2008) offering under its Sterling Green option.
US Energy Partners:
US Energy Partners offers renewable energy product under the name US Energy Partners; and also under the name EnvironGen which is another ESCO which is an “affiliate program: green energy” (see link) -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to US Energy Partners directly (or indirectly) from an unrevealed power marketer, most likely from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
IDT Energy:
[IDT Energy offers its renewable energy product under the name IDT Energy ; -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to IDT Energy directly (or indirectly) from an unrevealed power marketer, most likely from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
Accent Energy (aka Accent Energy Group LLC):
Accent Energy offers its renewable energy product under the name Accent Energy ; -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to Accent Energy directly (or indirectly) from an unrevealed power marketer, most likely from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA or from another Iberdrola SA affiliate].
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Wing, Jr.
(ph: 585-224-6758)
139 Thistledown Dr.
Rochester, NY 14617-3020
Every e-mail I've sent to you, I've separately also sent to the Secretary of the Commission.
As you will see below, through deceptive marketing practices, Iberdrola SA's Community Energy has already monopolized the renewable energies which are the public is being offered in NY State. Virtually all of the product offerings are coming from Iberdrola (Community Energy Inc), with a variety of names to make the NY State public falsely believe there is product competition when, in reality, there is no substantive competition.
For this reason, please clamp down on the Iberdrola SA nightmare and reject in its entirety Iberdrola's takeover bid for Energy East.
Each of the utility companies in NY State (NIMO-National Grid; Energy East / RG&E / NYSEG Solutions; LIPA; ConEdison; Orange & Rockland) offer a choice of Community Energy Inc (Iberdrola Product) or a competing ESCO-named product [which in reality is also an Iberdrola CEI marketed product whose name has simply been changed].
In fact, Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) has taken its marketing secrecy of its product line / product deceptions to such an extreme that Iberdrola SA has labeled with the State of NY their Community Energy Inc MARKETING CONTRACT (DPS-123, IBER-0197) with Energy East as being "HIGHLY TRADE SECRET".
People want to know who the marketer is that the energy services companies (ESCOs) wind power offerings actually come from. The ESCOs listed on NYPIRG’s website as Renewable Electricity Suppliers[marketers]are not the source marketer of any of the actual renewable energy products that the ESCO is offering to NY State’s residential consumer:
ConEd Solutions:
NYPIRG, on its website (see link), tries to deceive the residential consumers and the government regulators/investigators that regulated “utility companies” (e.g., RG&E; NYSEG; O&R; ConEd) are selling “ConEd Solutions” brand renewable energy electricity options.
But “utility companies” are not allowed to “sell” ESCO company products to the consumer, so why is NYPIRG involved in such deception.
Only an ESCO itself can sell the ESCO’s own products.
The ConEd Solutions Green Power brand blend of 35% wind / 65% small hydro which is offered by ConEd Solutions to falsely make it appear that Iberdrola / CEI is not monopolizing the allegedly competitive brands of wind /renewable energies offered by ConEd Solutions when, in truth the ConEd Solutions Green Power brand blend of 35% wind / 65% small hydro is exactly the same stuff marketed to ConEd Solutions by the same power marketer Iberdrola SA’s wholly-owned CEI affiliate.
The Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) website reveals that Iberdrola-owned CEI is the electrical power marketer of that “35% wind [CEI’s NewWind Energy trademark] / 65% small hydro” blend.
The ConEd Solutions Wind Power brand of 100% wind electricity is offered by ConEd Solutions to falsely make it appear that Iberdrola / CEI is not monopolizing the allegedly competitive brands of wind energies offered by ConEd Solutions when, in truth the ConEd Solutions Wind Power brand is exactly the same stuff marketed to ConEd Solutions by the same power marketer Iberdrola SA’s wholly-owned CEI affiliate. The Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) website reveals that Iberdrola-owned CEI is the electrical power marketer of that “100% wind” [CEI’s NewWind Energy trademark].
In the earlier years, starting in 2003 of For example, under the name CEI “Green-E certified blend” of “…New York-based wind (25%) and [small] hydropower (75%)”, ConEd Solutions offered that Community Energy Inc (CEI) marketed renewables-blend energy from May 2003 to May 2006 and clearly identified it as a CEI product.
Energetix:
[Energetix offers Energetix Option 1; and Energetix Option 2; and Energetix Option 3 (the latter only in the Long Island region of NY State) -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to Energetix from a marketer monopololizer Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
Energetix Option 1 is a 50% wind / 50% small damless hydro mix, blended with conventionally generated electricity, forming a 50% renewables / 50% conventional electricity blend.
This is the same exact Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) supplied renewables portion of 50% wind / 50% small hydro that Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) markets to the State of Connecticut under the Community Energy Inc. name and its NewWind Energy registered trademark.
Energetix Option 2 is a 50% wind / 50% small damless hydro mix of electricity.
This is the same exact Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) supplied 50% wind / 50% small hydro that CEI markets to the State of Connecticut under the Community Energy Inc. name and its NewWind Energy registered trademark.
Energetix Option 3 (offered only to customers in the Long Island region serviced by utility company LIPA).
This is also an Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) supplied and marketed wind / small hydro product, only in a slightly different percentage blend of 60% wind / 40% small hydro which has had all “labels” removed that would otherwise show it is an Iberdrola-owned CEI power marketer product.
NYSEG Solutions:
Using the NYSEG Solutions name, without mentioning that Iberdrola-owned Community Energy is the marketer/provider of its wind electricity products, NYSEG Solutions is only offering various blends of Community Energy Inc (CEI) products.
Central Hudson Enterprises Corporation (CHEC),: This subsidiary of CH Energy Group, Inc. owns Lyonsdale Biomass in Lyonsdale, NY. The Lyonsdale Biomass facility burns wood to produce electricity. Wood burning, on the scale needed to produce electricity, pollutes the air, but the company and State of NY ignore the pollution because there is a lot of freebies (tax credits, Renewal Energy Certificates (REC) monies, and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) monies) to be corporately gained.
Iberdrola-owned Community Energy Inc (CEI) markets the CHEC Lyonsdale Biomass electricity product by marketing blends of it mixed with Iberdrola-produced / Iberdrola (CEI)-marketed wind power electricity, offered under various names to deceive the NY State citizenry from recognizing the fact that Iberdrola (CEI) has a stranglehold in NY State of virtually all power marketing of all renewable energies, giving the public a false belief that there are competitive choices when in fact Iberdrola’s Community Energy Inc has a product power marketing stranglehold on the entire State of New York.
A cozy marketing arrangement exists between Iberdrola (Community Energy Inc) and Central Hudson being that Central Hudson is one of the co-owners which support Iberdrola’s (Community Energy Inc’s) ownership of the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project, NJ.
EnviroGen:
[EnviroGen offers its renewable energy product under the name EnviroGen; -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to EnviroGen directly (or indirectly) from an unrevealed power marketer, most likely from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
In fact, EnviroGen is one of the companies listed as buying wind power electricity generated at the Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) owned Bear Creek Wind Farm, PA.
Sterling Planet:
[Sterling Planet offers its renewable energy product under the name Sterling Planet; -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to Sterling Planet directly (or indirectly) from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
Sterling Planet buys the same 50% wind / 50% small hydro electricity blend from the same power marketer of the same 50% wind / 50% small hydro electricity blend that Energetix is buying from, (that being from Iberdola SA-owned power marketer Community Energy Inc), and, in the same manner as Energetix is doing, has had all “labels” removed that would otherwise show it is an Iberdrola-owned CEI power marketer product.
Sterling Planet also buys a 50% wind / 50% small hydro / 30% landfill gas (biomass) blend, but it won’t disclose who the power marketer is that it buys from, and then markets that blend as Sterling Green.
However, it is known that Iberdrola-owned CEI has, under the Community Energy Inc product name, marketed landfill gas dating back to March 2005 when CEI marketed from its NY City office a 50% wind / 50% landfill gas blend.
Thus, Iberdrola SA-owned CEI is the probable unnamed power marketer who is providing the landfill gas that Sterling Planet is now (in 2008) offering under its Sterling Green option.
US Energy Partners:
US Energy Partners offers renewable energy product under the name US Energy Partners; and also under the name EnvironGen which is another ESCO which is an “affiliate program: green energy” (see link) -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to US Energy Partners directly (or indirectly) from an unrevealed power marketer, most likely from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
IDT Energy:
[IDT Energy offers its renewable energy product under the name IDT Energy ; -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to IDT Energy directly (or indirectly) from an unrevealed power marketer, most likely from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA].
Accent Energy (aka Accent Energy Group LLC):
Accent Energy offers its renewable energy product under the name Accent Energy ; -- hiding from the public and from government regulators/investigators that these wind energy / renewable energy products come to Accent Energy directly (or indirectly) from an unrevealed power marketer, most likely from Community Energy Inc (CEI) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Iberdrola SA or from another Iberdrola SA affiliate].
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Wing, Jr.
(ph: 585-224-6758)
139 Thistledown Dr.
Rochester, NY 14617-3020
Suzlon Wind Turbines Miss Some Performance Benchmarks, WSJ Says
Turbines supplied by India's Suzlon Energy Ltd. to wind farms managed by Deere & Co. are producing less power than contracted, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter.
Suzlon, the world's fifth-largest maker of wind turbines, promises customers its turbines will be available to generate power at least 95% of the occasions when there is wind, and that they need only a limited amount of time for repair and maintenance, the newspapers said. The so-called availability rate has been lower in some cases, exposing Suzlon to the risk of penalties, it said.
Deere has 250 Suzlon turbines, making it one of the company's largest customers in the U.S. customers, the report said. Some turbines produce insufficient power because they aren't compatible with the U.S. electricity grid, it said.
Suzlon, in a written reply to the newspaper, said a version of its main turbine is compatible with the U.S. electricity grid, according to the report.
Suzlon, the world's fifth-largest maker of wind turbines, promises customers its turbines will be available to generate power at least 95% of the occasions when there is wind, and that they need only a limited amount of time for repair and maintenance, the newspapers said. The so-called availability rate has been lower in some cases, exposing Suzlon to the risk of penalties, it said.
Deere has 250 Suzlon turbines, making it one of the company's largest customers in the U.S. customers, the report said. Some turbines produce insufficient power because they aren't compatible with the U.S. electricity grid, it said.
Suzlon, in a written reply to the newspaper, said a version of its main turbine is compatible with the U.S. electricity grid, according to the report.
Politicians intervene in Iberdrola merger
Some business leaders and politicians are upset that a state agency is putting roadblocks in the way of a merger between a Spanish power company and RG&E's parent company.
They like the idea of a merger between Iberdrola and Energy East, which owns RG&E and NYSEG, largely because the company promises to invest up to $2 billion in wind energy development. Greater Rochester Enterprise, for example, pitches Rochester as a high-tech community on the forefront of renewable energy development. Its leaders see Iberdrola as a good fit in the community.
The state's regulatory watchdog, the Public Service Commission, has the final say on the merger. Its staff, as well as a judge involved in the proceedings, have recommended against the merger as proposed. They are concerned it would give the company too much clout in the power market. Competition could be stifled, they say, because Iberdrola would own both the means of producing and distributing energy. If the commission does allow the merger, Iberdrola should have to sell off its wind power assets, they say. Iberdrola officials, meanwhile, have said that they will walk away from the deal if they're forced to give up those assets.
"I think it's good the PSC has asked the questions, but I think clearly the right decision is to endorse the proposal," says Sandy Parker, CEO of Rochester Business Alliance.
Iberdrola owns a 50 percent stake in the state's largest wind farm, Maple Ridge, and has plans to develop around a dozen more. Worldwide, they are one of the largest wind energy producers.
Politicians think the company could be a valuable partner in helping the state meet its renewable energy goals - 25 percent of the state's power is supposed to come from renewables by 2013. So some influential Republicans and Democrats are starting to run interference with the process.
During a radio show appearance, Republican State Senator Joe Bruno said the judge involved in the proceedings should be "dismissed" for ruling against the merger.
United States Senator Chuck Schumer has been especially vocal on the merger, which he favors. He's called the demand that Iberdrola sell off its wind farm assets "irrational and illogical." He'll meet with PSC chair Gary Brown to discuss the judge's recommendations that the company not be allowed to own renewable energy facilities, including wind farms.
The PSC staff and the judge are just doing their jobs - to independently review whether the transaction is in the public interest - and politicians shouldn't criticize their recommendations, says Fairport resident Charles Straka. He's not involved with the merger case, but he is an unpaid representative of the average customer - an intervener in technical terms - in an ongoing RG&E rate case. And much of his interest in the merger deals with competition and its effect on rates.
"If the Public Service Commission process is overruled, who's going to control rates at all?" he says.
New York's experiment in power utility deregulation is key here. The underlying concept is that fostering competition between power producers should result in lower energy costs. Part of that effort has involved separating energy production and distribution so that one company doesn't control both.
If Iberdrola owns both the production facilities - wind farms, in this case - and the means of distribution, says Straka, it will give the company an advantage and may stifle competition, he says.
In public documents, an industry group has also voiced concerns that an Iberdrola-Energy East merger could hurt utility competition. The Independent Power Producers of New York, which represents power generating companies, favors Iberdrola's plans to sell RG&E and NYSEG's fossil fuel plants. If the merger happens, it also wants Iberdrola to sell Energy East's New York hydroelectric plants and refrain from connecting any new power plants, including wind farms, to RG&E or NYSEG distribution systems.
"It's a question of being fair," Straka says. "We don't need Iberdrola to own a utility company."
They like the idea of a merger between Iberdrola and Energy East, which owns RG&E and NYSEG, largely because the company promises to invest up to $2 billion in wind energy development. Greater Rochester Enterprise, for example, pitches Rochester as a high-tech community on the forefront of renewable energy development. Its leaders see Iberdrola as a good fit in the community.
The state's regulatory watchdog, the Public Service Commission, has the final say on the merger. Its staff, as well as a judge involved in the proceedings, have recommended against the merger as proposed. They are concerned it would give the company too much clout in the power market. Competition could be stifled, they say, because Iberdrola would own both the means of producing and distributing energy. If the commission does allow the merger, Iberdrola should have to sell off its wind power assets, they say. Iberdrola officials, meanwhile, have said that they will walk away from the deal if they're forced to give up those assets.
"I think it's good the PSC has asked the questions, but I think clearly the right decision is to endorse the proposal," says Sandy Parker, CEO of Rochester Business Alliance.
Iberdrola owns a 50 percent stake in the state's largest wind farm, Maple Ridge, and has plans to develop around a dozen more. Worldwide, they are one of the largest wind energy producers.
Politicians think the company could be a valuable partner in helping the state meet its renewable energy goals - 25 percent of the state's power is supposed to come from renewables by 2013. So some influential Republicans and Democrats are starting to run interference with the process.
During a radio show appearance, Republican State Senator Joe Bruno said the judge involved in the proceedings should be "dismissed" for ruling against the merger.
United States Senator Chuck Schumer has been especially vocal on the merger, which he favors. He's called the demand that Iberdrola sell off its wind farm assets "irrational and illogical." He'll meet with PSC chair Gary Brown to discuss the judge's recommendations that the company not be allowed to own renewable energy facilities, including wind farms.
The PSC staff and the judge are just doing their jobs - to independently review whether the transaction is in the public interest - and politicians shouldn't criticize their recommendations, says Fairport resident Charles Straka. He's not involved with the merger case, but he is an unpaid representative of the average customer - an intervener in technical terms - in an ongoing RG&E rate case. And much of his interest in the merger deals with competition and its effect on rates.
"If the Public Service Commission process is overruled, who's going to control rates at all?" he says.
New York's experiment in power utility deregulation is key here. The underlying concept is that fostering competition between power producers should result in lower energy costs. Part of that effort has involved separating energy production and distribution so that one company doesn't control both.
If Iberdrola owns both the production facilities - wind farms, in this case - and the means of distribution, says Straka, it will give the company an advantage and may stifle competition, he says.
In public documents, an industry group has also voiced concerns that an Iberdrola-Energy East merger could hurt utility competition. The Independent Power Producers of New York, which represents power generating companies, favors Iberdrola's plans to sell RG&E and NYSEG's fossil fuel plants. If the merger happens, it also wants Iberdrola to sell Energy East's New York hydroelectric plants and refrain from connecting any new power plants, including wind farms, to RG&E or NYSEG distribution systems.
"It's a question of being fair," Straka says. "We don't need Iberdrola to own a utility company."
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Wind power investment may fly away
It’s coming down to the wire for Iberdrola SA’s $4.6 billion bid to buy the company that owns New York State Electric & Gas Corp., and all eyes are on the state’s Public Service Commission.
The PSC is the final regulatory agency that needs to sign off on Iberdrola’s purchase of Energy East Corp. — a deal that already has won approval from regulators in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine, the other states the company has utility operations.
While the deal has a long list of supporters, it is opposed by a couple of key players in the review process, the PSC’s staff and a state administrative law judge who reviewed the proposed merger.
That raises questions, not only about whether the deal will go through, but also whether Iberdrola will look elsewhere with the $2 billion it says it could invest in new wind energy projects in New York. Those projects could go a long way in helping the state reach its goal of getting more of its electricity from renewable — and nonpolluting — sources.
“That is totally unrelated to the case for the merger,” says Pedro Azagra, Iberdrola’s director of corporate development.
The administrative law judge, Rafael Epstein, also agrees, arguing in his recommended decision that if the wind projects Iberdrola is considering make economic sense, the company likely would build them regardless of whether the merger goes through. And if not Iberdrola, then another wind power developer probably will.
Azagra, however, points out that while the state has as much as 7,000 megawatts of wind power projects on the drawing board, very few of those have actually been built. Iberdrola, he notes, has the financial clout to do it and is the world’s largest owner of wind power projects. The company also has enough turbines for 1,000 megawatts of wind projects in the United States.
“I think New York should be targeting 15 megawatts to 20 megawatts of [wind] capacity,” Azagra says. “You’re missing huge investments. You’re missing huge opportunities.”
At the crux of the issue is the PSC’s 13- year-old policy that aims to keep utilities from owning power generation facilities in an effort to spur a competitive wholesale electricity market.
Owning power plants, the PSC staff and Epstein say, gives utilities too much market power and the opportunity to use their transmission and distribution capabilities to favor their own power plants.
“They would impair the potential economic advantages of wind generation and deter potential competitors from developing wind energy resources,” Epstein wrote. A utility, for example, could make it difficult for a competing power project to connect to the power grid.
Iberdrola’s Azagra says there’s a big difference between utilities owning baseline power plants on the scale of the Huntley Station in the Town of Tonawanda, and owning wind power projects that provide only a small percentage of the state’s overall electricity demand.
Big, conventional plants “are the ones that can fix the market price,” says Azagra, noting that utilities continue to own small hydroelectric stations and that Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. owns some sizable conventional power plants that Iberdrola has agreed to sell if the merger goes through. “Wind power can not fix the market price.”
Iberdrola says it will rethink its plans for its potential $2 billion investment if state regulators reject the Energy East deal when it comes before the full PSC, possibly as early as its July 16 meeting.
“We believe in predictable and consistent regulation. If those things are not there, there are many other states and countries where it is,” Azagra says. “If you’re in a state where regulation is not predictable, we’re out of there.”
The PSC is the final regulatory agency that needs to sign off on Iberdrola’s purchase of Energy East Corp. — a deal that already has won approval from regulators in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine, the other states the company has utility operations.
While the deal has a long list of supporters, it is opposed by a couple of key players in the review process, the PSC’s staff and a state administrative law judge who reviewed the proposed merger.
That raises questions, not only about whether the deal will go through, but also whether Iberdrola will look elsewhere with the $2 billion it says it could invest in new wind energy projects in New York. Those projects could go a long way in helping the state reach its goal of getting more of its electricity from renewable — and nonpolluting — sources.
“That is totally unrelated to the case for the merger,” says Pedro Azagra, Iberdrola’s director of corporate development.
The administrative law judge, Rafael Epstein, also agrees, arguing in his recommended decision that if the wind projects Iberdrola is considering make economic sense, the company likely would build them regardless of whether the merger goes through. And if not Iberdrola, then another wind power developer probably will.
Azagra, however, points out that while the state has as much as 7,000 megawatts of wind power projects on the drawing board, very few of those have actually been built. Iberdrola, he notes, has the financial clout to do it and is the world’s largest owner of wind power projects. The company also has enough turbines for 1,000 megawatts of wind projects in the United States.
“I think New York should be targeting 15 megawatts to 20 megawatts of [wind] capacity,” Azagra says. “You’re missing huge investments. You’re missing huge opportunities.”
At the crux of the issue is the PSC’s 13- year-old policy that aims to keep utilities from owning power generation facilities in an effort to spur a competitive wholesale electricity market.
Owning power plants, the PSC staff and Epstein say, gives utilities too much market power and the opportunity to use their transmission and distribution capabilities to favor their own power plants.
“They would impair the potential economic advantages of wind generation and deter potential competitors from developing wind energy resources,” Epstein wrote. A utility, for example, could make it difficult for a competing power project to connect to the power grid.
Iberdrola’s Azagra says there’s a big difference between utilities owning baseline power plants on the scale of the Huntley Station in the Town of Tonawanda, and owning wind power projects that provide only a small percentage of the state’s overall electricity demand.
Big, conventional plants “are the ones that can fix the market price,” says Azagra, noting that utilities continue to own small hydroelectric stations and that Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. owns some sizable conventional power plants that Iberdrola has agreed to sell if the merger goes through. “Wind power can not fix the market price.”
Iberdrola says it will rethink its plans for its potential $2 billion investment if state regulators reject the Energy East deal when it comes before the full PSC, possibly as early as its July 16 meeting.
“We believe in predictable and consistent regulation. If those things are not there, there are many other states and countries where it is,” Azagra says. “If you’re in a state where regulation is not predictable, we’re out of there.”
Iberdrola s fraud at the ATLANTIC-JERSEY WIND PROJECT, aka Atlantic City Wind Project (NJ) funded by NY State
Dear PSC Chairman Brown and Ms. Jodi Fansler:
No later than noon this coming Monday 30 June 2008, I will send you other issues about Iberdrola SA defrauding the State of New York and its citizenry.
Please permanently remove Iberdrola SA (and its affiliates) from doing business in NY State.
Iberdrola SA (including, but not limited to its wholly owned affiliate Community Energy Inc) is defrauding the monies of the residential ratepayers of NY State in the "Renewable Portfolio Standard Fund" and is defrauding the NY State taxpayers of monies via the REC program.
1. ATLANTIC-JERSEY WIND PROJECT, aka Atlantic City Wind Project (NJ):
Each of the five 1.5 MW turbines at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project (aka Atlantic City Wind Project) can produce 1.5 megawatts of electricity for a total wind farm nameplate capacity of 7.5 MW … “That’s equivalent to the annual energy consumption of about 2,500 homes,” said Paul Copleman, marketing operations manager at Community Energy Inc.
However, Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) knows that the wind turbines at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project (aka Atlantic City Wind Project) only have a 10% effective capacity. The wind turbines installed in 2005 at Community Energy Inc’s (CEI’s) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project are the same GE model 1.5 MW wind turbines in the same year 2005 that General Electric [aka GE Energy], the turbine manufacturer, in a report to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) on 04 March 2005, stated: “Capacity factors of inland sites in New York are on the order of 30% of their rated [nameplate] capacity. Their effective capacities, however, are about 10% [of rated capacity], due to both the seasonal and daily patterns of the wind generation being largely ‘out of phase’ with the NYISO [New York Independent System Operator] load patterns.”
Therefore the 2005 version of the five GE 1.5 MW turbines being used at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project will only power 250 homes. That's only 10% of what Iberdrola falsely claims it is generating there.
Even taking into account Atlantic City's coastal location in New Jersey, the effective output of the five GE 1.5 MW turbines at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project would never more than double (due to coastal wind conditions) to 20% effectiveness, meaning that the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project might be able to power a meager 500 homes.
Iberdrola SA (CEI) is claiming and collecting (from NY State) RECs and RPS money based on a 7.5 MW total output capacity at that wind farm, when Iberdrola SA (CEI) knows that the real output capacity of that coastal wind farm is somewhere between 10% (250 homes) and 20% (500 homes).
It is FRAUDULENT that CEI (Iberdrola) is fraudulently claiming it's supplying wind electricity from the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project [electricity that will only power 250 to 500 homes regardless of state or location] to New York State when, in actuality, the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project is supplying the entirety of that wind electricity throughout New Jersey.
It is similarly FRAUDULENT for Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc), in order to obtain RPS and REC money from New York State, to be falsely claiming a 7.5 MW output capability at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project which even GE says far exceeds the output capabilities of the GE wind turbines in use at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project.
It is also FRAUDULENT for Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) to have written delivery contracts for future deliveries of Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity which excessively exceed the ouput capacity what that wind farm's GE generators can actually provide the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project's extensive list of already contracted New Jersey customers it specifically lists.
And it is FRAUDULENT, in order to obtain RPS and REC money from New York State, for Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc), which has contractually more than committed and used up all of the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity capable of being produced there, to write long-term supply contracts for electricity from the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity with customers located in New York State.
The Iberdrola SA affiliate-owned Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project lists long-term multi-year contracts of Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity to numerous large New Jersey located customers which include but are not limited to: institutions (Rowan University), industries (Johnson&Johnson’s New Jersey corporate locations), businesses (nine New Jersey stores of Whole Foods Market plus NJ-located warehouses plus one NY City store of Whole Foods Market; and to the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; and to the Sandy Alexander lithography/printing Company) -- that's far more than the equivalent of the 250 to 500 home real maximum capacity output of its five GE 1.5 MW wind turbines, the effective rating output of which GE Energy brought to NYSERDA's attention in 2005. That's DEFRAUDING the NYS "RPS" Fund and the NYS "RECs payout system, etc.
Additionally, the Iberdrola (CEI) operated Atlantic City Wind Project also supplies wind electricity to the New Jersey facility of the Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA) waste water treatment center (handling 70% of that ACUA's site's total electrical requirements).
Additionally, six utility companies in New Jersey are offering to each of their customers three wind electricity products generated at Iberdrola's (Community Energy Inc's) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project. The six utility companies are: Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G); Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L); Atlantic City Electric; Rockland Electric; Orange & Rockland; and Jersey-Atlantic Wind. The three Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project generated products which all six companies offer their customers are:
(1) A 100% New Jersey-based wind product in 100-kWh monthly increments is being offered under the brand name Jersey-Atlantic Wind. By clicking on the wind product “Jersey-Atlantic Wind” at this website, it opens the website of the owner and marketer of that product who, you guessed it, is Community Energy Inc (Iberdrola SA).
“New Jersey Wind is a renewable electricity certificate product delivered to the regional electric grid ... by the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in Atlantic County, NJ.”
(2) Under the Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) brand name NewWind Energy®, a blend of A 100% New Jersey-based wind product in 100-kWh monthly increments is being offered under the brand name Jersey-Atlantic Wind. By clicking on the wind product “Jersey-Atlantic Wind” at this website, it opens the website of the owner and marketer of that product who, you guessed it, is Community Energy Inc (Iberdrola SA).
“New Jersey Wind is a renewable electricity certificate product delivered to the regional electric grid ... by the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in Atlantic County, NJ.”
(3) Under the Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) brand name NewWind Energy®, a blend of wind (50%), low-impact hydro (49%), and solar (1%) is being offered.
Obviously, Iberdrola's (Community Energy Inc's) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project which can only produce enough electricity for 250 to 500 houses cannot possibly produce the massive quantities of wind electricity which Iberdrola SA claims to be producing for numerous very big electricity using customers and markets in New Jersey. “New Jersey Wind is a renewable electricity certificate product delivered to the regional electric grid ... by the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in Atlantic County, NJ.”
(2) A blend of New Jersey-based wind (50%) and low-impact hydro (50%) is being offered under the brand name Jersey-Atlantic Wind. By clicking on the wind product “Jersey-Atlantic Wind” at this website, it opens the website of the owner and marketer of that product who, you guessed it, is Community Energy Inc (Iberdrola SA).
“New Jersey Wind is a renewable electricity certificate product delivered to the regional electric grid ... by the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in Atlantic County, NJ.”
Obviously, there is nothing left for New York State, whose residential ratepayers have had their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) monies swindled in 2005 by NYSERDA action which sent their monies to Community Energy Inc to build that out-of-state project in New Jersey (the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project), and whose NY State taxpayers have had their NY State income tax monies swindled by NYSERDA's payment of that money to Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) in exchange for Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) self-issued RECs for Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity. Clearly it is a facade to believe that actual wind generated electricity from this project.
The fact that the the relatively tiny Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project (aka Atlantic City Wind Farm) had a $12.5 million project cost when it opened 12 December 2005 but only 21 full months later had $0 debt is indicative of massive defrauding of the RPS fund and the REC system.
New Jersey has its own Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) fund to develop wind farm projects in New Jersey. So wasn't New Jersey's own RPS monies being used to fund and develop the New Jersey located Community Energy Inc (CEI) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm? Or has Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) instead been windfall profiting (at an alarming rate) by double dipping RPS monies from both of the states (New Jersey and New York) for Iberdrola SA's wind farm located in New Jersey?
Crookedly, New York State (NYSERDA) has given away its NY State residential ratepayers' RPS fund monies to develop the New Jersey located wind project (giving its owner Community Energy Inc / Iberdola SA immediate windfall profits). But New Jersey does not use any of its New Jersey State residential ratepayers' RPS fund monies to develop any wind projects located in New York State.
The Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm is a New Jersey located project. Therefore, its owner (Iberdrola SA's Community Energy Inc) was paid numerous free grants awarded by the State of New Jersey, among which are:
(1) A State of New Jersey huge monetary grant under the New Jersey's "Grid Supply Program".
(2) Community Energy Inc received a $1.7 million grant from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities [aka the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) Office of Clean
Energy's (OCE) new REED (Renewable Energy and Economic Development) Program].
(3) A $1.92 million supply grant through Atlantic City Electric [most likely garnered by Atlantic City Electric from State of New Jersey and Federal tax monies].
(4) The State of New Jersey also offers [to Community Energy Inc's Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project] a 'new technology incubator' additional tax write-off / additional grant program for wind power project companies (new technology companies) which are already operating in the State of New Jersey and to other 'new technology companies' which are newly locating to New Jersey.
Plus, because it is located in New Jersey and sells it electricity to New Jersey customers, Iberdrola SA's Community Energy Inc's Atlantic City Wind Farm issues massive numbers of Renewable Energy Certificates which are redeemed for massive amounts of State of New Jersey provided cash. In fact, the New Jersey REC payments fund is quickly approaching bankruptcy due to the extraordinary numbers of RECs that Iberdrola SA's Community Energy (and others like them) are self-issuing in New Jersey.
Plus, because it is located in New Jersey, Iberdrola SA's Community Energy Inc's Atlantic City Wind Farm receives massive amounts of tax breaks from the State of New Jersey as:
(1) Production Tax Credits (PTCs) deducted from a New Jersey income tax form.
(2) [Rapidly] Accelerated Depreciation deducted from another New Jersey income tax form.
(3) Carbon Credits.
Plus, Iberdrola SA's Community Energy Inc's Atlantic City Wind Farm receives massive amounts of tax breaks from the Federal Government as:
(1) Production Tax Credits (PTCs) deducted from a U.S. income tax form.
(2) [Rapidly] Accelerated Depreciation deducted from another U.S. income tax form.
(3) Carbon Credits.
NY State's REC and RPS payout system is a joke. You're seeing the financial fraud that happens with the fox (Iberdrola SA) in charge of the henhouse.
Iberdrola's use of New York State monies for wind power projects in New Jersey (and Pennsylvania) is deplorable, corrupt, and is part of a massive wind power racketeering scheme.
Kick Iberdrola SA (and its affiliate Community Energy Inc) permanently out of the State of New York for having its wind electricity customer Whole Foods Market sell wind REC cards to grocery shoppers at Whole Foods Market.
Stop sending RPS monies out-of-state. In February 2005, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) "ratepayers" fund of NYSERDA paid NY State ratepayers' monies to build a NEW JERSEY located wind "farm" (the Atlantic City Wind Farm).
Stop the unethical practice of allowing Iberdrola to combine the use of REC money and RPS money for the same facility and its output.
Stop allowing New York State to issue RPS money and REC money to Iberdrola SA (and its affiliates) for any purpose anywhere.
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Wing, Jr.
(ph: 585-224-6758)
139 Thistledown Dr.
Rochester, NY 14617-3020
No later than noon this coming Monday 30 June 2008, I will send you other issues about Iberdrola SA defrauding the State of New York and its citizenry.
Please permanently remove Iberdrola SA (and its affiliates) from doing business in NY State.
Iberdrola SA (including, but not limited to its wholly owned affiliate Community Energy Inc) is defrauding the monies of the residential ratepayers of NY State in the "Renewable Portfolio Standard Fund" and is defrauding the NY State taxpayers of monies via the REC program.
1. ATLANTIC-JERSEY WIND PROJECT, aka Atlantic City Wind Project (NJ):
Each of the five 1.5 MW turbines at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project (aka Atlantic City Wind Project) can produce 1.5 megawatts of electricity for a total wind farm nameplate capacity of 7.5 MW … “That’s equivalent to the annual energy consumption of about 2,500 homes,” said Paul Copleman, marketing operations manager at Community Energy Inc.
However, Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) knows that the wind turbines at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project (aka Atlantic City Wind Project) only have a 10% effective capacity. The wind turbines installed in 2005 at Community Energy Inc’s (CEI’s) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project are the same GE model 1.5 MW wind turbines in the same year 2005 that General Electric [aka GE Energy], the turbine manufacturer, in a report to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) on 04 March 2005, stated: “Capacity factors of inland sites in New York are on the order of 30% of their rated [nameplate] capacity. Their effective capacities, however, are about 10% [of rated capacity], due to both the seasonal and daily patterns of the wind generation being largely ‘out of phase’ with the NYISO [New York Independent System Operator] load patterns.”
Therefore the 2005 version of the five GE 1.5 MW turbines being used at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project will only power 250 homes. That's only 10% of what Iberdrola falsely claims it is generating there.
Even taking into account Atlantic City's coastal location in New Jersey, the effective output of the five GE 1.5 MW turbines at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project would never more than double (due to coastal wind conditions) to 20% effectiveness, meaning that the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project might be able to power a meager 500 homes.
Iberdrola SA (CEI) is claiming and collecting (from NY State) RECs and RPS money based on a 7.5 MW total output capacity at that wind farm, when Iberdrola SA (CEI) knows that the real output capacity of that coastal wind farm is somewhere between 10% (250 homes) and 20% (500 homes).
It is FRAUDULENT that CEI (Iberdrola) is fraudulently claiming it's supplying wind electricity from the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project [electricity that will only power 250 to 500 homes regardless of state or location] to New York State when, in actuality, the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project is supplying the entirety of that wind electricity throughout New Jersey.
It is similarly FRAUDULENT for Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc), in order to obtain RPS and REC money from New York State, to be falsely claiming a 7.5 MW output capability at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project which even GE says far exceeds the output capabilities of the GE wind turbines in use at the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project.
It is also FRAUDULENT for Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) to have written delivery contracts for future deliveries of Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity which excessively exceed the ouput capacity what that wind farm's GE generators can actually provide the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project's extensive list of already contracted New Jersey customers it specifically lists.
And it is FRAUDULENT, in order to obtain RPS and REC money from New York State, for Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc), which has contractually more than committed and used up all of the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity capable of being produced there, to write long-term supply contracts for electricity from the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity with customers located in New York State.
The Iberdrola SA affiliate-owned Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project lists long-term multi-year contracts of Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity to numerous large New Jersey located customers which include but are not limited to: institutions (Rowan University), industries (Johnson&Johnson’s New Jersey corporate locations), businesses (nine New Jersey stores of Whole Foods Market plus NJ-located warehouses plus one NY City store of Whole Foods Market; and to the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; and to the Sandy Alexander lithography/printing Company) -- that's far more than the equivalent of the 250 to 500 home real maximum capacity output of its five GE 1.5 MW wind turbines, the effective rating output of which GE Energy brought to NYSERDA's attention in 2005. That's DEFRAUDING the NYS "RPS" Fund and the NYS "RECs payout system, etc.
Additionally, the Iberdrola (CEI) operated Atlantic City Wind Project also supplies wind electricity to the New Jersey facility of the Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA) waste water treatment center (handling 70% of that ACUA's site's total electrical requirements).
Additionally, six utility companies in New Jersey are offering to each of their customers three wind electricity products generated at Iberdrola's (Community Energy Inc's) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project. The six utility companies are: Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G); Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L); Atlantic City Electric; Rockland Electric; Orange & Rockland; and Jersey-Atlantic Wind. The three Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project generated products which all six companies offer their customers are:
(1) A 100% New Jersey-based wind product in 100-kWh monthly increments is being offered under the brand name Jersey-Atlantic Wind. By clicking on the wind product “Jersey-Atlantic Wind” at this website, it opens the website of the owner and marketer of that product who, you guessed it, is Community Energy Inc (Iberdrola SA).
“New Jersey Wind is a renewable electricity certificate product delivered to the regional electric grid ... by the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in Atlantic County, NJ.”
(2) Under the Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) brand name NewWind Energy®, a blend of A 100% New Jersey-based wind product in 100-kWh monthly increments is being offered under the brand name Jersey-Atlantic Wind. By clicking on the wind product “Jersey-Atlantic Wind” at this website, it opens the website of the owner and marketer of that product who, you guessed it, is Community Energy Inc (Iberdrola SA).
“New Jersey Wind is a renewable electricity certificate product delivered to the regional electric grid ... by the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in Atlantic County, NJ.”
(3) Under the Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) brand name NewWind Energy®, a blend of wind (50%), low-impact hydro (49%), and solar (1%) is being offered.
Obviously, Iberdrola's (Community Energy Inc's) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project which can only produce enough electricity for 250 to 500 houses cannot possibly produce the massive quantities of wind electricity which Iberdrola SA claims to be producing for numerous very big electricity using customers and markets in New Jersey. “New Jersey Wind is a renewable electricity certificate product delivered to the regional electric grid ... by the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in Atlantic County, NJ.”
(2) A blend of New Jersey-based wind (50%) and low-impact hydro (50%) is being offered under the brand name Jersey-Atlantic Wind. By clicking on the wind product “Jersey-Atlantic Wind” at this website, it opens the website of the owner and marketer of that product who, you guessed it, is Community Energy Inc (Iberdrola SA).
“New Jersey Wind is a renewable electricity certificate product delivered to the regional electric grid ... by the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm in Atlantic County, NJ.”
Obviously, there is nothing left for New York State, whose residential ratepayers have had their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) monies swindled in 2005 by NYSERDA action which sent their monies to Community Energy Inc to build that out-of-state project in New Jersey (the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project), and whose NY State taxpayers have had their NY State income tax monies swindled by NYSERDA's payment of that money to Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) in exchange for Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) self-issued RECs for Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project electricity. Clearly it is a facade to believe that actual wind generated electricity from this project.
The fact that the the relatively tiny Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project (aka Atlantic City Wind Farm) had a $12.5 million project cost when it opened 12 December 2005 but only 21 full months later had $0 debt is indicative of massive defrauding of the RPS fund and the REC system.
New Jersey has its own Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) fund to develop wind farm projects in New Jersey. So wasn't New Jersey's own RPS monies being used to fund and develop the New Jersey located Community Energy Inc (CEI) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm? Or has Iberdrola SA (Community Energy Inc) instead been windfall profiting (at an alarming rate) by double dipping RPS monies from both of the states (New Jersey and New York) for Iberdrola SA's wind farm located in New Jersey?
Crookedly, New York State (NYSERDA) has given away its NY State residential ratepayers' RPS fund monies to develop the New Jersey located wind project (giving its owner Community Energy Inc / Iberdola SA immediate windfall profits). But New Jersey does not use any of its New Jersey State residential ratepayers' RPS fund monies to develop any wind projects located in New York State.
The Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm is a New Jersey located project. Therefore, its owner (Iberdrola SA's Community Energy Inc) was paid numerous free grants awarded by the State of New Jersey, among which are:
(1) A State of New Jersey huge monetary grant under the New Jersey's "Grid Supply Program".
(2) Community Energy Inc received a $1.7 million grant from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities [aka the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) Office of Clean
Energy's (OCE) new REED (Renewable Energy and Economic Development) Program].
(3) A $1.92 million supply grant through Atlantic City Electric [most likely garnered by Atlantic City Electric from State of New Jersey and Federal tax monies].
(4) The State of New Jersey also offers [to Community Energy Inc's Jersey-Atlantic Wind Project] a 'new technology incubator' additional tax write-off / additional grant program for wind power project companies (new technology companies) which are already operating in the State of New Jersey and to other 'new technology companies' which are newly locating to New Jersey.
Plus, because it is located in New Jersey and sells it electricity to New Jersey customers, Iberdrola SA's Community Energy Inc's Atlantic City Wind Farm issues massive numbers of Renewable Energy Certificates which are redeemed for massive amounts of State of New Jersey provided cash. In fact, the New Jersey REC payments fund is quickly approaching bankruptcy due to the extraordinary numbers of RECs that Iberdrola SA's Community Energy (and others like them) are self-issuing in New Jersey.
Plus, because it is located in New Jersey, Iberdrola SA's Community Energy Inc's Atlantic City Wind Farm receives massive amounts of tax breaks from the State of New Jersey as:
(1) Production Tax Credits (PTCs) deducted from a New Jersey income tax form.
(2) [Rapidly] Accelerated Depreciation deducted from another New Jersey income tax form.
(3) Carbon Credits.
Plus, Iberdrola SA's Community Energy Inc's Atlantic City Wind Farm receives massive amounts of tax breaks from the Federal Government as:
(1) Production Tax Credits (PTCs) deducted from a U.S. income tax form.
(2) [Rapidly] Accelerated Depreciation deducted from another U.S. income tax form.
(3) Carbon Credits.
NY State's REC and RPS payout system is a joke. You're seeing the financial fraud that happens with the fox (Iberdrola SA) in charge of the henhouse.
Iberdrola's use of New York State monies for wind power projects in New Jersey (and Pennsylvania) is deplorable, corrupt, and is part of a massive wind power racketeering scheme.
Kick Iberdrola SA (and its affiliate Community Energy Inc) permanently out of the State of New York for having its wind electricity customer Whole Foods Market sell wind REC cards to grocery shoppers at Whole Foods Market.
Stop sending RPS monies out-of-state. In February 2005, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) "ratepayers" fund of NYSERDA paid NY State ratepayers' monies to build a NEW JERSEY located wind "farm" (the Atlantic City Wind Farm).
Stop the unethical practice of allowing Iberdrola to combine the use of REC money and RPS money for the same facility and its output.
Stop allowing New York State to issue RPS money and REC money to Iberdrola SA (and its affiliates) for any purpose anywhere.
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Wing, Jr.
(ph: 585-224-6758)
139 Thistledown Dr.
Rochester, NY 14617-3020
FERC OKs NYISO Plan to Integrate Wind Power
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today approved tariff revisions that will allow the New York Independent System Operator Inc. (NYISO) to better incorporate wind power into its day-ahead and real-time energy markets.
Background
NYISO in April proposed tariff changes that would better integrate the increased presence of wind generating resources into the day-ahead and real-time energy markets in New York by increasing the amount of intermittent renewable capacity eligible for special market rules from 1,000 MW to 3,300 MW and incorporating a wind forecasting system into NYISO's processes. NYISO would exempt eligible facilities from charges for persistent under-generation, and would pay them for over-generation in the real-time energy market.
NYISO also proposed to implement a centralized, mandatory and enforceable wind forecasting mechanism for all facilities larger than 12 MW to allow NYISO to more accurately commit and dispatch resources in the New York Control Area and schedule imports from neighbors that will reduce system operating costs and improve the reliability of service to New York loads. Under this mechanism, wind plant operators must collect, from equipment on at least one point in the wind farm, data regarding wind speed and direction and transmit the data to NYISO at least once every 15 minutes.
Each wind resource would be responsible for the cost of installation and maintenance of any equipment necessary to collect the required data. NYISO also would add a new rate schedule to recover its cost of providing the wind forecasting service by assessing both a $500 fixed fee and a separate fee of $7.50 per MW of nameplate capacity each month.
NYISO also proposed to impose daily financial sanctions on wind resources that fail to provide the required meteorological data and that do not cure that failure after a reasonable notice period. The daily sanctions would be equal to the greater of $500 or $20 per MW of nameplate capacity per day until the failure is corrected.
Order
FERC approved the proposal, finding that the tariff revisions will benefit and encourage wind and other intermittent generators. FERC also required NYISO to file an informational report within two years apprising the Commission of its evaluation of progress in the program and providing information regarding the costs of the service, the revenues collected under the new rate schedule and the disposition of those revenues.
Background
NYISO in April proposed tariff changes that would better integrate the increased presence of wind generating resources into the day-ahead and real-time energy markets in New York by increasing the amount of intermittent renewable capacity eligible for special market rules from 1,000 MW to 3,300 MW and incorporating a wind forecasting system into NYISO's processes. NYISO would exempt eligible facilities from charges for persistent under-generation, and would pay them for over-generation in the real-time energy market.
NYISO also proposed to implement a centralized, mandatory and enforceable wind forecasting mechanism for all facilities larger than 12 MW to allow NYISO to more accurately commit and dispatch resources in the New York Control Area and schedule imports from neighbors that will reduce system operating costs and improve the reliability of service to New York loads. Under this mechanism, wind plant operators must collect, from equipment on at least one point in the wind farm, data regarding wind speed and direction and transmit the data to NYISO at least once every 15 minutes.
Each wind resource would be responsible for the cost of installation and maintenance of any equipment necessary to collect the required data. NYISO also would add a new rate schedule to recover its cost of providing the wind forecasting service by assessing both a $500 fixed fee and a separate fee of $7.50 per MW of nameplate capacity each month.
NYISO also proposed to impose daily financial sanctions on wind resources that fail to provide the required meteorological data and that do not cure that failure after a reasonable notice period. The daily sanctions would be equal to the greater of $500 or $20 per MW of nameplate capacity per day until the failure is corrected.
Order
FERC approved the proposal, finding that the tariff revisions will benefit and encourage wind and other intermittent generators. FERC also required NYISO to file an informational report within two years apprising the Commission of its evaluation of progress in the program and providing information regarding the costs of the service, the revenues collected under the new rate schedule and the disposition of those revenues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)