HOUSTON — For all the support that the presidential candidates are expressing for renewable energy, alternative energies like wind and solar are facing big new challenges because of the credit freeze and the plunge in oil and natural gas prices.
Shares of alternative energy companies have fallen even more sharply than the rest of the stock market in recent months. The struggles of financial institutions are raising fears that investment capital for big renewable energy projects is likely to get tighter.
Advocates are concerned that if the prices for oil and gas keep falling, the incentive for utilities and consumers to buy expensive renewable energy will shrink. That is what happened in the 1980s when a decade of advances for alternative energy collapsed amid falling prices for conventional fuels.
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Wind farm being studied by LARRY RULISON
ROTTERDAM — A Vermont wind energy company is in the very early stages of developing a wind farm in Schenectady County.
A site for a 79.2-megawatt wind farm is being studied in the towns of Rotterdam and Princetown by Reunion Power LLC of Manchester.
Steve Eisenberg, Reunion's managing director, said the company has not yet acquired land for the project, although a meteorological tower has been erected to collect data.
The 197-foot tower is located off Crawford Road in Pattersonville near the border of Rotterdam and Princetown.
"We're pursuing options and leases (on land)," Eisenberg said Monday.
A 79.2-megawatt wind farm would have between 30 and 50 wind turbines, depending on the size of the machines.
Such a development could power about 20,000 homes, although it's important to note that Reunion has not determined the actual size or scope of the project — or if it even plans to move forward.
"Like a lot of companies, we are pursuing the possibility of wind power in New York," Eisenberg said.
Reunion is also working to develop projects in Warren and Otsego counties. The Warren County project is a 30-megawatt wind farm proposed for north of Gore Mountain.
Eisenberg said Reunion has not submitted formal plans to the towns of Princetown or Rotterdam. The company has yet to decide if the project is feasible both in terms of the amount of wind available in the area and its economics.
The project has been dubbed Gateway Wind Energy, according to a filing made with the New York Independent System Operator, the East Greenbush nonprofit group that oversees the state's electrical grid.
The Reunion project is not the only Schenectady County wind project under consideration. General Electric Co. also is planning to erect a wind turbine in Schenectady at its GE Energy plant there. The two projects are not related.
Reunion is affiliated with Edison Mission Group, the fifth largest owner of wind energy projects in the United States, with 14 projects totaling 654 megawatts, the company says.
A site for a 79.2-megawatt wind farm is being studied in the towns of Rotterdam and Princetown by Reunion Power LLC of Manchester.
Steve Eisenberg, Reunion's managing director, said the company has not yet acquired land for the project, although a meteorological tower has been erected to collect data.
The 197-foot tower is located off Crawford Road in Pattersonville near the border of Rotterdam and Princetown.
"We're pursuing options and leases (on land)," Eisenberg said Monday.
A 79.2-megawatt wind farm would have between 30 and 50 wind turbines, depending on the size of the machines.
Such a development could power about 20,000 homes, although it's important to note that Reunion has not determined the actual size or scope of the project — or if it even plans to move forward.
"Like a lot of companies, we are pursuing the possibility of wind power in New York," Eisenberg said.
Reunion is also working to develop projects in Warren and Otsego counties. The Warren County project is a 30-megawatt wind farm proposed for north of Gore Mountain.
Eisenberg said Reunion has not submitted formal plans to the towns of Princetown or Rotterdam. The company has yet to decide if the project is feasible both in terms of the amount of wind available in the area and its economics.
The project has been dubbed Gateway Wind Energy, according to a filing made with the New York Independent System Operator, the East Greenbush nonprofit group that oversees the state's electrical grid.
The Reunion project is not the only Schenectady County wind project under consideration. General Electric Co. also is planning to erect a wind turbine in Schenectady at its GE Energy plant there. The two projects are not related.
Reunion is affiliated with Edison Mission Group, the fifth largest owner of wind energy projects in the United States, with 14 projects totaling 654 megawatts, the company says.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Winds Shift for Renewable Energy As Oil Price Sinks, Money Gets Tight
The prospects of renewable-energy companies soared with oil prices, but the global credit crunch and the easing of energy costs have brought them back to earth with a thud.
With banks reluctant to lend and their stock prices tumbling, many green-energy concerns are struggling to find the long-term funding they need to expand in a capital-intensive industry.
In the past three months, global renewable-energy stocks tracked by New Energy Finance, a London-based consultancy, have dropped about 45%, compared with a 23% decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the same period.
The sector's problems have been compounded by the ..
With banks reluctant to lend and their stock prices tumbling, many green-energy concerns are struggling to find the long-term funding they need to expand in a capital-intensive industry.
In the past three months, global renewable-energy stocks tracked by New Energy Finance, a London-based consultancy, have dropped about 45%, compared with a 23% decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the same period.
The sector's problems have been compounded by the ..
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Read excerpts from the book - Wind Turbine Syndrome
The book sections, below, are all in manuscript (typescript) format. In each case they represent the latest version (draft) of the ms. Be aware that the final, published version may differ somewhat from the text you read here, since the ms. is still a work in progress. However, it is very close to final draft. Whatever revisions are made between now and publication will likely be minor.
Friday, October 17, 2008
New info calls statements into question
BATH - New court documents appear to contradict sworn statements by Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell about his involvement in a windfarm land deal.
Kevin Bernstein, attorney for Windfarm Prattsburgh, submitted additional information about the transaction Monday to state Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure.
McConnell, a real estate agent, is under fire for voting on issues involving the wind developer after he received payments for his role in selling property to Windfarm Prattsburgh.
McConnell has maintained the payments were for token assistance and should not have prevented him from voting twice in favor of eminent domain proceedings on behalf of the energy company.
Bernstein's report indicates McConnell was actively involved in the sale, but still maintains Mc- Connell's votes were proper.
The transaction is at the heart of the on going lawsuit charging McConnell with violating codes of ethics.
McConnell was paid $1,900 for his role in the transaction late last year, several months before the town board began to consider eminent domain proceedings.
Windfarm Prattsburgh's parent company, First Wind, requested the board consider seizing sections of road owned by eight property owners needed to lay underground transmission lines for the 36-turbine project.
But board members deadlocked on both the proposal to hold a public hearing on eminent domain in April, and a second proposal in June to begin the proceedings.
McConnell's votes broke 2-2 ties, despite requests by board members he abstain because he received money for the earlier land sale.
According to McConnell's sworn affidavit Aug. 21, he "had little or nothing to do with the transaction at all."
In the affidavit, Mc- Connell said he was approached by a Windfarm Prattsburgh representative and asked for advice on how to acquire the land. Mc- Connell said he recommended the Nothnagle agency in Naples and acted largely as a messenger after that.
But Bernstein's report says McConnell completed the initial purchase agreement form for $65,000, then prepared, delivered, and reviewed a revised offer, acted as an intermediary between First Wind, then known as UPC Wind, and Nothnagle.
McConnell is listed on the Oct. 26, 2007 final offer as the "selling agent" along with Nothnagle, according to Bernstein's document.
The new report confirms McConnell's statement he was first told he would not receive a commission, then later received money for his work.
Bernstein said the windfarm developer did not have formal agreements with Mc- Connell and did not pay him to influence his votes. Mc- Connell's consistent support of the project shows there was no conflict, Bernstein said.
First Wind spokesman John LaMontagne said the firm had no comment on ongoing litigation.
McConnell claimed he was unaware of the new report, adding: "To the best of my knowledge, I stand by what I said."
But McConnell could face new legal charges, ranging from a misdemeanor count of filing a false written statement to first-degree perjury, a Class D felony.
Town Councilman Chuck Shick said he has written to county District Attorney John Tunney asking for an investigation into Mc- Connell's sworn affidavit, and may also consult with state police.
Shick said Bernstein's move was "extraordinary."
The new submission also could affect other litigation pending against First Wind and other agencies.
Last July, the state Attorney General's office announced an investigation into alleged improprieties by two wind developers, including First Wind and its dealings in Prattsburgh.
"I just talked to the (attorney general's office)," Shick said. "And they are absolutely interested in this. Absolutely."
Kevin Bernstein, attorney for Windfarm Prattsburgh, submitted additional information about the transaction Monday to state Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure.
McConnell, a real estate agent, is under fire for voting on issues involving the wind developer after he received payments for his role in selling property to Windfarm Prattsburgh.
McConnell has maintained the payments were for token assistance and should not have prevented him from voting twice in favor of eminent domain proceedings on behalf of the energy company.
Bernstein's report indicates McConnell was actively involved in the sale, but still maintains Mc- Connell's votes were proper.
The transaction is at the heart of the on going lawsuit charging McConnell with violating codes of ethics.
McConnell was paid $1,900 for his role in the transaction late last year, several months before the town board began to consider eminent domain proceedings.
Windfarm Prattsburgh's parent company, First Wind, requested the board consider seizing sections of road owned by eight property owners needed to lay underground transmission lines for the 36-turbine project.
But board members deadlocked on both the proposal to hold a public hearing on eminent domain in April, and a second proposal in June to begin the proceedings.
McConnell's votes broke 2-2 ties, despite requests by board members he abstain because he received money for the earlier land sale.
According to McConnell's sworn affidavit Aug. 21, he "had little or nothing to do with the transaction at all."
In the affidavit, Mc- Connell said he was approached by a Windfarm Prattsburgh representative and asked for advice on how to acquire the land. Mc- Connell said he recommended the Nothnagle agency in Naples and acted largely as a messenger after that.
But Bernstein's report says McConnell completed the initial purchase agreement form for $65,000, then prepared, delivered, and reviewed a revised offer, acted as an intermediary between First Wind, then known as UPC Wind, and Nothnagle.
McConnell is listed on the Oct. 26, 2007 final offer as the "selling agent" along with Nothnagle, according to Bernstein's document.
The new report confirms McConnell's statement he was first told he would not receive a commission, then later received money for his work.
Bernstein said the windfarm developer did not have formal agreements with Mc- Connell and did not pay him to influence his votes. Mc- Connell's consistent support of the project shows there was no conflict, Bernstein said.
First Wind spokesman John LaMontagne said the firm had no comment on ongoing litigation.
McConnell claimed he was unaware of the new report, adding: "To the best of my knowledge, I stand by what I said."
But McConnell could face new legal charges, ranging from a misdemeanor count of filing a false written statement to first-degree perjury, a Class D felony.
Town Councilman Chuck Shick said he has written to county District Attorney John Tunney asking for an investigation into Mc- Connell's sworn affidavit, and may also consult with state police.
Shick said Bernstein's move was "extraordinary."
The new submission also could affect other litigation pending against First Wind and other agencies.
Last July, the state Attorney General's office announced an investigation into alleged improprieties by two wind developers, including First Wind and its dealings in Prattsburgh.
"I just talked to the (attorney general's office)," Shick said. "And they are absolutely interested in this. Absolutely."
Wind firm hit by legal, financial troubles
Noble Environmental Power is having financial and legal difficulties, but it was unclear Thursday what that will mean for the proposed wind farm at Grandpa's Knob.
New York media reported Thursday that Noble had laid off employees and stopped work at two planned wind farms there, linking the development to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, one of the company's chief backers.
Meanwhile, the New York Attorney General's Office announced in July it would subpoena Noble and another company developing wind farms in upstate New York as part of an investigation into a variety of allegations against the companies, including bribery and anticompetitive practices.
Noble's office in Rutland appeared to still be operational — papers were visible on a desk through the office's Center Street window — but nobody could be found there Thursday, and project manager Brad King did not return phone calls.
Calls to Noble's corporate headquarters in Connecticut were a little more productive. A spokeswoman said she was unable to answer specific questions, but offered to send a statement provided to other media outlets and to relay questions about Grandpa's Knob up the chain of command.
As of 5 p.m., the Herald had not received any statement or phone call from anyone else in Noble.
Representatives from Noble began floating the idea of a wind farm at the Grandpa's Knob ridgeline with local officials in early 2007. In meetings with the Select Boards of Castleton, Hubbardton, West Rutland and Pittsford, the company said it believed it could build the largest wind farm in the state at the site.
The company began testing the site in January, erecting two meteorological towers to measure wind speed, wind direction and temperature. At the time, the company said data-gathering would take a minimum of six months and could take as long as five years.
Castleton Town Manager Charles Jacien said he met informally with King on Sept. 24 and got the impression the project was going forward.
"Brad laid out that various studies are being concluded and public hearings are probably starting some time next year," he said, adding that King said the company planned to propose 19 turbines along a 6-mile stretch of ridgeline. "What I understand from their proposed schedule, it's only a few months off."
District 1 Environmental Coordinator William Burke said his office has not received an Act 250 application for the project.
According to a statement released in July, the New York Attorney General's Office received numerous complaints about Noble and Massachusetts-based First Wind from residents, organizations and public officials.
Complaints included that the companies improperly sought land-use agreements, gave improper benefits to public officials to influence their actions and entered into anticompetitive agreements or practices.
Nobody involved with the investigation could be reached Thursday to comment on its status.
"You would think that clean and green energy would be of the highest ethical standard," Pittsford Town Manager John Haverstock said. "We'll try not to jump to conclusions."
Haverstock said he had an informal meeting with company representatives when he took over as town manager in June, but had not heard from Noble since. He said the project was not at the forefront of local discussion, so it was hard to gauge support for it in the community.
Jacien said he had only seen support for the proposal in Castleton.
"If you look at the back bumpers of all kinds of different vehicles, you'll see a whole lot of support," he said.
New York media reported Thursday that Noble had laid off employees and stopped work at two planned wind farms there, linking the development to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, one of the company's chief backers.
Meanwhile, the New York Attorney General's Office announced in July it would subpoena Noble and another company developing wind farms in upstate New York as part of an investigation into a variety of allegations against the companies, including bribery and anticompetitive practices.
Noble's office in Rutland appeared to still be operational — papers were visible on a desk through the office's Center Street window — but nobody could be found there Thursday, and project manager Brad King did not return phone calls.
Calls to Noble's corporate headquarters in Connecticut were a little more productive. A spokeswoman said she was unable to answer specific questions, but offered to send a statement provided to other media outlets and to relay questions about Grandpa's Knob up the chain of command.
As of 5 p.m., the Herald had not received any statement or phone call from anyone else in Noble.
Representatives from Noble began floating the idea of a wind farm at the Grandpa's Knob ridgeline with local officials in early 2007. In meetings with the Select Boards of Castleton, Hubbardton, West Rutland and Pittsford, the company said it believed it could build the largest wind farm in the state at the site.
The company began testing the site in January, erecting two meteorological towers to measure wind speed, wind direction and temperature. At the time, the company said data-gathering would take a minimum of six months and could take as long as five years.
Castleton Town Manager Charles Jacien said he met informally with King on Sept. 24 and got the impression the project was going forward.
"Brad laid out that various studies are being concluded and public hearings are probably starting some time next year," he said, adding that King said the company planned to propose 19 turbines along a 6-mile stretch of ridgeline. "What I understand from their proposed schedule, it's only a few months off."
District 1 Environmental Coordinator William Burke said his office has not received an Act 250 application for the project.
According to a statement released in July, the New York Attorney General's Office received numerous complaints about Noble and Massachusetts-based First Wind from residents, organizations and public officials.
Complaints included that the companies improperly sought land-use agreements, gave improper benefits to public officials to influence their actions and entered into anticompetitive agreements or practices.
Nobody involved with the investigation could be reached Thursday to comment on its status.
"You would think that clean and green energy would be of the highest ethical standard," Pittsford Town Manager John Haverstock said. "We'll try not to jump to conclusions."
Haverstock said he had an informal meeting with company representatives when he took over as town manager in June, but had not heard from Noble since. He said the project was not at the forefront of local discussion, so it was hard to gauge support for it in the community.
Jacien said he had only seen support for the proposal in Castleton.
"If you look at the back bumpers of all kinds of different vehicles, you'll see a whole lot of support," he said.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Catastrophic turbine failure at Vermont wind farm raises doubt about turbine safety, longevity
NEW HAMPSHIRE (October 16, 2008). Turbine #10 at the Searsburg wind energy facility in Searsburg, Vermont experienced a catastrophic failure on when one of the blades came in contact with the turbine's tower causing it to buckle during high winds. This turbine's 28-ton nacelle and 3-blade rotor assembly crashed to the ground scattering debris several hundred feet from the structure. Approximately 20-gallons of heavy oil spilled from the unit when its fluid reservoirs were damaged. The 11-turbine Searsburg facility was brought online in 1997 and according to preconstruction documents, the Zond Z-P40-FS turbines had an expected lifespan of 30-years[1].
Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group’s executive director, Lisa Linowes, was not surprised by the failure. “The Searsburg towers are located at an elevation of nearly 3000-feet in some of the harshest weather conditions in New England. Performance issues and blade failures have plagued this project for some time, “ she said pointing to incidences in May 20062 and again in May 20083.
While the eleven-year old Searsburg turbines are failing, newer models have not improved the safety record. “Wind developers today tout life expectancies of industrial wind turbines that exceed 20 years,” Linowes said, “but the fact remains that estimates of the functional lifespan of modern utility-scale wind turbines are speculative and cannot be substantiated since so far very few have been operating for ten years.” Unfortunately, unless a person or property is damaged in a turbine failure, there is no obligation for the owner of an industrial wind turbine to report the incident.
Information on the number and types of failures is sparse and poorly reported, and thus this vital data is not adequately incorporated into estimates of turbine longevity. The Searsburg failure occurred on September 15.
“What’s more ominous," Linowes said, “is that reports of turbine failures in the United States are increasing. These failures include blade throws, oil leaks, fires, and collapse.” IWA attributes the increase in reporting to the fact that the machines are more visible, being erected close to where people live, and also due to the growing interest in wind energy development. In the last year alone, IWA has tracked catastrophic failures in Idaho, Minnesota, California, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, raising concerns about public safety.
While weather conditions and climate are taking a toll on the machines, reports from the industry indicate the rush to erect industrial wind turbines is being accomplished at the expense of quality assurance and safe installation practices. Business Week published a report4 in August 2007, which found, “The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting.” A report this year found that turbine owners were not conducting regularly scheduled maintenance necessary to ensure the mechanical towers remain in good operating condition. An informal survey of approximately seventy-five wind farm operators in the United States found as many as sixty-percent were behind in their maintenance procedures5.
“Public safety should be paramount when siting industrial wind turbines,” Linowes said, adding “there’s a perception that the 400-foot structures can safely be erected merely a few hundred feet from property lines, public areas and rights-of-way.” She pointed to a private high school in Massachusetts6 as an example where a massive turbine was installed just feet from the school’s driveway. Barrington, Rhode Island is deliberating on the location of an even larger turbine that will stand within 200-feet of the public high school building7, although that turbine might be relocated in response to parents and residents raising concerns over noise and safety. In both cases, the turbines exceed the size of the destroyed Searsburg tower.
Manufacturers recommend a safety zone with a radius of at least 1300 feet from a wind turbine, and that children be prohibited from standing or playing near the structures8. “Green energy should not override common sense,” Linowes said.
IWA_RELEASE_20081016.pdf
Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group’s executive director, Lisa Linowes, was not surprised by the failure. “The Searsburg towers are located at an elevation of nearly 3000-feet in some of the harshest weather conditions in New England. Performance issues and blade failures have plagued this project for some time, “ she said pointing to incidences in May 20062 and again in May 20083.While the eleven-year old Searsburg turbines are failing, newer models have not improved the safety record. “Wind developers today tout life expectancies of industrial wind turbines that exceed 20 years,” Linowes said, “but the fact remains that estimates of the functional lifespan of modern utility-scale wind turbines are speculative and cannot be substantiated since so far very few have been operating for ten years.” Unfortunately, unless a person or property is damaged in a turbine failure, there is no obligation for the owner of an industrial wind turbine to report the incident.
Information on the number and types of failures is sparse and poorly reported, and thus this vital data is not adequately incorporated into estimates of turbine longevity. The Searsburg failure occurred on September 15.
“What’s more ominous," Linowes said, “is that reports of turbine failures in the United States are increasing. These failures include blade throws, oil leaks, fires, and collapse.” IWA attributes the increase in reporting to the fact that the machines are more visible, being erected close to where people live, and also due to the growing interest in wind energy development. In the last year alone, IWA has tracked catastrophic failures in Idaho, Minnesota, California, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, raising concerns about public safety.
While weather conditions and climate are taking a toll on the machines, reports from the industry indicate the rush to erect industrial wind turbines is being accomplished at the expense of quality assurance and safe installation practices. Business Week published a report4 in August 2007, which found, “The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting.” A report this year found that turbine owners were not conducting regularly scheduled maintenance necessary to ensure the mechanical towers remain in good operating condition. An informal survey of approximately seventy-five wind farm operators in the United States found as many as sixty-percent were behind in their maintenance procedures5.
“Public safety should be paramount when siting industrial wind turbines,” Linowes said, adding “there’s a perception that the 400-foot structures can safely be erected merely a few hundred feet from property lines, public areas and rights-of-way.” She pointed to a private high school in Massachusetts6 as an example where a massive turbine was installed just feet from the school’s driveway. Barrington, Rhode Island is deliberating on the location of an even larger turbine that will stand within 200-feet of the public high school building7, although that turbine might be relocated in response to parents and residents raising concerns over noise and safety. In both cases, the turbines exceed the size of the destroyed Searsburg tower.
Manufacturers recommend a safety zone with a radius of at least 1300 feet from a wind turbine, and that children be prohibited from standing or playing near the structures8. “Green energy should not override common sense,” Linowes said.
IWA_RELEASE_20081016.pdf
Cape rethinks turbine areas
The members of the committee formed to produce a zoning amendment to deal with wind farms changed their minds about boundaries for the area in which turbines would be allowed.
About three weeks ago, the committee tentatively agreed to set Route 6 as the western boundary for a wind overlay district. But Wednesday afternoon, the committee decided that the entire agricultural-residential district should allow turbines.
That once again adds some land west of Route 6 and south of Bates Road. That land had five turbines planned for BP Alternative Energy's Cape Vincent Wind Farm.
"I'm always on the lookout for being sued for something," Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said. "I can only see this being a very controversial issue if we eliminate turbines that are planned as part of an ongoing project."
He suggested not allowing any wind facilities in that area after this project is completed.
"There's nothing out there," Planning Board Vice Chairman Thomas D. Ingersoll said. "It's the agriculture district."
Village Trustee Robert G. Doud said, "When it comes to wind farms, our goal is to protect the lake district."
At first, Mr. Doud wanted to stick to the standards the committee developed in September.
But the committee decided to add a setback from the lake shoreline from Humphrey Road south to the town boundary line with Lyme. The setback is 1,000 feet plus one and a half times the height of the windmill.
"That's a compromise I can agree with," Mr. Doud said.
That rule will mean at least two of the turbines will not meet the setback guidelines.
Richard H. Macsherry, Tibbetts Point, asked if the committee would share information with other towns about their zoning laws. He brought the noise analysis rules that had been adopted by the town of Lyme. Those rules told developers exactly how they should measure background ambient noise levels, which is the basis for noise clauses in siting laws.
"It seems like each town is trying to reinvent the wheel," he said.
Beth A. White, president of Voters for Wind, said, "I would look to someone like Tocci, someone like that to advise us. Let's not look at Lyme."
Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, an acoustic engineering firm in Sudbury, Mass., analyzed BP Alternative Energy's noise study for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm draft environmental impact statement.
Mr. Ingersoll suggested looking to the state for rules on conducting sound studies.
"It does not have a standard as far as the assessment of sound goes," Mr. Macsherry said.
The committee will ask the town's engineer to attend the next meeting for advice on what to do about noise standards.
The committee agreed to add a phrase in the purpose statement of the law saying the law would be enacted to "preserve private-use-only rights for non-participating landowners."
Mr. Macsherry said he thought it was necessary to protect against eminent domain by the state or county for adding to wind farms.
"At least it is an attempt to say we want landowners to have control," he said.
The next committee meeting will be from 4 to 6 p.m. Oct. 30 at the town office, 1964 Route 12E.
About three weeks ago, the committee tentatively agreed to set Route 6 as the western boundary for a wind overlay district. But Wednesday afternoon, the committee decided that the entire agricultural-residential district should allow turbines.
That once again adds some land west of Route 6 and south of Bates Road. That land had five turbines planned for BP Alternative Energy's Cape Vincent Wind Farm.
"I'm always on the lookout for being sued for something," Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said. "I can only see this being a very controversial issue if we eliminate turbines that are planned as part of an ongoing project."
He suggested not allowing any wind facilities in that area after this project is completed.
"There's nothing out there," Planning Board Vice Chairman Thomas D. Ingersoll said. "It's the agriculture district."
Village Trustee Robert G. Doud said, "When it comes to wind farms, our goal is to protect the lake district."
At first, Mr. Doud wanted to stick to the standards the committee developed in September.
But the committee decided to add a setback from the lake shoreline from Humphrey Road south to the town boundary line with Lyme. The setback is 1,000 feet plus one and a half times the height of the windmill.
"That's a compromise I can agree with," Mr. Doud said.
That rule will mean at least two of the turbines will not meet the setback guidelines.
Richard H. Macsherry, Tibbetts Point, asked if the committee would share information with other towns about their zoning laws. He brought the noise analysis rules that had been adopted by the town of Lyme. Those rules told developers exactly how they should measure background ambient noise levels, which is the basis for noise clauses in siting laws.
"It seems like each town is trying to reinvent the wheel," he said.
Beth A. White, president of Voters for Wind, said, "I would look to someone like Tocci, someone like that to advise us. Let's not look at Lyme."
Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, an acoustic engineering firm in Sudbury, Mass., analyzed BP Alternative Energy's noise study for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm draft environmental impact statement.
Mr. Ingersoll suggested looking to the state for rules on conducting sound studies.
"It does not have a standard as far as the assessment of sound goes," Mr. Macsherry said.
The committee will ask the town's engineer to attend the next meeting for advice on what to do about noise standards.
The committee agreed to add a phrase in the purpose statement of the law saying the law would be enacted to "preserve private-use-only rights for non-participating landowners."
Mr. Macsherry said he thought it was necessary to protect against eminent domain by the state or county for adding to wind farms.
"At least it is an attempt to say we want landowners to have control," he said.
The next committee meeting will be from 4 to 6 p.m. Oct. 30 at the town office, 1964 Route 12E.
New York officials have questions about a company with growing ties to the Islands
Winds of doubt are swirling around one Northeast-based wind farm developer with projects in Hawai’i.
Newton, Mass.–based First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind) has found itself one of the targets of an ongoing investigation conducted by the New York attorney general’s office.
On July 15th, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced his office would commence a probe into the business dealings of both First Wind Holdings, Inc., and Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne told Honolulu Weekly that the company is “cooperating fully” with the investigation.
Cuomo’s office is investigating whether First Wind and Noble “sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials; whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.” The New York AG’s office did not respond to the Weekly’s requests for an interview.
The Kaheawa connection
The probe of is of special interest to island energy and business affairs, since First Wind has built and operates a wind farm on Maui and has designs for more farms on Moloka’i and on O’ahu.
Kaheawa Wind Power on Maui has been operational since 2005. The $65 million wind farm is made up of 20 turbines with each turbine producing 1.5 megawatts of power which–according to First Wind’s website–meets 9 percent of Maui’s electricity needs.
This wind farm is one of only three owned by First Wind in operation in the country, the other two being the $94 million, 28-turbine Mars Hill farm in Maine and the $35 million, eight-turbine Steel Winds I farm in Lackawanna, N.Y., which are producing 42 and 20 megawatts of energy, respectively
Wind power is increasingly seen as one possible way to wean Hawai’i from its dependence on oil. Fossil-based fuels such as petroleum account for more than 70 percent of the fuel sources powering the state.
With wind power seen as an alternative energy source, First Wind is looking to consolidate its presence in the islands. On O’ahu, the company is looking to build a dozen turbines on a 500-plus acre spread in Kahuku near tiny Charlie Road. First Wind has a permit for continual use and is in contract negotiations with Hawaiian Electric.
Moloka’i up next
Another more ambitious project sets its sights on Moloka’i. On the Friendly Isle, First Wind’s proposed wind farm could consist of 140 turbines on about 12,000 acres of land.
The proposed acreage involved would necessitate building the turbines on lands owned by major landowner Moloka’i Ranch and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands primarily near the Ho’olehua area.
To that end, First Wind’s local representatives have been meeting with homesteaders and working with island community groups like the Moloka’i Community Service Council (MCSC) for more than a year to garner local support for their project.
First Wind made one big move last November when the company announced it would pledge $50 million to the MCSC’s “Ho’i I Ka Pono” campaign to purchase the more than 60,000 acres owned by Moloka’i Ranch which shut down its ranch, hotel and other business interests this past spring.
MCSC has been seeking to buy Moloka’i Ranch since 1998 with the intention of reopening the company’s lodge and other hotels and providing much needed jobs to residents on the economically depressed island. The County Council has been looking to raise $200 million–the estimated appraised value of the company’s lands–to buy out Moloka’i Ranch which is owned by Asian conglomerate Guoco Leisure through Moloka’i Properties Ltd.
Moloka’i Ranch has continually and emphatically stressed over the years–and especially in recent months–that their lands are not for sale and that they have no intention of selling their properties. They have contended the lands are valued at $300 million.
First Wind’s $50 million pledge and its courting of community residents and groups appears to have paid off. On March 29, members of a number of community organizations gathered at Moloka’i Community Services Center to talk about the proposed First Wind project. According to an article in the April 3 issue of the Molokai Times, those present chose–after a two- hour discussion–to vote unanimously to back First Wind’s Moloka’i project.
Blowback
Before Moloka’i activists and residents seal any deal with First Wind, they might consider what has been taking place in the tiny town of Cohocton, NY.
Located in the western arm of the state, the township of Cohocton consists of just under 2,600 residents and is 56 square miles in length but is home to a huge wind farm project under development by First Wind.
How huge? How about 50 turbines located on 5,700 acres to the price tag of $265 million?
Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) is a small community group of about 35 active members who have been fighting First Wind’s development in their town for three years.
According to CWW Treasurer Judy Hall, members of the group met with representatives from the New York AG’s office last November to call for an investigation of First Wind.
In a telephone interview with the Weekly, Hall said the trouble first started in Spring of 2005 when First Wind sent letters out to town residents informing them of the project and that work would commence.
“(First Wind) said that they had been dealing with the Town Board for several years and they had leases in place and were ready to move forward with construction,” stated Hall.
Hall said that First Wind’s tactics are anything but open, honest, above board and transparent.
“This is what happens all over the country: they sneak into town, buy up huge parcels of land,” said Hall, who noted further that “in New York state they approach some of the poorest areas in the country” where “there’s no business” and “a lot of poor elderly people.”
“They tell you all these grandiose things” Hall said. “People in our town still think they are going to get free electricity and have no taxes and none of that is true.”
Hall said that First Wind representatives have come out to Cohocton several times to give 5–10 minute presentations to the Cohocton Town Board, but the gist of their talks were that the project was fait accompli.
CWW has accused First Wind officials of using money to influence permitting and approval of the project not only in Cohocton but in other towns in New York.
“There are affadavits signed all over New York state with the attorney general’s office by people who have been offered bribes and did not take them or witnessed other town board members (accept bribes),” said Hall.
CWW’s position can be seen in a letter addressed to Steuben Country District Attorney John Tunney. In the May 5 letter, the group makes four specific charges against First Wind–Making false claims, filing false documents, larceny, fraud and bribery of public officials–and briefly lays out support for each charge.
Hall said she thinks that the town supervisor and four members of the town board may have been bribed to provide First Wind with necessary legal backing and permits necessary to go forward with the mammoth wind farm.
Asked to comment about these and other charges, Lamontagne said that “to paint the company with one brush because of what one person or one group says would be unfair.”
Since its inception three years ago, CWW has informed other towns approached by wind developers of the occurances in Cohocton. As result, local groups have “sprang up overnight” in various New York and Northeastern communities to oppose companies like First Wind, according to Hall.
CWW has had little success so far in the courts. The community first sued the town of Cohocton over local laws that favored the wind developer in the Steuben County Supreme Court of New York but Judge Marianne Furfure dismissed CWW’s cases.
In August 2007, the group filed three lawsuits against the town and First Wind, alleging they violated New York’s open meeting laws, among other charges.
In September, Furfure again ruled against CWW, allowing work on the multi-million dollar Cohocton I wind farm–now nearly completed–to continue.
Hall said that the town has been “split down the middle” over the First Wind project. “It causes a lot of problems in the town,” she said.
Big money in the wind
On July 31, First Wind filed papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking an Initial Public Offering of nearly $450 million.
Coming after the New York AG office’s investigation, the move at first appeared to be a case of bad timing although now it appears to be as much about providing continuity for First Wind. “We are still moving forward as a business” First Wind spokesman Lamontagne told the Weekly.
According to financial records filed by the company, First Wind lost $134 million before March 31, more than half of which it lost since December.
Thus, the IPO proceeds would partly go to debt payment. “We intend to use net proceeds of this offering to pay indebtedness and fund capital expenditures” states the S-1 document.
However, First Wind is backed by big-time investors such as major equity firm D.E. Shaw and Madison Dearborn. Also, the IPO will be jointly managed by such giants as Goldman, Sachs, Credit Suisse and JP Morgan.
Since the company launched in 2002, First Wind has sought to be a firm that can “develop, own and operate a portfolio of wind energy projects in favorable markets” such as the East and West Coasts and Hawai’i.
Hall is disdainful of the S-1 Prospectus, calling it “a fairy tale.” She noted that wind developers like First Wind especially target small towns in New York because obtaining tax credits and Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) are easy because RECs are unregulated in the Empire State. “The production tax credits and the RECs are where these companies make their money–not in the production of electricity because they could less about whether they could produce electricity,” stated Hall.
First Wind’s S-1 document seems to lend some support to Hall’s contention. The prospectus notes that First Wind has been “targeting regions with high electricity prices” as well as “favorable renewable energy certificate prices,” “state-sponsored renewable portfolio standard programs” and “desirable wind characteristics.”
Hall also stated that First Wind avoids paying taxes on wind farm projects by signing a PILOT-Payment in Lieu of Taxes-agreement with local towns that sidesteps potential yearly taxes by reducing them to a one-time lump sum payment. After 20 years have passed and firms are required to pay taxes, they will have already reaped sizable profits and made back their initial costs.
“They are absolutely dependent on welfare from the government, ” said Hall.
“We depend heavily on government policies supporting renewable energy,” states the prospectus.
Prevailing breeze
While groups like CWW in Cohocton and even local organizations in the nearby New York town of Prattsburgh have battled First Wind development, the attitude and mood on Moloka’i–an island known for its vociferous and indefatigable local activists–is almost the opposite.
“Our own experience with First Wind has been positive” MCSC Director Karen Holt wrote in an e-mail. “We have seen no evidence of any shady business practices in our dealing with them.”
Holt confirmed that the MCSC has worked with First Wind for a couple of years to “determine whether the community is supportive” to building a wind farm on the island. The director wrote that “First Wind’s work with our community has been transparent” and the organization was “greatly encouraged” by their $50 million pledge to help buy Moloka’i Ranch.
Holt’s comments echoed what Noe Kalipi, MCSC Director of Government and Community Relations told the Weekly, namely that her firm has also been transparent and is engaged in an “on-going dialogue” with residents.
Kalipi could not go into details about the Moloka’i and Kahuku wind farm projects or about two other Hawai’i projects that the company has on the drawing board because of the “quiet period” engendered by S-1 filing and the IPO. She said that First Wind remains “committed” to its $50 million offer to help buy Moloka’i Ranch.
Holt notes she had “never heard any allegations of unfair dealing” with First Wind during the planning and construction of the Kaheawa Wind Power project.
Still, despite Kalipi’s emphasis that First Wind wants to be “part of a bigger solution” for Moloka’i, the company’s $50 million pledge to MCSC has all the earmarks of a quid pro quo offer. If the MCSC were to raise the money and somehow buy Moloka’i Ranch, First Wind would clearly benefit by concluding leases with the new owners who would recieve royalties from the lands on which the wind farms stood. The pledge seems born of economic pragmatism.
Then, there is the matter of the benefit to the people of Moloka’i. The proposed wind farm with more than 100 turbines spinning their blades will–if built and implemented–provide the vast majority of its energy to O’ahu via underground cables, with Moloka’i only receiving a small percentage of residual energy.
First Wind’s record will likely come under more scrutiny as its projects move forward. The company has only three wind farms in operation and many more projects in places in states such as Oregon, Utah, Vermont and in Canada that are either in development or under construction.
While First Wind enjoys a good reputation in Hawai’i, developments in towns like Cohocton provide a less savory picture of the wind developer. Which image will be believed may depend on the results of the New York AG office’s investigation of the firm, which have not yet been released.
Newton, Mass.–based First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind) has found itself one of the targets of an ongoing investigation conducted by the New York attorney general’s office.
On July 15th, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced his office would commence a probe into the business dealings of both First Wind Holdings, Inc., and Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne told Honolulu Weekly that the company is “cooperating fully” with the investigation.
Cuomo’s office is investigating whether First Wind and Noble “sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials; whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.” The New York AG’s office did not respond to the Weekly’s requests for an interview.
The Kaheawa connection
The probe of is of special interest to island energy and business affairs, since First Wind has built and operates a wind farm on Maui and has designs for more farms on Moloka’i and on O’ahu.
Kaheawa Wind Power on Maui has been operational since 2005. The $65 million wind farm is made up of 20 turbines with each turbine producing 1.5 megawatts of power which–according to First Wind’s website–meets 9 percent of Maui’s electricity needs.
This wind farm is one of only three owned by First Wind in operation in the country, the other two being the $94 million, 28-turbine Mars Hill farm in Maine and the $35 million, eight-turbine Steel Winds I farm in Lackawanna, N.Y., which are producing 42 and 20 megawatts of energy, respectively
Wind power is increasingly seen as one possible way to wean Hawai’i from its dependence on oil. Fossil-based fuels such as petroleum account for more than 70 percent of the fuel sources powering the state.
With wind power seen as an alternative energy source, First Wind is looking to consolidate its presence in the islands. On O’ahu, the company is looking to build a dozen turbines on a 500-plus acre spread in Kahuku near tiny Charlie Road. First Wind has a permit for continual use and is in contract negotiations with Hawaiian Electric.
Moloka’i up next
Another more ambitious project sets its sights on Moloka’i. On the Friendly Isle, First Wind’s proposed wind farm could consist of 140 turbines on about 12,000 acres of land.
The proposed acreage involved would necessitate building the turbines on lands owned by major landowner Moloka’i Ranch and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands primarily near the Ho’olehua area.
To that end, First Wind’s local representatives have been meeting with homesteaders and working with island community groups like the Moloka’i Community Service Council (MCSC) for more than a year to garner local support for their project.
First Wind made one big move last November when the company announced it would pledge $50 million to the MCSC’s “Ho’i I Ka Pono” campaign to purchase the more than 60,000 acres owned by Moloka’i Ranch which shut down its ranch, hotel and other business interests this past spring.
MCSC has been seeking to buy Moloka’i Ranch since 1998 with the intention of reopening the company’s lodge and other hotels and providing much needed jobs to residents on the economically depressed island. The County Council has been looking to raise $200 million–the estimated appraised value of the company’s lands–to buy out Moloka’i Ranch which is owned by Asian conglomerate Guoco Leisure through Moloka’i Properties Ltd.
Moloka’i Ranch has continually and emphatically stressed over the years–and especially in recent months–that their lands are not for sale and that they have no intention of selling their properties. They have contended the lands are valued at $300 million.
First Wind’s $50 million pledge and its courting of community residents and groups appears to have paid off. On March 29, members of a number of community organizations gathered at Moloka’i Community Services Center to talk about the proposed First Wind project. According to an article in the April 3 issue of the Molokai Times, those present chose–after a two- hour discussion–to vote unanimously to back First Wind’s Moloka’i project.
Blowback
Before Moloka’i activists and residents seal any deal with First Wind, they might consider what has been taking place in the tiny town of Cohocton, NY.
Located in the western arm of the state, the township of Cohocton consists of just under 2,600 residents and is 56 square miles in length but is home to a huge wind farm project under development by First Wind.
How huge? How about 50 turbines located on 5,700 acres to the price tag of $265 million?
Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) is a small community group of about 35 active members who have been fighting First Wind’s development in their town for three years.
According to CWW Treasurer Judy Hall, members of the group met with representatives from the New York AG’s office last November to call for an investigation of First Wind.
In a telephone interview with the Weekly, Hall said the trouble first started in Spring of 2005 when First Wind sent letters out to town residents informing them of the project and that work would commence.
“(First Wind) said that they had been dealing with the Town Board for several years and they had leases in place and were ready to move forward with construction,” stated Hall.
Hall said that First Wind’s tactics are anything but open, honest, above board and transparent.
“This is what happens all over the country: they sneak into town, buy up huge parcels of land,” said Hall, who noted further that “in New York state they approach some of the poorest areas in the country” where “there’s no business” and “a lot of poor elderly people.”
“They tell you all these grandiose things” Hall said. “People in our town still think they are going to get free electricity and have no taxes and none of that is true.”
Hall said that First Wind representatives have come out to Cohocton several times to give 5–10 minute presentations to the Cohocton Town Board, but the gist of their talks were that the project was fait accompli.
CWW has accused First Wind officials of using money to influence permitting and approval of the project not only in Cohocton but in other towns in New York.
“There are affadavits signed all over New York state with the attorney general’s office by people who have been offered bribes and did not take them or witnessed other town board members (accept bribes),” said Hall.
CWW’s position can be seen in a letter addressed to Steuben Country District Attorney John Tunney. In the May 5 letter, the group makes four specific charges against First Wind–Making false claims, filing false documents, larceny, fraud and bribery of public officials–and briefly lays out support for each charge.
Hall said she thinks that the town supervisor and four members of the town board may have been bribed to provide First Wind with necessary legal backing and permits necessary to go forward with the mammoth wind farm.
Asked to comment about these and other charges, Lamontagne said that “to paint the company with one brush because of what one person or one group says would be unfair.”
Since its inception three years ago, CWW has informed other towns approached by wind developers of the occurances in Cohocton. As result, local groups have “sprang up overnight” in various New York and Northeastern communities to oppose companies like First Wind, according to Hall.
CWW has had little success so far in the courts. The community first sued the town of Cohocton over local laws that favored the wind developer in the Steuben County Supreme Court of New York but Judge Marianne Furfure dismissed CWW’s cases.
In August 2007, the group filed three lawsuits against the town and First Wind, alleging they violated New York’s open meeting laws, among other charges.
In September, Furfure again ruled against CWW, allowing work on the multi-million dollar Cohocton I wind farm–now nearly completed–to continue.
Hall said that the town has been “split down the middle” over the First Wind project. “It causes a lot of problems in the town,” she said.
Big money in the wind
On July 31, First Wind filed papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking an Initial Public Offering of nearly $450 million.
Coming after the New York AG office’s investigation, the move at first appeared to be a case of bad timing although now it appears to be as much about providing continuity for First Wind. “We are still moving forward as a business” First Wind spokesman Lamontagne told the Weekly.
According to financial records filed by the company, First Wind lost $134 million before March 31, more than half of which it lost since December.
Thus, the IPO proceeds would partly go to debt payment. “We intend to use net proceeds of this offering to pay indebtedness and fund capital expenditures” states the S-1 document.
However, First Wind is backed by big-time investors such as major equity firm D.E. Shaw and Madison Dearborn. Also, the IPO will be jointly managed by such giants as Goldman, Sachs, Credit Suisse and JP Morgan.
Since the company launched in 2002, First Wind has sought to be a firm that can “develop, own and operate a portfolio of wind energy projects in favorable markets” such as the East and West Coasts and Hawai’i.
Hall is disdainful of the S-1 Prospectus, calling it “a fairy tale.” She noted that wind developers like First Wind especially target small towns in New York because obtaining tax credits and Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) are easy because RECs are unregulated in the Empire State. “The production tax credits and the RECs are where these companies make their money–not in the production of electricity because they could less about whether they could produce electricity,” stated Hall.
First Wind’s S-1 document seems to lend some support to Hall’s contention. The prospectus notes that First Wind has been “targeting regions with high electricity prices” as well as “favorable renewable energy certificate prices,” “state-sponsored renewable portfolio standard programs” and “desirable wind characteristics.”
Hall also stated that First Wind avoids paying taxes on wind farm projects by signing a PILOT-Payment in Lieu of Taxes-agreement with local towns that sidesteps potential yearly taxes by reducing them to a one-time lump sum payment. After 20 years have passed and firms are required to pay taxes, they will have already reaped sizable profits and made back their initial costs.
“They are absolutely dependent on welfare from the government, ” said Hall.
“We depend heavily on government policies supporting renewable energy,” states the prospectus.
Prevailing breeze
While groups like CWW in Cohocton and even local organizations in the nearby New York town of Prattsburgh have battled First Wind development, the attitude and mood on Moloka’i–an island known for its vociferous and indefatigable local activists–is almost the opposite.
“Our own experience with First Wind has been positive” MCSC Director Karen Holt wrote in an e-mail. “We have seen no evidence of any shady business practices in our dealing with them.”
Holt confirmed that the MCSC has worked with First Wind for a couple of years to “determine whether the community is supportive” to building a wind farm on the island. The director wrote that “First Wind’s work with our community has been transparent” and the organization was “greatly encouraged” by their $50 million pledge to help buy Moloka’i Ranch.
Holt’s comments echoed what Noe Kalipi, MCSC Director of Government and Community Relations told the Weekly, namely that her firm has also been transparent and is engaged in an “on-going dialogue” with residents.
Kalipi could not go into details about the Moloka’i and Kahuku wind farm projects or about two other Hawai’i projects that the company has on the drawing board because of the “quiet period” engendered by S-1 filing and the IPO. She said that First Wind remains “committed” to its $50 million offer to help buy Moloka’i Ranch.
Holt notes she had “never heard any allegations of unfair dealing” with First Wind during the planning and construction of the Kaheawa Wind Power project.
Still, despite Kalipi’s emphasis that First Wind wants to be “part of a bigger solution” for Moloka’i, the company’s $50 million pledge to MCSC has all the earmarks of a quid pro quo offer. If the MCSC were to raise the money and somehow buy Moloka’i Ranch, First Wind would clearly benefit by concluding leases with the new owners who would recieve royalties from the lands on which the wind farms stood. The pledge seems born of economic pragmatism.
Then, there is the matter of the benefit to the people of Moloka’i. The proposed wind farm with more than 100 turbines spinning their blades will–if built and implemented–provide the vast majority of its energy to O’ahu via underground cables, with Moloka’i only receiving a small percentage of residual energy.
First Wind’s record will likely come under more scrutiny as its projects move forward. The company has only three wind farms in operation and many more projects in places in states such as Oregon, Utah, Vermont and in Canada that are either in development or under construction.
While First Wind enjoys a good reputation in Hawai’i, developments in towns like Cohocton provide a less savory picture of the wind developer. Which image will be believed may depend on the results of the New York AG office’s investigation of the firm, which have not yet been released.
Wind-farm workers laid off Wind-farm firm struggles
That loss of support apparently led to Noble's decision to lay off workers and cease further construction and development at the wind parks it is building in eastern Franklin County in the towns of Bellmont and Chateaugay.
Noble Environmental Power lost $7.8 million in 2005, $20.7 million in 2006 and $42.5 million in 2007, according to information supplied to the Securities and Exchange Commission for its initial public offering application.
Noble's operation in the Town of Altona doesn't appear to be impacted by the Franklin County layoffs.
Town Supervisor Larry Ross said he just received an update on the progress at Altona's wind farm on Monday, and nothing was mentioned to him about shutdowns or layoffs.
"I'm sure they're going to be working because they just finished up the first circuit, and they're starting up our windmills now.
"I haven't heard a thing like that, but maybe it's because we're farther along and ready to start," Ross said.
He said some parts and equipment have been brought in from other operations to help Altona get online faster "because we're so close to being done."
The Noble Altona Windpark is to be a 97.5-megawatt operation; the combined 85 turbines at the Noble Bellmont Windpark and Noble Chateaugay Windpark are to produce 127.5 megawatts of power a year; and the Noble Clinton and Noble Ellenburg projects are expected to generate 100.5 megawatts and 81 megawatts, respectively.
Noble Environmental Power lost $7.8 million in 2005, $20.7 million in 2006 and $42.5 million in 2007, according to information supplied to the Securities and Exchange Commission for its initial public offering application.
Noble's operation in the Town of Altona doesn't appear to be impacted by the Franklin County layoffs.
Town Supervisor Larry Ross said he just received an update on the progress at Altona's wind farm on Monday, and nothing was mentioned to him about shutdowns or layoffs.
"I'm sure they're going to be working because they just finished up the first circuit, and they're starting up our windmills now.
"I haven't heard a thing like that, but maybe it's because we're farther along and ready to start," Ross said.
He said some parts and equipment have been brought in from other operations to help Altona get online faster "because we're so close to being done."
The Noble Altona Windpark is to be a 97.5-megawatt operation; the combined 85 turbines at the Noble Bellmont Windpark and Noble Chateaugay Windpark are to produce 127.5 megawatts of power a year; and the Noble Clinton and Noble Ellenburg projects are expected to generate 100.5 megawatts and 81 megawatts, respectively.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
NOBLE CLINTON PRODUCTION STATISTICS
At the end of September 2008 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) released the first quarterly production figures for the Noble Clinton wind project which went on line April 8, 2008. This project includes 67 GE 1.5 MW model SLE turbines that are capacity rated at 31 mph. A statistical analysis of the hourly production of the Clinton project shows the following:
APRIL 8 TO APRIL 30 - 14.5% of its capacity rating with 88 hrs. of zero production and over 70 hrs. with the entire project producing less than 1% of capacity.
MAY 1 TO MAY 31 - 14% of capacity rating with 168 hrs. of zero production and over 50 hrs. with the entire project producing less than 1% of capacity.
In addition there were chargebacks for over $100,000 in the month of May.
JUNE 1 TO JUNE 30 - 17% of capacity rating with 83 hrs.of zero production and 50 hrs. with the entire project producing less than 1% of capacity.
On average we can expect 4 hrs. of "blackout" daily .
Given these low wind conditions it would require 6 or 7 turbines to equal the advertised output of ONE.
Although the figures for July – September are not yet available preliminary wind data would indicte even lower production.
APRIL 8 TO APRIL 30 - 14.5% of its capacity rating with 88 hrs. of zero production and over 70 hrs. with the entire project producing less than 1% of capacity.
MAY 1 TO MAY 31 - 14% of capacity rating with 168 hrs. of zero production and over 50 hrs. with the entire project producing less than 1% of capacity.
In addition there were chargebacks for over $100,000 in the month of May.
JUNE 1 TO JUNE 30 - 17% of capacity rating with 83 hrs.of zero production and 50 hrs. with the entire project producing less than 1% of capacity.
On average we can expect 4 hrs. of "blackout" daily .
Given these low wind conditions it would require 6 or 7 turbines to equal the advertised output of ONE.
Although the figures for July – September are not yet available preliminary wind data would indicte even lower production.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Residents at Odds Over Wind Turbines
Wind turbines are not graceful, majestic, inspiring. While they may have a place where people/livestock/LIVELIHOODS are not impacted, it is most certainly not in populated areas. I dare anyone who thinks they would be a great thing to live around to call a real estate agent and buy one of the many properties that are for sale in Cohocton where these INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS have been forced upon those whose neighbors see only dollar signs. The beautiful hills are destroyed, the roads are a mess in Cohocton. Additionally, the infrastructure needed to get these damn things to earn their keep is invasive to say the least. Green energy, my a**. Green as in MONEY. Our town in southern Ontario County has a very tough law that yes, would allow turbines in certain areas of the town. The guidelines ensure that no one will have a turbine planted 500 feet from their home, as some folks in Cohocton must deal with.
Credit woes pose threat for green energy sector
Renewable energy projects, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, are singularly dependent on a small cadre of institutional investors to put up money in return for tax credits and early electricity generation revenue.
And many of the biggest backers of renewable projects are on shaky ground or have disappeared altogether, saddled by bad bets in the housing and consumer credit markets. Among them: bankrupt Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers Holdings.
GE Energy Financial Services, whose parent company could see its financial footing hampered by a deteriorating credit market, alone invested $2 billion in renewable projects last year. One of those deals, a $300 million investment in wind farms in Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois and Texas, included a coinvestment with a subsidiary of troubled Wachovia Corp.
“I think we’ve seen a changing market in the last several months. Anyone who is dealing with an investor that’s been in the news lately is rethinking things,” said Jim Duffy, a partner in the syndication group at Boston’s Nixon Peabody LLP. “There is a definite concern that there is a narrow pool of investors and three or four may not be around” gong forward, based on the recent wave of consolidation in that industry.
The credit crunch has caught the attention of wind developers nationally. Earlier this week, the American Wind Energy Association hosted a workshop on investment and financing of wind projects. The agenda included discussions about credit markets and wind developer IPOs.
Boston renewable energy developer BlueWave Strategies LLC said some of the third-party financiers it has worked with in the past are in rough times, but it has yet to be directly affected.
“It’s a tough marketplace, but not an impossible marketplace,” said partner John DeVillars, although the company has yet to close on a financing deal post-meltdown. BlueWave has received capital commitments from GE for some of its projects.
Other developers say their projects are not immediately at risk as they wait to secure final permits before seeking financing.
Cape Wind hired Lehman to advise the company on securing project financing. The Lehman group working with Cape Wind was led by managing partner and longtime environmentalist Theodore Roosevelt IV.
Cape Wind expects to secure final project approval some time next year.
“We’ve always had a ‘permitting first’ strategy which has worked out so far. It’s probably better that we’re not looking for financing right now,” said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers. “By the time we complete the permitting process we hope that the markets will be stabilized.”
Newton-based First Wind Holdings LLC is a prime example of how renewable energy developers rely on institutional investors to fund critical capital investments.
First Wind estimates that about 50 percent to 60 percent of final project costs are funded through tax equity investments provided by large financial institutions, according to the company’s prospectus. The investments retire construction and turbine loans as well as equity investments in exchange for equity interests in subsidiaries that own the projects.
Those investments enable investors to receive sales revenue, tax credits and accelerating depreciation benefits for fixed periods, depending on the agreement.
First Wind closed on two tax equity financing transactions totalling $146.3 million last year. The deals with several banks, including JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo & Co., have funded the development of projects in Hawaii and Maine. The banks, in turn, stand to collect the vast majority of the projects’ revenue and tax credits until they receive their targeted returns.
In January, First Wind completed an agreement with Lehman Brothers for $208 million in tax equity financing for several projects in New York. The company expects to spend $1.4 billion in capital expenditures through 2009, but did not say who would provide the financing.
“To date, our projects’ tax equity investors have been large financial institutions with significant taxable income,” First Wind’s prospectus notes.
First Wind officials declined comment, citing the company’s pending public offering, in which the company expects to raise up to $450 million.
Jackie Noblett can be reached at jnoblett@bizjournals.com.
And many of the biggest backers of renewable projects are on shaky ground or have disappeared altogether, saddled by bad bets in the housing and consumer credit markets. Among them: bankrupt Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers Holdings.
GE Energy Financial Services, whose parent company could see its financial footing hampered by a deteriorating credit market, alone invested $2 billion in renewable projects last year. One of those deals, a $300 million investment in wind farms in Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois and Texas, included a coinvestment with a subsidiary of troubled Wachovia Corp.
“I think we’ve seen a changing market in the last several months. Anyone who is dealing with an investor that’s been in the news lately is rethinking things,” said Jim Duffy, a partner in the syndication group at Boston’s Nixon Peabody LLP. “There is a definite concern that there is a narrow pool of investors and three or four may not be around” gong forward, based on the recent wave of consolidation in that industry.
The credit crunch has caught the attention of wind developers nationally. Earlier this week, the American Wind Energy Association hosted a workshop on investment and financing of wind projects. The agenda included discussions about credit markets and wind developer IPOs.
Boston renewable energy developer BlueWave Strategies LLC said some of the third-party financiers it has worked with in the past are in rough times, but it has yet to be directly affected.
“It’s a tough marketplace, but not an impossible marketplace,” said partner John DeVillars, although the company has yet to close on a financing deal post-meltdown. BlueWave has received capital commitments from GE for some of its projects.
Other developers say their projects are not immediately at risk as they wait to secure final permits before seeking financing.
Cape Wind hired Lehman to advise the company on securing project financing. The Lehman group working with Cape Wind was led by managing partner and longtime environmentalist Theodore Roosevelt IV.
Cape Wind expects to secure final project approval some time next year.
“We’ve always had a ‘permitting first’ strategy which has worked out so far. It’s probably better that we’re not looking for financing right now,” said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers. “By the time we complete the permitting process we hope that the markets will be stabilized.”
Newton-based First Wind Holdings LLC is a prime example of how renewable energy developers rely on institutional investors to fund critical capital investments.
First Wind estimates that about 50 percent to 60 percent of final project costs are funded through tax equity investments provided by large financial institutions, according to the company’s prospectus. The investments retire construction and turbine loans as well as equity investments in exchange for equity interests in subsidiaries that own the projects.
Those investments enable investors to receive sales revenue, tax credits and accelerating depreciation benefits for fixed periods, depending on the agreement.
First Wind closed on two tax equity financing transactions totalling $146.3 million last year. The deals with several banks, including JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo & Co., have funded the development of projects in Hawaii and Maine. The banks, in turn, stand to collect the vast majority of the projects’ revenue and tax credits until they receive their targeted returns.
In January, First Wind completed an agreement with Lehman Brothers for $208 million in tax equity financing for several projects in New York. The company expects to spend $1.4 billion in capital expenditures through 2009, but did not say who would provide the financing.
“To date, our projects’ tax equity investors have been large financial institutions with significant taxable income,” First Wind’s prospectus notes.
First Wind officials declined comment, citing the company’s pending public offering, in which the company expects to raise up to $450 million.
Jackie Noblett can be reached at jnoblett@bizjournals.com.
Town of Barton: Windmill farm may be in town’s future
Barton, N.Y.
A windmill farm may be on its way to the Town of Barton, but as to when it will happen is still years away.
The windmill farm is being sought by Gamesa Energy USA, which is the United State’s branch of Gamesa Corp. The company, which is based in Spain, specializes in sustainable energy technologies, mainly wind power.
The company was represented at Monday’s town council meeting by Timothy Vought, who is the director of development for Gamesa’s Atlantic region.
Vought did confirm at that session that Gamesa is looking at developing windmill farms within the Tioga County area, and one such site may be within the town.
“We have talked to landowners,” he said. “We have offered lease agreements. We are very early in our planning stages, so I don’t have a lot of details about what we’re proposing for this area.”
Gamesa USA has been based within the United States since 2002 and its Atlantic region covers Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland, said Vought.
“We are looking at doing windfarms anywhere from 20 to 100 wind turbines per project,” he said.
Gamesa has installed a test tower within the Tioga County region to test wind speed in the area, said Vought.
“We think that this area can sustain a utility-scale wind farm,” he said. “We are also looking at the intervection grid and we think that there is a favorable transmission network to inject power into.”
The components for these windfarms are created by the company’s manufacturing wing, which has four such facilities in Pennsylvania, said Vought.
“We are an experienced company and we have operations in 13 countries around the world,” he said.
The company is looking at the New York area as “one of the big places for growth,” Vought noted.
“We are very early in the process and we are expecting it to take at least three years — most likely four — until we have something ready to go (into operation),” he said.
However, it will be at least a year before the company appears before the town formally to begin the local permitting process, Vought added.
The next meeting of the Barton Town Council will be held at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 10 at the town hall on state Route 17C. The public is invited to attend.
A windmill farm may be on its way to the Town of Barton, but as to when it will happen is still years away.
The windmill farm is being sought by Gamesa Energy USA, which is the United State’s branch of Gamesa Corp. The company, which is based in Spain, specializes in sustainable energy technologies, mainly wind power.
The company was represented at Monday’s town council meeting by Timothy Vought, who is the director of development for Gamesa’s Atlantic region.
Vought did confirm at that session that Gamesa is looking at developing windmill farms within the Tioga County area, and one such site may be within the town.
“We have talked to landowners,” he said. “We have offered lease agreements. We are very early in our planning stages, so I don’t have a lot of details about what we’re proposing for this area.”
Gamesa USA has been based within the United States since 2002 and its Atlantic region covers Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland, said Vought.
“We are looking at doing windfarms anywhere from 20 to 100 wind turbines per project,” he said.
Gamesa has installed a test tower within the Tioga County region to test wind speed in the area, said Vought.
“We think that this area can sustain a utility-scale wind farm,” he said. “We are also looking at the intervection grid and we think that there is a favorable transmission network to inject power into.”
The components for these windfarms are created by the company’s manufacturing wing, which has four such facilities in Pennsylvania, said Vought.
“We are an experienced company and we have operations in 13 countries around the world,” he said.
The company is looking at the New York area as “one of the big places for growth,” Vought noted.
“We are very early in the process and we are expecting it to take at least three years — most likely four — until we have something ready to go (into operation),” he said.
However, it will be at least a year before the company appears before the town formally to begin the local permitting process, Vought added.
The next meeting of the Barton Town Council will be held at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 10 at the town hall on state Route 17C. The public is invited to attend.
Norton disagrees with OBSERVER project story
ARKWRIGHT - Taking exception to a front page story in the OBSERVER's Monday edition about Arkwright's proposed Horizon Wind Farm project, Supervisor Fred Norton issued a lengthy statement on its contents.
The story's headline read "No more town taxes? Wind farms could mean big bucks for Arkwright" referring to a plan Horizon had submitted to Arkwright.
"Horizon has submitted no such plan (and) it has never stated that the income from the wind farm in Arkwright would or could allow us to abolish town taxes," Norton said at Monday's town board meeting.
He went on to say the revenues generated by the wind farm would be based on two documents, a host agreement and a pilot agreement.
"Horizon has not begun to negotiate any host agreement and it has not applied to the Chautauqua County IDA for a pilot agreement," he said.
If Arkwright applies the wind tower revenue it may receive to abolish taxes, the first $322,000 of this revenue would have to be applied to the current town operations, Norton explained.
"To accomplish what needs to be done for our roads, we would need another $322,000 - the difference between the $400,000 cost and the $168,000 we currently spend," he said.
Calling the current town hall "a slum," Norton said the building's roof leaks and the storage area looks like Fibber Magee's closet.
"There is space for only 30 people for a town meeting and in the winter months we may have people looking in through the windows at a town board meeting. This may seem quaint, but it's cold for those on the outside and it's cold for us in the room," he said. "In short, we have needs which must be met before we ever (could consider) abolishing taxes.
"I hate these taxes as much as anyone, but first, we have to spend (tax) revenue to improve the town."
Summing up his remarks, Norton said, "I recognize the need to sell newspapers. Unfortunately, the absence of accuracy in the reporting of news makes governing much more difficult and subject to suspicion when the reported events did not occur."
When asked about quotes attributed to Neighbors Informed about Clean Energy co-chairman Larry Wilcox at the meeting covered by the news report, Horizon project manager Tom Stebbins said, "He does not speak for Horizon, nor, I believe, does he speak for the town board."
The story's headline read "No more town taxes? Wind farms could mean big bucks for Arkwright" referring to a plan Horizon had submitted to Arkwright.
"Horizon has submitted no such plan (and) it has never stated that the income from the wind farm in Arkwright would or could allow us to abolish town taxes," Norton said at Monday's town board meeting.
He went on to say the revenues generated by the wind farm would be based on two documents, a host agreement and a pilot agreement.
"Horizon has not begun to negotiate any host agreement and it has not applied to the Chautauqua County IDA for a pilot agreement," he said.
If Arkwright applies the wind tower revenue it may receive to abolish taxes, the first $322,000 of this revenue would have to be applied to the current town operations, Norton explained.
"To accomplish what needs to be done for our roads, we would need another $322,000 - the difference between the $400,000 cost and the $168,000 we currently spend," he said.
Calling the current town hall "a slum," Norton said the building's roof leaks and the storage area looks like Fibber Magee's closet.
"There is space for only 30 people for a town meeting and in the winter months we may have people looking in through the windows at a town board meeting. This may seem quaint, but it's cold for those on the outside and it's cold for us in the room," he said. "In short, we have needs which must be met before we ever (could consider) abolishing taxes.
"I hate these taxes as much as anyone, but first, we have to spend (tax) revenue to improve the town."
Summing up his remarks, Norton said, "I recognize the need to sell newspapers. Unfortunately, the absence of accuracy in the reporting of news makes governing much more difficult and subject to suspicion when the reported events did not occur."
When asked about quotes attributed to Neighbors Informed about Clean Energy co-chairman Larry Wilcox at the meeting covered by the news report, Horizon project manager Tom Stebbins said, "He does not speak for Horizon, nor, I believe, does he speak for the town board."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)