The state Department of Environmental Conservation wants to see more studies in the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm's draft environmental impact statement.
Upstate NY Power Corp., backed by Pattern Energy Group LP, San Francisco, plans to build an 84-turbine wind farm on the island rated at 252 megawatts. Recently, Pattern bought out Babcock & Brown Ltd.
DEC, as lead agency for the environmental review, will develop a summary to address the input from the public and government agencies, which leads to a final environmental impact statement.
In its response dated Monday, DEC said more studies were needed for turtles and birds.
The statement said a turtle trapping survey was done July 21 to 24, 2008. DEC said, "Four days of turtle trapping is not adequate to determine the presence or absence of these species."
In a June 8 memo to Upstate NY Power, DEC said a more developed 2009 trapping study work plan would be sufficient.
On birds, the developer's breeding bird survey visited 176 points twice during the breeding season.
In its comments, DEC pointed to its Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects, which call for point visits at least once a week in May, June and September.
"This deficiency should be addressed with additional breeding bird surveys," DEC said.
An additional study is planned for this year. The department agreed with Upstate NY Power's work plan for an additional breeding bird survey, diurnal bird movement study and winter bird survey, which should provide the necessary data.
DEC said the breeding bird survey report said there were a large number of snakes on the island, but that was not quantified.
"Further discussion should be included regarding the basis for this conclusion, including the species of snakes observed and the number of snakes observed," DEC said.
In the developer's avian risk assessment report, DEC said the surveys failed to report any short-eared owls on the island, but the species has been seen there in other reports and two evenings of surveys was inadequate.
The department also asked for more information on bald eagles.
"The findings note that, because of weather conditions, it wasn't possible to determine if their use is limited to feeding and perching on the island or if it is also an important winter night roost location for the birds as well," DEC said. "This is an important question which needs to be answered."
The assessment also included the possibility of reintroducing foxes and allowing coyotes to repopulate Galloo Island.
"Introducing fox and coyote to the island to control vole populations is not an option," DEC said. "What will keep these mammals from leaving the island? Even if they did target voles and not the ground nesting bird species, what happens when the vole numbers decrease?"
DEC expressed concern over the possibility of four smaller electrical cables being placed on the lake bed as opposed to a single, larger cable. The four cables were discussed during a conference call between DEC and Upstate NY Power.
"Placement of four cables would result in 4X the disturbance of sediment than a single cable route," DEC wrote. "This needs to be addressed further and associated impacts of multiple cable routes analyzed in greater detail."
DEC also:
■ Wanted a revised blasting plan that follows DEC guidelines.
■ Rebutted placement of a turbine, access road and electric lines on DEC land because the land would then revert to federal ownership as it would not be considered a conservation use.
■ Asked for more information about tanks, spill management plans and spill cleanup equipment to comply with DEC and U.S. Coast Guard requirements.
■ Requested that a measure be included to control pale swallowwort in the Invasive Species Control Plan.
■ Asked for a survey for the extent of pale swallowwort in the project area.
■ Told the developer that a preconstruction geological study should include identification of karst features. Karst "is a special type of landscape that is formed by the dissolution of soluble rocks, including limestone and dolomite," according to the Karst Water Institute.
■ Suggested to the town of Hounsfield that complete, not just surface, restoration of the island be evaluated as a possibility for decommissioning.
DEC said the 2009 New York State Open Space Conservation Plan continues to list Galloo Island as an important natural resource, the largest undeveloped island in Lake Ontario.
DEC said it would work with Upstate NY Power to promote goals in the open space plan, including invasive species control, grassland and forest management, and limited public access.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Henderson public hearing set on wind moratorium
HENDERSON — The Town Council will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. Monday at the town office, 12105 Town Barn Road, to consider a three-month moratorium on wind development.
A six-month moratorium, enacted in January to prevent development while the town's Planning Board reviewed sections of the zoning law that deal with energy development, expired this month.
The additional three-month moratorium on development would allow more time for the Planning Board to complete its review and for the Town Council to consider making changes based on those recommendations.
A six-month moratorium, enacted in January to prevent development while the town's Planning Board reviewed sections of the zoning law that deal with energy development, expired this month.
The additional three-month moratorium on development would allow more time for the Planning Board to complete its review and for the Town Council to consider making changes based on those recommendations.
Wind power developers should pay full taxes
Jefferson County development officials continue to wrestle with the terms of a tax-exempt policy for several wind power projects planned for the county.
The Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency is struggling to draft a uniform policy for payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements. The PILOTS would allow the developers of the Galloo Island Wind Farm and three other proposed projects around the county to make annual payments to the county, towns and school districts in place of taxes.
The IDA has to come up with a framework guiding taxing jurisdictions. It has to decide a method for determining how much revenue will be divided up by the taxing jurisdictions, while leaving specifics of the split to them.
Complicating the discussions is the matter of transmission lines proposed by three of the developers. The lines may be taxable property since they are not state-recognized utilities.
The issue could be resolved by rejecting a PILOT for any project as suggested by JCIDA board member James W. Wright, chief executive officer of the Development Authority of the North Country. Without a PILOT, developers would pay full taxes on their projects.
The projects will have far-reaching impacts throughout the county and not just on the host communities, while they do not provide long-term jobs. Project developers should pay taxes like other businesses and industries.
The Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency is struggling to draft a uniform policy for payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements. The PILOTS would allow the developers of the Galloo Island Wind Farm and three other proposed projects around the county to make annual payments to the county, towns and school districts in place of taxes.
The IDA has to come up with a framework guiding taxing jurisdictions. It has to decide a method for determining how much revenue will be divided up by the taxing jurisdictions, while leaving specifics of the split to them.
Complicating the discussions is the matter of transmission lines proposed by three of the developers. The lines may be taxable property since they are not state-recognized utilities.
The issue could be resolved by rejecting a PILOT for any project as suggested by JCIDA board member James W. Wright, chief executive officer of the Development Authority of the North Country. Without a PILOT, developers would pay full taxes on their projects.
The projects will have far-reaching impacts throughout the county and not just on the host communities, while they do not provide long-term jobs. Project developers should pay taxes like other businesses and industries.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
RECENT REPORT TIES WIND TURBINE NOISE TO POTENTIAL HEALTH PROBLEMS
"There can be no doubt that groups of industrial wind turbines ("wind farms") generate sufficient noise to disturb the sleep and impair the health of those living nearby," states Dr. Christopher Hanning in a recent report titled "Sleep Disturbance and Wind Turbine Noise."
Founder of the Leicester Sleep Disorders Service, which is the longest standing and largest service of its kind in Great Britain, Dr. Christopher Hanning's work in the area of sleep disorders has spanned thirty years. He currently chairs the advisory panel of the SOMNIA study, a major project investigating sleep quality in the elderly.
Dr. Hanning writes, "Sleep disturbance and impairment of the ability to return to sleep is not trivial, as almost all of us can testify."
He finds that wind turbine noise, even at levels that don’t fully awaken us, may nevertheless take us out of the most restful stage of sleep and disrupt critical sleep cycles. Hanning says, "This sleep, because it is broken, is unrefreshing, resulting in sleepiness, fatigue, headaches, poor memory and concentration."
These are the most common complaints from residents of industrial wind farms and Dr. Hanning believes they are tied to disrupted sleep.
He states that current government and industry-sponsored research on wind turbine noise and sleep disruption have only used recalled and reported full awakenings as an index of the effects of turbine noise on sleep.
Because most of the sleep disturbance does not result in full awakening and is not recalled, it can’t be reported. Dr. Hanning writes, "This approach seriously underestimates the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep."
Along with expected symptoms of fatigue, sleepiness and cognitive impairment, Dr. Hanning points to recent studies linking disrupted sleep to impaired glucose tolerance, increased risk of diabetes, increased risk of obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer and depression. He adds, “Sleepy people also have an increased risk of traffic accidents.”
He cites research which found people are more easily annoyed by wind turbine noise at lower levels than that of aircraft, traffic or trains. "The noise of wind turbines has been likened to 'a passing train, which never passes,’ “ writes Hanning, “Which may explain why wind turbine noise is prone to cause sleep disruption,"
Hanning believes current research strongly indicates people can be negatively impacted by wind turbine noise at distances thought by the wind industry to be safe.
He cites a recent peer-reviewed study which follows ten families who have been so affected by wind turbine noise that they had to leave their homes, nine of them permanently.
"Of particular concern," writes Dr. Hanning, "were the observed effects on children, including toddlers and school and college aged children." The study found changes in sleep pattern, behavior and academic performance. Seven out of ten children in the study had a decline in school performance while exposed to wind turbine noise. School performance recovered after exposure ceased.
Dr. Hanning notes, "In total, 20 of 34 study subjects reported problems with concentration or memory".
American pediatrician, Dr. Nina Pierpont, who conducted the peer-reviewed study, now recommends a minimum setback of two kilometers or (about 1.25 miles) from homes, schools, and other inhabited structures.
George Kamperman, a distinguished American noise engineer and an industrial noise consultant with fifty years of experience, also identifies this setback. Says Kamperman, "The magnitude of the impact [of wind turbine noise] is far above anything I have seen before at such relatively low sound levels... we desperately need noise exposure level criteria."
Dr. Hanning also finds current calculated measures of wind turbine noise “woefully inadequate” and says he is unconvinced by what he terms, "badly designed industry and government reports which seek to show there is no problem”.
He writes, "In my expert opinion, from my knowledge of sleep physiology and a review of available research, I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbances and ill health, “
Rather than relying on theoretical approaches to calculating distance, Dr. Hanning recommends setbacks based on observations of the effects on real people who are now living in or near operating wind farms.
He says, "...The only mitigation for wind turbine noise is to place a sufficient distance between the turbines and places of human habitation."
"Calculations cannot measure annoyance and sleep disturbance," he writes. "Only humans can do so."
Founder of the Leicester Sleep Disorders Service, which is the longest standing and largest service of its kind in Great Britain, Dr. Christopher Hanning's work in the area of sleep disorders has spanned thirty years. He currently chairs the advisory panel of the SOMNIA study, a major project investigating sleep quality in the elderly.
Dr. Hanning writes, "Sleep disturbance and impairment of the ability to return to sleep is not trivial, as almost all of us can testify."
He finds that wind turbine noise, even at levels that don’t fully awaken us, may nevertheless take us out of the most restful stage of sleep and disrupt critical sleep cycles. Hanning says, "This sleep, because it is broken, is unrefreshing, resulting in sleepiness, fatigue, headaches, poor memory and concentration."
These are the most common complaints from residents of industrial wind farms and Dr. Hanning believes they are tied to disrupted sleep.
He states that current government and industry-sponsored research on wind turbine noise and sleep disruption have only used recalled and reported full awakenings as an index of the effects of turbine noise on sleep.
Because most of the sleep disturbance does not result in full awakening and is not recalled, it can’t be reported. Dr. Hanning writes, "This approach seriously underestimates the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep."
Along with expected symptoms of fatigue, sleepiness and cognitive impairment, Dr. Hanning points to recent studies linking disrupted sleep to impaired glucose tolerance, increased risk of diabetes, increased risk of obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer and depression. He adds, “Sleepy people also have an increased risk of traffic accidents.”
He cites research which found people are more easily annoyed by wind turbine noise at lower levels than that of aircraft, traffic or trains. "The noise of wind turbines has been likened to 'a passing train, which never passes,’ “ writes Hanning, “Which may explain why wind turbine noise is prone to cause sleep disruption,"
Hanning believes current research strongly indicates people can be negatively impacted by wind turbine noise at distances thought by the wind industry to be safe.
He cites a recent peer-reviewed study which follows ten families who have been so affected by wind turbine noise that they had to leave their homes, nine of them permanently.
"Of particular concern," writes Dr. Hanning, "were the observed effects on children, including toddlers and school and college aged children." The study found changes in sleep pattern, behavior and academic performance. Seven out of ten children in the study had a decline in school performance while exposed to wind turbine noise. School performance recovered after exposure ceased.
Dr. Hanning notes, "In total, 20 of 34 study subjects reported problems with concentration or memory".
American pediatrician, Dr. Nina Pierpont, who conducted the peer-reviewed study, now recommends a minimum setback of two kilometers or (about 1.25 miles) from homes, schools, and other inhabited structures.
George Kamperman, a distinguished American noise engineer and an industrial noise consultant with fifty years of experience, also identifies this setback. Says Kamperman, "The magnitude of the impact [of wind turbine noise] is far above anything I have seen before at such relatively low sound levels... we desperately need noise exposure level criteria."
Dr. Hanning also finds current calculated measures of wind turbine noise “woefully inadequate” and says he is unconvinced by what he terms, "badly designed industry and government reports which seek to show there is no problem”.
He writes, "In my expert opinion, from my knowledge of sleep physiology and a review of available research, I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbances and ill health, “
Rather than relying on theoretical approaches to calculating distance, Dr. Hanning recommends setbacks based on observations of the effects on real people who are now living in or near operating wind farms.
He says, "...The only mitigation for wind turbine noise is to place a sufficient distance between the turbines and places of human habitation."
"Calculations cannot measure annoyance and sleep disturbance," he writes. "Only humans can do so."
Italy wind farm suit decision delayed
PENN YAN — A decision on the Article 78 suit over wind farm proposals in Italy will not come until August.
Acting Supreme Court Judge Patrick Falvey said after a hearing yesterday that he would reserve decision on the suit and related motions until Aug. 15, giving both sides a chance to reply to the motions in writing.
The case stems from EcoGen LLC’s application to build 18 wind turbines in Italy. The Finger Lakes Preservation Association, an unincorporated group of local residents, named the Italy Town Board and wind developer EcoGen LLC in the Article 78 suit, which alleges that the town violated the Open Meetings Law and the state environmental review process.
Gary A. Abraham, an Allegheny attorney representing the association, had made a motion to strike some of the information offered by EcoGen, saying it could already be found in material submitted by the town. Edward Premo, an attorney with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP of Rochester, had made a motion to dismiss an affidavit Abraham submitted from an expert in wind turbine noise, saying his information was not available to the town during its review of a local incentive zoning law and therefore couldn’t have been considered.
At the Tuesday’s hearing, Abraham said EcoGen used pressure and the possibility of further litigation to get the town to create the incentive zoning law earlier this year. And he said the affidavit from noise expert Richard James was simply there to show that anyone who had the same information as the Town Board did wouldn’t have drawn the same conclusions.
Abraham also accused the town of not creating mitigation efforts for the turbines’ impacts and instead saying it would later offset them with benefits and amenities for the town. He said that goes against state regulations.
Edward Premo, an attorney with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP of Rochester, represented the Town Board.
He disagreed with Abraham’s characterization that the board created its laws for EcoGen, saying the town fought the company in federal court. He said the town gave the laws a lot of consideration, first creating a comprehensive plan, considering amendments, creating an incentive zone, then a law.
Benefits for the town, including agricultural opportunities and the use of natural resources for energy, were among the factors the town considered, he said.
The town also considered the noise issue, he said. It used standard average measure for noise level — different than the one Abraham used, which measures the quietest level — which put noise in the town in the 49 decibel range. By that standard, Premo said, the town’s requirement for the turbines not to exceed 50 decibels at the property line and 45 decibels at the nearest non-participating residence was not much higher than the town’s average noise levels.
Referencing state Department of Environmental Conservation standards, Premo said 30 decibels is considered very quiet, with 45 considered a quiet, serene setting.
“The town standards were not out of line,” Premo said.
But Abraham said he used the quietest measures to compare because those are the places where the effects of the turbines will be felt the most. He said the DEC guidelines reference suburban and urban settings, not rural areas.
Megan Dorritie, also an attorney with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, addressed the allegations related to Open Meetings Law violations.
An emergency meeting was held Jan. 30, and the association claims the town didn’t provide adequate notice. But Dorritie said the meeting was called for at the Jan. 27 meeting, so the town didn’t have time to alert the media. It did put a sign in the window of the town hall, which was sufficient, she said.
She said a February visit by three board members and the town engineer to wind farms in Cohocton didn’t qualify as a town meeting because they didn’t conduct town business or take action.
Acting Supreme Court Judge Patrick Falvey said after a hearing yesterday that he would reserve decision on the suit and related motions until Aug. 15, giving both sides a chance to reply to the motions in writing.
The case stems from EcoGen LLC’s application to build 18 wind turbines in Italy. The Finger Lakes Preservation Association, an unincorporated group of local residents, named the Italy Town Board and wind developer EcoGen LLC in the Article 78 suit, which alleges that the town violated the Open Meetings Law and the state environmental review process.
Gary A. Abraham, an Allegheny attorney representing the association, had made a motion to strike some of the information offered by EcoGen, saying it could already be found in material submitted by the town. Edward Premo, an attorney with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP of Rochester, had made a motion to dismiss an affidavit Abraham submitted from an expert in wind turbine noise, saying his information was not available to the town during its review of a local incentive zoning law and therefore couldn’t have been considered.
At the Tuesday’s hearing, Abraham said EcoGen used pressure and the possibility of further litigation to get the town to create the incentive zoning law earlier this year. And he said the affidavit from noise expert Richard James was simply there to show that anyone who had the same information as the Town Board did wouldn’t have drawn the same conclusions.
Abraham also accused the town of not creating mitigation efforts for the turbines’ impacts and instead saying it would later offset them with benefits and amenities for the town. He said that goes against state regulations.
Edward Premo, an attorney with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP of Rochester, represented the Town Board.
He disagreed with Abraham’s characterization that the board created its laws for EcoGen, saying the town fought the company in federal court. He said the town gave the laws a lot of consideration, first creating a comprehensive plan, considering amendments, creating an incentive zone, then a law.
Benefits for the town, including agricultural opportunities and the use of natural resources for energy, were among the factors the town considered, he said.
The town also considered the noise issue, he said. It used standard average measure for noise level — different than the one Abraham used, which measures the quietest level — which put noise in the town in the 49 decibel range. By that standard, Premo said, the town’s requirement for the turbines not to exceed 50 decibels at the property line and 45 decibels at the nearest non-participating residence was not much higher than the town’s average noise levels.
Referencing state Department of Environmental Conservation standards, Premo said 30 decibels is considered very quiet, with 45 considered a quiet, serene setting.
“The town standards were not out of line,” Premo said.
But Abraham said he used the quietest measures to compare because those are the places where the effects of the turbines will be felt the most. He said the DEC guidelines reference suburban and urban settings, not rural areas.
Megan Dorritie, also an attorney with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, addressed the allegations related to Open Meetings Law violations.
An emergency meeting was held Jan. 30, and the association claims the town didn’t provide adequate notice. But Dorritie said the meeting was called for at the Jan. 27 meeting, so the town didn’t have time to alert the media. It did put a sign in the window of the town hall, which was sufficient, she said.
She said a February visit by three board members and the town engineer to wind farms in Cohocton didn’t qualify as a town meeting because they didn’t conduct town business or take action.
Banks bail out First Wind’s debt with $191M
Newton, Mass.-based First Wind is in a crunch for cash and it’s forcing the company to get creative since it’s indefinitely delayed plans to raise it on the public markets.
The company, an independent developer and operator of wind power in the United States, has been fighting off a subpoena, putting at least two projects on hold for 2009 and struggling to access financing. But today things turned around with the company closing two financing transactions totaling $191 million. Proceeds from the transactions are expected to be used to further First Wind’s development activity, to fund debt and for general corporate purposes, First Wind’s Director of Communications John Lamontagne told the Cleantech Group.
The company had revenue of $12 million and a net loss of $73 million for past 12 months ending March 31, 2008. Lamontagne couldn’t provide more current figures.
The first financing is an 8.5-year $115 million term loan facility from Edmonton, Alberta-based Alberta Investment Management. The second is a $76 million 1-year loan with HSH Nordbank for First Wind’s Stetson project, which started operating in January 2009.
“These are highly capital intensive projects, and we have to borrow significant sums to get these projects built,” Lamontagne said.
He added that today’s financing would be used to fund debt incurred in having the facility built, although he didn’t know how much debt had been acquired.
The Stetson project is currently the largest operating wind farm, with 38 General Electric 1.5 megawatt turbines, in New England, operating outside of Danforth, Maine. First Wind has also received permits to start a 25.5 MW expansion of the project, but Lamontagne said today’s financing wouldn’t be to cover that expansion.
“The credit markets and financing markets are still very tight,” he said. “In the last nine months, folks at First Wind have tried to be creative to finance our projects. This, in many respects, is that fruit of that creativity.”
In 2008, First Wind filed an IPO to raise up to $450 million on the Nasdaq. First Wind said at the time that it planned to use proceeds from the IPO to repay debt and to fund a portion of its capital expenditures in 2008 and 2009 (see First Wind plans share sale as WNDY). Lamontagne confirmed those plans are still on file with the SEC.
He said HSH Nordbank has been a backer of a number of the company’s projects, including a 125 MW project in upstate New York as well as the first phase of a 200 MW wind project being constructed in Milford, Utah. Today’s announcement comes on the heels of First Wind announcing that it secured $376 million in financing in April for the Milford project. The Royal Bank of Scotland was lead arranger for this loan.
“In many respects, if you consider this financing and the $376 million we got for the Milford project, we feel it indicates there’s a strong confidence on behalf of banking institutions in First Wind’s projects, despite the financial markets,” Lamontagne said.
First Wind currently has five operational wind projects totaling 274 MW in three states—two in Maine, two in New York and one in Hawaii (see Rhode Island picks Deepwater Wind for offshore project).
In 2008, First Wind, previously called UPC Wind, signed a deal with the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory to study the integration of wind technology into Hawaii's utility system (see UPC Wind, DOE setting up wind study center on Maui). Under the agreement, the company said the lab would establish a remote research affiliate partner site at UPC's Kaheawa Wind Farm in West Maui.
In Cohocton, N.Y., First Wind's 125 MW project reportedly ran into problems in February when residents voiced complaints regarding a noise that sounded like a jet-engine. Some of the turbines had to be repaired. The project was found to be within the town statute’s limits, and Lamontagne said they are continuing to work with landowners and the town to address concerns.
Town officials in nearby Prattsburgh, N.Y., were alarmed by the Cohocton news and tried to delay construction by two developers, First Wind and Ecogen, until more information was received about the projects. The town is now trying to enact a wind tower permit law.
In the meantime, Lamontagne said the approximately 70 MW Prattsburgh project has been put on hold for 2009 due to difficulty accessing financing, as well as a project in Grand Manan, Canada.
Last year, Essex, Conn.-based wind power company Noble Environmental Power, which also filed and later cancelled its IPO, and First Wind were both served subpoenas by the New York State Attorney General's office (see Noble Environmental files for $375M share sale, Noble Environmental sets shares for IPO amid investigation and Wind developer Noble cancels IPO).
The subpoenas were part of an investigation into whether the companies 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. But the subpoenas are no longer being pursued.
In October 2008, New York's Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced a new wind industry ethics code that establishes guidelines to facilitate the development of alternative energy in New York, while assuring the public the wind power industry is acting properly and within the law.
The code calls for new oversight through a multi-agency task force, and establishes transparency expected to deter improper relationships between wind development companies and government officials. Noble and First Wind both signed the agreement.
The company, an independent developer and operator of wind power in the United States, has been fighting off a subpoena, putting at least two projects on hold for 2009 and struggling to access financing. But today things turned around with the company closing two financing transactions totaling $191 million. Proceeds from the transactions are expected to be used to further First Wind’s development activity, to fund debt and for general corporate purposes, First Wind’s Director of Communications John Lamontagne told the Cleantech Group.
The company had revenue of $12 million and a net loss of $73 million for past 12 months ending March 31, 2008. Lamontagne couldn’t provide more current figures.
The first financing is an 8.5-year $115 million term loan facility from Edmonton, Alberta-based Alberta Investment Management. The second is a $76 million 1-year loan with HSH Nordbank for First Wind’s Stetson project, which started operating in January 2009.
“These are highly capital intensive projects, and we have to borrow significant sums to get these projects built,” Lamontagne said.
He added that today’s financing would be used to fund debt incurred in having the facility built, although he didn’t know how much debt had been acquired.
The Stetson project is currently the largest operating wind farm, with 38 General Electric 1.5 megawatt turbines, in New England, operating outside of Danforth, Maine. First Wind has also received permits to start a 25.5 MW expansion of the project, but Lamontagne said today’s financing wouldn’t be to cover that expansion.
“The credit markets and financing markets are still very tight,” he said. “In the last nine months, folks at First Wind have tried to be creative to finance our projects. This, in many respects, is that fruit of that creativity.”
In 2008, First Wind filed an IPO to raise up to $450 million on the Nasdaq. First Wind said at the time that it planned to use proceeds from the IPO to repay debt and to fund a portion of its capital expenditures in 2008 and 2009 (see First Wind plans share sale as WNDY). Lamontagne confirmed those plans are still on file with the SEC.
He said HSH Nordbank has been a backer of a number of the company’s projects, including a 125 MW project in upstate New York as well as the first phase of a 200 MW wind project being constructed in Milford, Utah. Today’s announcement comes on the heels of First Wind announcing that it secured $376 million in financing in April for the Milford project. The Royal Bank of Scotland was lead arranger for this loan.
“In many respects, if you consider this financing and the $376 million we got for the Milford project, we feel it indicates there’s a strong confidence on behalf of banking institutions in First Wind’s projects, despite the financial markets,” Lamontagne said.
First Wind currently has five operational wind projects totaling 274 MW in three states—two in Maine, two in New York and one in Hawaii (see Rhode Island picks Deepwater Wind for offshore project).
In 2008, First Wind, previously called UPC Wind, signed a deal with the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory to study the integration of wind technology into Hawaii's utility system (see UPC Wind, DOE setting up wind study center on Maui). Under the agreement, the company said the lab would establish a remote research affiliate partner site at UPC's Kaheawa Wind Farm in West Maui.
In Cohocton, N.Y., First Wind's 125 MW project reportedly ran into problems in February when residents voiced complaints regarding a noise that sounded like a jet-engine. Some of the turbines had to be repaired. The project was found to be within the town statute’s limits, and Lamontagne said they are continuing to work with landowners and the town to address concerns.
Town officials in nearby Prattsburgh, N.Y., were alarmed by the Cohocton news and tried to delay construction by two developers, First Wind and Ecogen, until more information was received about the projects. The town is now trying to enact a wind tower permit law.
In the meantime, Lamontagne said the approximately 70 MW Prattsburgh project has been put on hold for 2009 due to difficulty accessing financing, as well as a project in Grand Manan, Canada.
Last year, Essex, Conn.-based wind power company Noble Environmental Power, which also filed and later cancelled its IPO, and First Wind were both served subpoenas by the New York State Attorney General's office (see Noble Environmental files for $375M share sale, Noble Environmental sets shares for IPO amid investigation and Wind developer Noble cancels IPO).
The subpoenas were part of an investigation into whether the companies 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. But the subpoenas are no longer being pursued.
In October 2008, New York's Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced a new wind industry ethics code that establishes guidelines to facilitate the development of alternative energy in New York, while assuring the public the wind power industry is acting properly and within the law.
The code calls for new oversight through a multi-agency task force, and establishes transparency expected to deter improper relationships between wind development companies and government officials. Noble and First Wind both signed the agreement.
Prattsburgh residents question wind permit law
Prattsburgh, N.Y.
The Prattsburgh town board took no action on a proposed tower permit law after holding a public hearing on the law Tuesday night.
A number of residents questioned the need for the law since the town was advised by state officials last winter it could not issue building permits because there were no town laws regulating cellular or wind tower construction.
Town Supervisor Harold McConnell said the permit law is needed now in order to set fees for the permits. Those fees will be determined by another law setting forth regulations for tower construction, he said.
However, Councilman Steve Kula said the current permit law is useless because it does not include the elements it needs to set fees. Kula also criticized town Attorney John Leyden for being absent from the meeting.
“We really need legal counsel on this, and where is Leyden?” Kula said.
Another resident warned the board the fees should not be considered added revenues.
Ruthe Matilsky said any permit fees collected should be dedicated to ensuring construction meets safety and building standards.
Prattsburgh is the site of two proposed wind energy projects.
One developer, First Wind, has proposed a 50-turbine wind farm, while a second company, Ecogen, plans on setting up 16 turbines in Prattsburgh. Ecogen also plans on putting up 18 more turbines in the neighboring town of Italy, in Yates County. The Italy portion of Ecogen’s project is not subject to Prattsburgh’s permits.
The public hearing on the tower permit was one of two public hearings scheduled before the regular board meeting.
The second hearing was on a hazard mitigation plan designed by Steuben County officials. After several comments by the public, the board unanimously adopted the mitigation plan.
The Prattsburgh town board took no action on a proposed tower permit law after holding a public hearing on the law Tuesday night.
A number of residents questioned the need for the law since the town was advised by state officials last winter it could not issue building permits because there were no town laws regulating cellular or wind tower construction.
Town Supervisor Harold McConnell said the permit law is needed now in order to set fees for the permits. Those fees will be determined by another law setting forth regulations for tower construction, he said.
However, Councilman Steve Kula said the current permit law is useless because it does not include the elements it needs to set fees. Kula also criticized town Attorney John Leyden for being absent from the meeting.
“We really need legal counsel on this, and where is Leyden?” Kula said.
Another resident warned the board the fees should not be considered added revenues.
Ruthe Matilsky said any permit fees collected should be dedicated to ensuring construction meets safety and building standards.
Prattsburgh is the site of two proposed wind energy projects.
One developer, First Wind, has proposed a 50-turbine wind farm, while a second company, Ecogen, plans on setting up 16 turbines in Prattsburgh. Ecogen also plans on putting up 18 more turbines in the neighboring town of Italy, in Yates County. The Italy portion of Ecogen’s project is not subject to Prattsburgh’s permits.
The public hearing on the tower permit was one of two public hearings scheduled before the regular board meeting.
The second hearing was on a hazard mitigation plan designed by Steuben County officials. After several comments by the public, the board unanimously adopted the mitigation plan.
First Wind raises $191M from foreign investors
First Wind LLC said Tuesday it has closed loan agreements with two foreign investors worth $191 million to advance its wind farm development projects.
The Newton, Mass., developer secured an 8.5 year, $115 million term loan with Alberta Investment Management Corp. (AIMCo), a Canadian investment manager of public pension plans and government endowment funds. First Wind also closed a $76 million one-year loan with German bank HSH Nordbank AG for the company’s Stetson Wind project in northern Maine.
The financing will be used for future development projects and general corporate purposes, company officials said in a statement. First Wind currently has five operating wind projects totaling 274 megawatts in Maine, New York and Hawaii.
“These investments in First Wind in the midst of very difficult financing markets show confidence in First Wind’s ability to continue to develop, build and operate wind farms in our target markets,” said First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor in a prepared written statement. “It also shows that AIMCo and HSH Nordbank are committed to making major investments in clean, renewable energy.”
The deal comes as First Wind evaluates a potential initial public offering of its common stock. It filed its registration papers for an IPO with the Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2008. The company is backed by affiliates of the D. E. Shaw Group and Madison Dearborn Partners.
The Newton, Mass., developer secured an 8.5 year, $115 million term loan with Alberta Investment Management Corp. (AIMCo), a Canadian investment manager of public pension plans and government endowment funds. First Wind also closed a $76 million one-year loan with German bank HSH Nordbank AG for the company’s Stetson Wind project in northern Maine.
The financing will be used for future development projects and general corporate purposes, company officials said in a statement. First Wind currently has five operating wind projects totaling 274 megawatts in Maine, New York and Hawaii.
“These investments in First Wind in the midst of very difficult financing markets show confidence in First Wind’s ability to continue to develop, build and operate wind farms in our target markets,” said First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor in a prepared written statement. “It also shows that AIMCo and HSH Nordbank are committed to making major investments in clean, renewable energy.”
The deal comes as First Wind evaluates a potential initial public offering of its common stock. It filed its registration papers for an IPO with the Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2008. The company is backed by affiliates of the D. E. Shaw Group and Madison Dearborn Partners.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Do turbines save money?
No one should feel guilty about questioning industrial wind. Regardless of how big the turbines get, the ability to produce meaningful energy for consumers is extremely limited.
To understand the limits of industrial wind power there needs to be an understanding of how our grid works. Energy must be maintained at all times. Drops or increases in voltage can cause the grid to fail.
The amount of energy that is used by consumers at any time must be pre-estimated by grid operators.
These operators must have access to a power source ready to meet what they know will be the demand for that time frame. They cannot depend on power from wind as there is no way to know what will be available in the future.
It would seem that if wind goes online there would be a reduced use of energy from other sources. If operators could just shut off other energy sources that might work, but it is not that simple.
To keep the grid stable, operators must know they have power available.
They must prearrange by buying a block of power to be delivered from a reliable source at a specific time. If this power gets used we get our money's worth.
If it is not used, due to wind coming on line, we have just paid for reliable power that was not used.
We pay twice when wind goes on line, once for the cheaper prepaid reliable power and once for the more expensive, after the fact, wind power. In the end, little to no CO2 has been saved.
So the question we should be asking is, "Why are we building huge industrial wind turbines?" Feel-good symbolism? Big money for developers?
MAUREEN ANDERSON, Amherstburg
To understand the limits of industrial wind power there needs to be an understanding of how our grid works. Energy must be maintained at all times. Drops or increases in voltage can cause the grid to fail.
The amount of energy that is used by consumers at any time must be pre-estimated by grid operators.
These operators must have access to a power source ready to meet what they know will be the demand for that time frame. They cannot depend on power from wind as there is no way to know what will be available in the future.
It would seem that if wind goes online there would be a reduced use of energy from other sources. If operators could just shut off other energy sources that might work, but it is not that simple.
To keep the grid stable, operators must know they have power available.
They must prearrange by buying a block of power to be delivered from a reliable source at a specific time. If this power gets used we get our money's worth.
If it is not used, due to wind coming on line, we have just paid for reliable power that was not used.
We pay twice when wind goes on line, once for the cheaper prepaid reliable power and once for the more expensive, after the fact, wind power. In the end, little to no CO2 has been saved.
So the question we should be asking is, "Why are we building huge industrial wind turbines?" Feel-good symbolism? Big money for developers?
MAUREEN ANDERSON, Amherstburg
Sunday, July 19, 2009
It's difficult to write noise ordinance
Tuesday, July 7, 2009, the Prattsburgh Town Board met to work on a 'wind law' which, among other issues, would define how a landowner picturing themselves placed at risk by a wind turbine could seek redress.
To his credit, Supervisor Harold McConnell brought in an expert from a Rochester noise control firm, AVL Designs, www.avldesign.com, to offer suggestions for the issues the Prattsburgh Town Board should consider for inclusion in a noise ordinance. Seth Waltz, the noise expert, described himself as having a comprehensive understanding of the science of noise but little or no specific expertise in the noise issues relative to wind farms.
In Mr. Waltz's opinion, the task of writing a meaningful noise ordinance that would, in fact, adequately protect Prattsburgh residents is difficult.
Mr. Waltz made a number of extremely provocative comments.
One, unlike the immediately identifiable sound of a crying infant, wind turbines produce no constant tonality, no universal signature, making the creation of a noise standard challenging.
Two, the most critical issue isn't audible noise; it's the low frequency sound waves that create vibration. Low frequency noise in the 2-3Hz range can not only be annoying but cause vomiting and other serious health issues. 12Hz can cause hallucinations. Low frequency noise is what you hear sometimes minutes before you see the car with its stereo pumping out mega base and how the US Navy communicates globally with its submarines from a single low frequency generation point in northern Wisconsin.
Three, because the DEC Noise Guidelines measure DBA without any consideration of low frequency noise, those guidelines are not an appropriate standard for a Prattsburgh Noise Ordinance.
Four, because Prattsburgh is comprised of hills and valleys which cause a megaphone effect that can directionalize, combine and intensify the sounds of multiple turbines, our experience with wind turbines will be quite different than that of Tug Hill or Fenner where the turbines are on a high plateau well above the surrounding countryside; i.e. - Cohocton.
Five, because of the deep foundations necessary to stabilize 400' turbines, low frequency noise is transmitted down and throughout the contours of the land and often follows bedrock and even accelerates to immerge in a random manner miles away from its generation point.
Six, the 500' set backs from residences being considered in Prattsburgh are woefully inadequate; Mr. Waltz suggested that set backs of anything less than a half mile are a recipe for disaster.
Seven, Mr. Waltz said that a noise ordinance should consider three (3) sound components - the audible noises and low frequency sound vibrations that the wind turbines expect to make - plus the concept of noises like a failing bearing that, while unplanned, will occur. Waltz suggested the only way a resident's 'after' (postturbine installation) complaint can be quantified is for the Town of Prattsburgh to take extensive 'before' (preturbine installation) readings within a considerable radius of every structure within some prescribed distance of the site of each planned turbine. The cost to establish and maintain this 'before and after' data base would be considerable; what entity should fund the collection of such a data base is unclear.
The Board asked Mr. Waltz for a proposal so they could understand the costs and methodology to proceed.
Supervisor McConnell closed the meeting with a reminder to the Board that the Town is not currently budgeted to study the noise ordinance question let alone fund the collection of a meaningful data base.
Those in attendance were clearly encouraged that the sanctity of their homes and health is being considered.
Arnold C. Palmer
Prattsburgh
To his credit, Supervisor Harold McConnell brought in an expert from a Rochester noise control firm, AVL Designs, www.avldesign.com, to offer suggestions for the issues the Prattsburgh Town Board should consider for inclusion in a noise ordinance. Seth Waltz, the noise expert, described himself as having a comprehensive understanding of the science of noise but little or no specific expertise in the noise issues relative to wind farms.
In Mr. Waltz's opinion, the task of writing a meaningful noise ordinance that would, in fact, adequately protect Prattsburgh residents is difficult.
Mr. Waltz made a number of extremely provocative comments.
One, unlike the immediately identifiable sound of a crying infant, wind turbines produce no constant tonality, no universal signature, making the creation of a noise standard challenging.
Two, the most critical issue isn't audible noise; it's the low frequency sound waves that create vibration. Low frequency noise in the 2-3Hz range can not only be annoying but cause vomiting and other serious health issues. 12Hz can cause hallucinations. Low frequency noise is what you hear sometimes minutes before you see the car with its stereo pumping out mega base and how the US Navy communicates globally with its submarines from a single low frequency generation point in northern Wisconsin.
Three, because the DEC Noise Guidelines measure DBA without any consideration of low frequency noise, those guidelines are not an appropriate standard for a Prattsburgh Noise Ordinance.
Four, because Prattsburgh is comprised of hills and valleys which cause a megaphone effect that can directionalize, combine and intensify the sounds of multiple turbines, our experience with wind turbines will be quite different than that of Tug Hill or Fenner where the turbines are on a high plateau well above the surrounding countryside; i.e. - Cohocton.
Five, because of the deep foundations necessary to stabilize 400' turbines, low frequency noise is transmitted down and throughout the contours of the land and often follows bedrock and even accelerates to immerge in a random manner miles away from its generation point.
Six, the 500' set backs from residences being considered in Prattsburgh are woefully inadequate; Mr. Waltz suggested that set backs of anything less than a half mile are a recipe for disaster.
Seven, Mr. Waltz said that a noise ordinance should consider three (3) sound components - the audible noises and low frequency sound vibrations that the wind turbines expect to make - plus the concept of noises like a failing bearing that, while unplanned, will occur. Waltz suggested the only way a resident's 'after' (postturbine installation) complaint can be quantified is for the Town of Prattsburgh to take extensive 'before' (preturbine installation) readings within a considerable radius of every structure within some prescribed distance of the site of each planned turbine. The cost to establish and maintain this 'before and after' data base would be considerable; what entity should fund the collection of such a data base is unclear.
The Board asked Mr. Waltz for a proposal so they could understand the costs and methodology to proceed.
Supervisor McConnell closed the meeting with a reminder to the Board that the Town is not currently budgeted to study the noise ordinance question let alone fund the collection of a meaningful data base.
Those in attendance were clearly encouraged that the sanctity of their homes and health is being considered.
Arnold C. Palmer
Prattsburgh
Maple Ridge Wind Farm has been a disaster
I reside in the center of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau. The part you don't see on a guided tour. When I look out my front door, I can count at least 151 405-foot turbines, thanks in part to Horizon Energy. This project has fragmented wildlife habitat, the community and our family along with several others that I know.
The monies received by leaseholders benefit very few compared to how many people these monsters have a great negative impact on. TV and radio reception are tremendously affected and many of us cannot get cable TV. Horizon and PPM's promises to mitigate this problem have not had any effect. The shadow flicker, noise, visual and light pollution have destroyed our quality of life that we treasured. We live there because it is where we grew up and enjoyed the benefits of the peacefulness and prestigious beauties that nature provided to us. Now we are in the center of a major industrial nightmare soon to be an industrial graveyard.
The $3 million plus PILOT payments have not reduced my land taxes or anyone else's that I have seen. I am the owner of two properties in the town of Lowville. My brothers have properties in Harrisburg and Martinsburg, the other two towns that encompass this disaster, and their taxes have also increased.
I realize that they promise great benefits to the town and residents. They did it here. They didn't deliver. Our streets are destroyed and continue to be as they run cranes and other heavy equipment almost daily to try to repair all of the broken turbines, which is obviously visible on a daily basis. Broken blades, failing mechanisms, nose cone that was thrown a great distance. Luckily no collapses yet like the one in Clinton County earlier this month. These have only been commissioned for three years in Phase 1 and two years for Phase 2. What will happen as they get older if they were failing after a year or less of operation?
It's all about money for the developers — the turbines are foreign-owned — so they can take our tax money back to their country.
I beg you not to allow this to happen in your community. It is not worth dividing families, the community and stripping the residents of their health, quality of life and American Dream. I realize the dollar signs are tempting, but it is not worth it.
Timothy Yancey
Lowville
The monies received by leaseholders benefit very few compared to how many people these monsters have a great negative impact on. TV and radio reception are tremendously affected and many of us cannot get cable TV. Horizon and PPM's promises to mitigate this problem have not had any effect. The shadow flicker, noise, visual and light pollution have destroyed our quality of life that we treasured. We live there because it is where we grew up and enjoyed the benefits of the peacefulness and prestigious beauties that nature provided to us. Now we are in the center of a major industrial nightmare soon to be an industrial graveyard.
The $3 million plus PILOT payments have not reduced my land taxes or anyone else's that I have seen. I am the owner of two properties in the town of Lowville. My brothers have properties in Harrisburg and Martinsburg, the other two towns that encompass this disaster, and their taxes have also increased.
I realize that they promise great benefits to the town and residents. They did it here. They didn't deliver. Our streets are destroyed and continue to be as they run cranes and other heavy equipment almost daily to try to repair all of the broken turbines, which is obviously visible on a daily basis. Broken blades, failing mechanisms, nose cone that was thrown a great distance. Luckily no collapses yet like the one in Clinton County earlier this month. These have only been commissioned for three years in Phase 1 and two years for Phase 2. What will happen as they get older if they were failing after a year or less of operation?
It's all about money for the developers — the turbines are foreign-owned — so they can take our tax money back to their country.
I beg you not to allow this to happen in your community. It is not worth dividing families, the community and stripping the residents of their health, quality of life and American Dream. I realize the dollar signs are tempting, but it is not worth it.
Timothy Yancey
Lowville
Moratorium a ploy by Cape Vincent board
After reading that town of Cape Vincent officials are considering a selective moratorium on wind development in the Watertown Times on July 10, I am left wondering, what's new and where's the threat?
In 2006, the town's Planning Board passed a resolution they did not need a wind law and Supervisor Thomas Rienbeck and the town board quickly followed by killing the wind law initiative. This ill-advised action exposed river and lake districts to unregulated commercial wind development for the past three years. The idea of a moratorium is nothing new either. Since 2006 the town board ignored numerous requests to institute a moratorium on wind development. So, what has changed?
The selective moratorium is either a good idea or it is a calculated distraction designed to give the impression the town board is protecting us while they quietly approve the St. Lawrence Wind Farm. It will be easy to tell the difference between honesty and deception. If town officials can show that a commercial wind developer is pursuing landowner agreements within the river and lake districts, then I will believe their moratorium is an honest attempt to protect our interests. If not, however, it will show their moratorium is nothing more than a worthless, calculated deception.
If town officials want a serious threat, however, they should look no further than the current wind projects. Contrary to wind developer's speculation, most of the homes along the river district (along with many in the agricultural district) will be within a zone of adverse noise impacts from the turbines proposed for the St. Lawrence Wind Farm.
But, the Times quotes Supervisor Rienbeck wondering what sound study is right, the developers or one commissioned by the Wind Power Ethics Group. One way to help us all understand which study is accurate is to ask the town's sound consultant. Regrettably, Cape Vincent officials are not releasing their sound consultant's reviews and recommendations. Instead, they have used Freedom of Information Law to make these documents unavailable to the public, and they have muffled their engineering consultants.
Before the August hearing on their proposed moratorium, Cape officials need to come clean. They should prove to us there is active wind developer in the river and lake districts. They should also let us see what their engineering experts are recommending regarding the noise issues and impacts. My guess is that this is all a ploy designed to help get the St. Lawrence Wind Farm approved before the November election. Surprise, surprise.
Clif Schneider
Cape Vincent
In 2006, the town's Planning Board passed a resolution they did not need a wind law and Supervisor Thomas Rienbeck and the town board quickly followed by killing the wind law initiative. This ill-advised action exposed river and lake districts to unregulated commercial wind development for the past three years. The idea of a moratorium is nothing new either. Since 2006 the town board ignored numerous requests to institute a moratorium on wind development. So, what has changed?
The selective moratorium is either a good idea or it is a calculated distraction designed to give the impression the town board is protecting us while they quietly approve the St. Lawrence Wind Farm. It will be easy to tell the difference between honesty and deception. If town officials can show that a commercial wind developer is pursuing landowner agreements within the river and lake districts, then I will believe their moratorium is an honest attempt to protect our interests. If not, however, it will show their moratorium is nothing more than a worthless, calculated deception.
If town officials want a serious threat, however, they should look no further than the current wind projects. Contrary to wind developer's speculation, most of the homes along the river district (along with many in the agricultural district) will be within a zone of adverse noise impacts from the turbines proposed for the St. Lawrence Wind Farm.
But, the Times quotes Supervisor Rienbeck wondering what sound study is right, the developers or one commissioned by the Wind Power Ethics Group. One way to help us all understand which study is accurate is to ask the town's sound consultant. Regrettably, Cape Vincent officials are not releasing their sound consultant's reviews and recommendations. Instead, they have used Freedom of Information Law to make these documents unavailable to the public, and they have muffled their engineering consultants.
Before the August hearing on their proposed moratorium, Cape officials need to come clean. They should prove to us there is active wind developer in the river and lake districts. They should also let us see what their engineering experts are recommending regarding the noise issues and impacts. My guess is that this is all a ploy designed to help get the St. Lawrence Wind Farm approved before the November election. Surprise, surprise.
Clif Schneider
Cape Vincent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)