Water off Grenadier Island, Galloo Island and down the Lake Ontario coast are targets for offshore wind turbines, under a New York Power Authority plan.
NYPA on Tuesday asked developers for proposals to put turbines on 10 possible sites in Lake Ontario and 13 sites in Lake Erie.
"The significance of developing the natural wind resources of New York's own Great Lakes will help diversify the state's energy mix, strengthen our energy independence, promote economic development, create jobs and expand the use of clean, green electricity to reap the vital benefit of a better environment for future generations," Richard M. Kessel, NYPA president and chief executive officer, said in a press release.
The sites were chosen after studies commissioned by NYPA showed they would be best for wind resources, siting and environmental impacts.
The sites must have average wind speeds of at least 16.8 miles per hour, have water depths of less than 150 feet, lie 2.3 miles or farther offshore, sit three-tenths of a mile from the border with Canada, be at least six-tenths of a mile away from designated shipping lanes and have other buffers from designated dump grounds, anchorage areas, submerged cables and pipelines, shipwrecks and other obstructions.
"Environmentalists and people have told us they would like it to be further off shore," NYPA spokeswoman Connie M. Cullen said. "We suggested these sites to developers as a result of our studies. But they can make the case for other sites, but those sites would have to meet our criteria."
The developers must submit proposals for projects of 120 to 500 megawatts. The projects would interconnect with the state's electric grid system, controlled by the New York Independent System Operator. NYPA would buy all of the power of the projects under long-term power purchase agreements.
"The development of a wind energy project in the Great Lakes off the shores of New York will bring us another step towards my goal to meet 30 percent of the State's electricity needs from renewable resources by 2015, help demonstrate the significantly untapped potential of offshore wind, and bring new clean energy jobs to Western New York," Gov. David A. Paterson said in the release.
NYPA will accept notices of intent until March 20, questions until April 9 and final proposals until June 1. Winning projects will be awarded in December 2010, with power purchase agreements negotiated through May 2011.
Developers must demonstrate the ability to develop, design, finance, construct, operate and maintain an offshore wind project.
NYPA will make awards based on the proposals and will give more weight to projects that demonstrate long-term economic benefits in the region, wind turbine component manufacturing, firm pricing, operation by 2015 and strong likelihood of public acceptance.
NYPA first announced April 22 that it would pursue offshore wind projects. NYPA has conducted outreach sessions in Buffalo, Lewiston and Oswego on the subject and process.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Bert Bowers Galloo Island PILOT Letter
To the members of the Jefferson County Legislature:
As a naval architect/shipping economist, I have taken an interest in wind power since it was originally proposed for installation in some of the towns in our area several years ago. The principal facts I have found concerning industrial wind power in three years of research are:
Electricity from wind cannot replace any of the conventional sources of power, such as nuclear, coal, or natural gas. The principal limitation with wind generators is the natural variability and unpredictability of the wind.
*The use of wind power will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, as very little oil is used to generate electricity and what is used is generally not of foreign origin.
*The inclusion of wind-generated power on the grid will not measurably reduce consumption of fossil fuels for electrical energy production. Developer claims of savings are based on computer modeling with assumptions favorable to wind power.
*The inclusion of wind-generated power on the grid will not measurably reduce emission of greenhouse gases by electrical energy production.
*In many cases wind generated power simply displaces other renewables. The PSC now requires developers to prove that they are not simply displacing other renewables, such as hydro.
*The cost of wind power, even though heavily subsidized by federal and state governments, is substantially higher than any of the conventional sources of power.
*Wind power will not be economical under any foreseeable set of economic circumstances and would not be built except to obtain generous federal, state and local tax benefits and subsidies for investors.
*The manufacture, construction and erection of wind turbine generating facilities produces more emissions and causes more damage to our environment than can ever be compensated by the relatively small and intermittent amounts of power produced from the completed facility.
*Wind turbines do not make good neighbors for people or animals.
*The work of erecting and commissioning wind towers requires highly trained personnel and will generate relatively little local employment. The components of wind generators are mainly produced outside of the US.
*Maintenance of wind turbine facilities is normally performed by roving crews of highly specialized technicians, permitting few local jobs.
*Our current Federal Stimulus program offers grants of 30% of their capital investment to wind developers. To date nearly 90% of this money has gone to foreign companies.
The way in which power sources are integrated into our electrical grid is very complex, however, neither analyses of my own or others I have been able to find, have convinced me that wind power will measurably reduce our consumption of fossil fuels or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I believe the reduction in use of fossil fuels and reduction of emissions is a worthy goal whether or not one subscribes to the idea of global warming. I simply have found no evidence to support the notion that wind power will help us achieve these goals.
The only thing fueling the current rush toward wind power projects is the very lucrative support given by the federal and state governments. I can see no justification for further subsidizing proposed wind developments by offering PILOT agreements. In the case of Galloo Island, please consider that it is one of the last remaining wild places in the eastern Lake Ontario basin. Once it is given over to wind development, it can never be recovered.
Sincerely,
Bert Bowers
Co-Chair, The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent
Albert H. Bowers III
Naval Architect & Maritime Consultant
PO Box 177
11891 Academy Street
Chaumont, NY 13622-0177
315-649-2191
315-408-8507 cellular
bertna@twcny.rr.com
As a naval architect/shipping economist, I have taken an interest in wind power since it was originally proposed for installation in some of the towns in our area several years ago. The principal facts I have found concerning industrial wind power in three years of research are:
Electricity from wind cannot replace any of the conventional sources of power, such as nuclear, coal, or natural gas. The principal limitation with wind generators is the natural variability and unpredictability of the wind.
*The use of wind power will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, as very little oil is used to generate electricity and what is used is generally not of foreign origin.
*The inclusion of wind-generated power on the grid will not measurably reduce consumption of fossil fuels for electrical energy production. Developer claims of savings are based on computer modeling with assumptions favorable to wind power.
*The inclusion of wind-generated power on the grid will not measurably reduce emission of greenhouse gases by electrical energy production.
*In many cases wind generated power simply displaces other renewables. The PSC now requires developers to prove that they are not simply displacing other renewables, such as hydro.
*The cost of wind power, even though heavily subsidized by federal and state governments, is substantially higher than any of the conventional sources of power.
*Wind power will not be economical under any foreseeable set of economic circumstances and would not be built except to obtain generous federal, state and local tax benefits and subsidies for investors.
*The manufacture, construction and erection of wind turbine generating facilities produces more emissions and causes more damage to our environment than can ever be compensated by the relatively small and intermittent amounts of power produced from the completed facility.
*Wind turbines do not make good neighbors for people or animals.
*The work of erecting and commissioning wind towers requires highly trained personnel and will generate relatively little local employment. The components of wind generators are mainly produced outside of the US.
*Maintenance of wind turbine facilities is normally performed by roving crews of highly specialized technicians, permitting few local jobs.
*Our current Federal Stimulus program offers grants of 30% of their capital investment to wind developers. To date nearly 90% of this money has gone to foreign companies.
The way in which power sources are integrated into our electrical grid is very complex, however, neither analyses of my own or others I have been able to find, have convinced me that wind power will measurably reduce our consumption of fossil fuels or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I believe the reduction in use of fossil fuels and reduction of emissions is a worthy goal whether or not one subscribes to the idea of global warming. I simply have found no evidence to support the notion that wind power will help us achieve these goals.
The only thing fueling the current rush toward wind power projects is the very lucrative support given by the federal and state governments. I can see no justification for further subsidizing proposed wind developments by offering PILOT agreements. In the case of Galloo Island, please consider that it is one of the last remaining wild places in the eastern Lake Ontario basin. Once it is given over to wind development, it can never be recovered.
Sincerely,
Bert Bowers
Co-Chair, The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent
Albert H. Bowers III
Naval Architect & Maritime Consultant
PO Box 177
11891 Academy Street
Chaumont, NY 13622-0177
315-649-2191
315-408-8507 cellular
bertna@twcny.rr.com
Monday, November 30, 2009
Constellation to buy 70 MW wind farm
30 November 2009-- Constellation Energy signed an agreement with Clipper Windpower Inc. to acquire the 70 MW Criterion wind project in Maryland. The $140 million wind farm will be constructed, owned and operated by Constellation.
As part of the agreement, Constellation will buy Criterion along with 28 of Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbines. The agreement is expected to close in early 2010 and the wind farm is expected to begin operations in late 2010.
Old Dominion Electric Co-op signed a 20-year power purchase agreement to buy electricity and renewable energy credits from Criterion.
As part of the agreement, Constellation will buy Criterion along with 28 of Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbines. The agreement is expected to close in early 2010 and the wind farm is expected to begin operations in late 2010.
Old Dominion Electric Co-op signed a 20-year power purchase agreement to buy electricity and renewable energy credits from Criterion.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Committee moves joint wind power resolution to floor
Members of the Oswego County Legislature’s Economic Development and Planning Committee unanimously approved a joint resolution in opposition of the proposed route for high-powered transmission lines through Oswego County from a wind farm on Galloo Island in the Jefferson County Town of Hounsfield.
The legislature is joining with Jefferson County officials to oppose the 230-kilovolt line that has been proposed to run from Galloo Island through the towns of Henderson, Ellisburg, Sandy Creek, and Richland, as well as the Village of Pulaski to a proposed substation and interconnection with existing transmission lines in Mexico.
Both counties would like the lines to run underground in Lake Ontario.
Upstate Power has proposed to construct a wind farm on Galloo Island, off the shore in Hounsfield, along with a new power line with the capability of transporting 1,000 megawatts south to assist in meeting needs of downstate consumers.
Paul Forestiere, of Cornell Cooperative Extension, explained to the committee the scope of the project at the Nov. 24 meeting. “The public has not really been informed,” Forestiere said. “The way it is proposed right now it’s going to be an absolute disaster to the farmers.”
Majority Leader Shawn Doyle, who has been working with Jefferson County officials to draft the joint resolution, said Barry Ormsby of the Jefferson County Legislature has been keeping him apprised of what is occurring with the project in that county.
Doyle said there is reference in Upstate’s application to the Public Service Commission that the lines could eventually carry more than 230-kilovolt of power.
He said that the aesthetics of the lines will conflict with the downtown renovation project that the village of Pulaski recently received grant funding to complete.
“This company is power companies with a series of shell corporations,” he said. Doyle told the committee that he would be attending a public hearing that evening in Jefferson County for the purpose of discussing the PILOT agreement that Upstate has requested.
Unlike Oswego County’s 10 -year PILOT agreements, Jefferson County is considering a 20-year agreement.
That board has decided to move slowly, according to news reports from that area, while Upstate would like to have a PILOT agreement in place by the end of the year in order to qualify for 30-percent in stimulus funding.
Legislator Doug Malone asked if the resolution could incorporate a clause that provides for free power to Oswego County residents. Doyle said that he did not believe hosting the power lines would qualify for negotiations for free power.
Legislator Morris Sorbello said that when he attended a meeting in the City of Oswego in regard to a proposed project to place wind towers along Lake Ontario, he watched a video on how the lines are buried under water.
Legislator Jack Proud said in regard to the Lake Ontario project that Mexico Bay is the prime target for all of the wind towers and that the legislators had better be prepared to do it in a manner that is beneficial for the residents of Oswego County.
He noted that the first site under consideration downstate was rejected because of the lack of underground power lines.
“We were told if we don’t want this project, then we won’t have it,” he said.
The question was raised as to whether there would be property-tax benefits. Doyle said the taxes are paid by the property owner because the land owners are only selling a right-of-way to the company.
Legislator Jack Beckwith asked if there would be any benefit to bringing the power through the county.
Sorbello said there are many unanswered questions and at this time he would like to move the resolution forward.
Both legislatures are expected to consider the resolution in December. The Oswego County Legislature will take a vote at the Dec. 10 meeting.
The legislature is joining with Jefferson County officials to oppose the 230-kilovolt line that has been proposed to run from Galloo Island through the towns of Henderson, Ellisburg, Sandy Creek, and Richland, as well as the Village of Pulaski to a proposed substation and interconnection with existing transmission lines in Mexico.
Both counties would like the lines to run underground in Lake Ontario.
Upstate Power has proposed to construct a wind farm on Galloo Island, off the shore in Hounsfield, along with a new power line with the capability of transporting 1,000 megawatts south to assist in meeting needs of downstate consumers.
Paul Forestiere, of Cornell Cooperative Extension, explained to the committee the scope of the project at the Nov. 24 meeting. “The public has not really been informed,” Forestiere said. “The way it is proposed right now it’s going to be an absolute disaster to the farmers.”
Majority Leader Shawn Doyle, who has been working with Jefferson County officials to draft the joint resolution, said Barry Ormsby of the Jefferson County Legislature has been keeping him apprised of what is occurring with the project in that county.
Doyle said there is reference in Upstate’s application to the Public Service Commission that the lines could eventually carry more than 230-kilovolt of power.
He said that the aesthetics of the lines will conflict with the downtown renovation project that the village of Pulaski recently received grant funding to complete.
“This company is power companies with a series of shell corporations,” he said. Doyle told the committee that he would be attending a public hearing that evening in Jefferson County for the purpose of discussing the PILOT agreement that Upstate has requested.
Unlike Oswego County’s 10 -year PILOT agreements, Jefferson County is considering a 20-year agreement.
That board has decided to move slowly, according to news reports from that area, while Upstate would like to have a PILOT agreement in place by the end of the year in order to qualify for 30-percent in stimulus funding.
Legislator Doug Malone asked if the resolution could incorporate a clause that provides for free power to Oswego County residents. Doyle said that he did not believe hosting the power lines would qualify for negotiations for free power.
Legislator Morris Sorbello said that when he attended a meeting in the City of Oswego in regard to a proposed project to place wind towers along Lake Ontario, he watched a video on how the lines are buried under water.
Legislator Jack Proud said in regard to the Lake Ontario project that Mexico Bay is the prime target for all of the wind towers and that the legislators had better be prepared to do it in a manner that is beneficial for the residents of Oswego County.
He noted that the first site under consideration downstate was rejected because of the lack of underground power lines.
“We were told if we don’t want this project, then we won’t have it,” he said.
The question was raised as to whether there would be property-tax benefits. Doyle said the taxes are paid by the property owner because the land owners are only selling a right-of-way to the company.
Legislator Jack Beckwith asked if there would be any benefit to bringing the power through the county.
Sorbello said there are many unanswered questions and at this time he would like to move the resolution forward.
Both legislatures are expected to consider the resolution in December. The Oswego County Legislature will take a vote at the Dec. 10 meeting.
Patrick, Kirk at odds over wind farm
The administration of Governor Deval Patrick, in a sharp disagreement with Patrick’s handpicked Senate appointee, said yesterday that it would be a mistake for President Obama to grant US Senator Paul G. Kirk Jr.’s request to delay federal approval of the Cape Wind project.
In a letter to Obama earlier this month, Kirk, who has largely shied away from divisive issues during his two months in office, urged the Obama administration to hold off on a decision until a federal panel can devise comprehensive guidelines for development in the nation’s waters. But officials from the Patrick administration said the governor strongly disagrees with Kirk’s request and urges quick approval. “After eight years of thorough review and as the world convenes shortly in Copenhagen to tackle climate change, the governor believes the time is now to move forward with this landmark clean energy project - the only offshore wind project that has the potential to be built in President Obama’s first term,’’ Patrick’s secretary of energy and environmental affairs, Ian A. Bowles, said in a statement yesterday.
US Representative Edward J. Markey, who chairs a key congressional committee on energy independence and global warming, has, like Patrick, strongly backed Cape Wind. In a letter sent to the Obama administration on Nov. 9, three days before Kirk’s letter to the president, Markey urged the administration to approve Cape Wind before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7.
Markey wrote that approving the project would “send a strong message to international negotiators about the United States’ commitment to developing sources of clean energy and reducing global warming pollution.’’
Supporters of Cape Wind criticized Kirk’s request as an attempt to delay further a project that has been repeatedly challenged in the Legislature, Congress, and the courts. Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind, which is developing the project, said he was confident that the Obama administration would reject Kirk’s request based on the president’s strong support for renewable energy projects.
“While we’re disappointed by Senator Kirk’s letter, we’re not terribly concerned about it in the sense that we think there’s just about no chance that the Obama administration would act upon this request,’’ Rodgers said. “They’ve made clear that offshore wind is a priority in terms of creating jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and both of those issues are center stage.’’
In his letter, Kirk tells Obama that approving the project before federal officials complete a broad set of rules for using US waters for anything from transmission cables to liquefied natural gas terminals would be unfair. The letter was first reported in the Cape Cod Times.
“Senator Kirk believes it’s about fairness,’’ said Keith Maley, a Kirk spokesman. “It’s about making sure there aren’t two sets of rules: one for every other project and one tailor made for Cape Wind.’’
Patrick, a fellow Democrat, appointed Kirk, of Barnstable, in September to fill the seat of the late US Senator Edward M. Kennedy until a Jan. 19 special election. Kirk has kept a low profile and has rarely spoken out on controversial topics. While he delivered a speech on the Senate floor in support of healthcare reform, for example, he has not discussed some of the thornier aspects of the legislation, such as restrictions on abortion in the House-passed version of the bill.
In taking up the fight against Cape Wind, Kirk is continuing a battle long waged by Kennedy, his close friend, who strongly opposed the construction of 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.
“He’s taking a stand that Senator Kennedy would have taken,’’ said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers, who added that Kirk is sending a message that “even though the person who was the most prominent opponent of it is gone, the opposition to it still remains.’’
Audra Parker, executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes Cape Wind, applauded Kirk’s request, saying it is “totally consistent with Senator Kennedy’s position.’’
“I don’t think it’s delay for delay’s sake,’’ Parker said. “I think it is a reasonable next step, because where else would you have a permit for 25 square miles of property without a zoning plan in place?’’
It was not clear whether Kirk’s counterpart, US Senator John F. Kerry, agreed with Kirk’s request. Kerry’s spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment yesterday. All four Democrats running for Kirk’s seat in the special election strongly support Cape Wind, according to Rodgers. The leading Republican candidate, state Senator Scott Brown, opposes Cape Wind, he said.
In a letter to Obama earlier this month, Kirk, who has largely shied away from divisive issues during his two months in office, urged the Obama administration to hold off on a decision until a federal panel can devise comprehensive guidelines for development in the nation’s waters. But officials from the Patrick administration said the governor strongly disagrees with Kirk’s request and urges quick approval. “After eight years of thorough review and as the world convenes shortly in Copenhagen to tackle climate change, the governor believes the time is now to move forward with this landmark clean energy project - the only offshore wind project that has the potential to be built in President Obama’s first term,’’ Patrick’s secretary of energy and environmental affairs, Ian A. Bowles, said in a statement yesterday.
US Representative Edward J. Markey, who chairs a key congressional committee on energy independence and global warming, has, like Patrick, strongly backed Cape Wind. In a letter sent to the Obama administration on Nov. 9, three days before Kirk’s letter to the president, Markey urged the administration to approve Cape Wind before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7.
Markey wrote that approving the project would “send a strong message to international negotiators about the United States’ commitment to developing sources of clean energy and reducing global warming pollution.’’
Supporters of Cape Wind criticized Kirk’s request as an attempt to delay further a project that has been repeatedly challenged in the Legislature, Congress, and the courts. Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind, which is developing the project, said he was confident that the Obama administration would reject Kirk’s request based on the president’s strong support for renewable energy projects.
“While we’re disappointed by Senator Kirk’s letter, we’re not terribly concerned about it in the sense that we think there’s just about no chance that the Obama administration would act upon this request,’’ Rodgers said. “They’ve made clear that offshore wind is a priority in terms of creating jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and both of those issues are center stage.’’
In his letter, Kirk tells Obama that approving the project before federal officials complete a broad set of rules for using US waters for anything from transmission cables to liquefied natural gas terminals would be unfair. The letter was first reported in the Cape Cod Times.
“Senator Kirk believes it’s about fairness,’’ said Keith Maley, a Kirk spokesman. “It’s about making sure there aren’t two sets of rules: one for every other project and one tailor made for Cape Wind.’’
Patrick, a fellow Democrat, appointed Kirk, of Barnstable, in September to fill the seat of the late US Senator Edward M. Kennedy until a Jan. 19 special election. Kirk has kept a low profile and has rarely spoken out on controversial topics. While he delivered a speech on the Senate floor in support of healthcare reform, for example, he has not discussed some of the thornier aspects of the legislation, such as restrictions on abortion in the House-passed version of the bill.
In taking up the fight against Cape Wind, Kirk is continuing a battle long waged by Kennedy, his close friend, who strongly opposed the construction of 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.
“He’s taking a stand that Senator Kennedy would have taken,’’ said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers, who added that Kirk is sending a message that “even though the person who was the most prominent opponent of it is gone, the opposition to it still remains.’’
Audra Parker, executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes Cape Wind, applauded Kirk’s request, saying it is “totally consistent with Senator Kennedy’s position.’’
“I don’t think it’s delay for delay’s sake,’’ Parker said. “I think it is a reasonable next step, because where else would you have a permit for 25 square miles of property without a zoning plan in place?’’
It was not clear whether Kirk’s counterpart, US Senator John F. Kerry, agreed with Kirk’s request. Kerry’s spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment yesterday. All four Democrats running for Kirk’s seat in the special election strongly support Cape Wind, according to Rodgers. The leading Republican candidate, state Senator Scott Brown, opposes Cape Wind, he said.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
“Wind Turbine Syndrome” book now available
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books, 2009), 294 pp. Paperback, $18 USD.
Click to Buy the book
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Joint resolution sought in wind power transmission line battle
There won’t be any battle lines drawn in the effort to stop the construction of new above-ground, high-powered transmission lines through Oswego and Jefferson counties.
The two government agencies are hoping to pass a joint resolution to ask Upstate Power relocate the proposed lines to the bottom of Lake Ontario.
The 230-kilovolt line has been proposed to run from Galloo Island in the Jefferson County Town of Hounsfield through the towns of Henderson, Ellisburg, Sandy Creek, and Richland, as well as the Village of Pulaski to a proposed substation and interconnection with existing transmission lines in Mexico.
Upstate Power has proposed to construct a wind farm on Galloo Island, off the shore in Hounsfield, along with a new power line with the capability of transporting 1,000 megawatts south to assist in the need of downstate consumers.
Lawmakers are urging the lines be buried underground, and preferably under water, to preserve the aesthetics and economic-development potential of their communities, and further claim that there is no benefit to the counties for hosting the lines.
Former State Senator and U.S. Ambassador H. Douglas Barclay spoke at a public hearing held last week at the Pulaski High School. Barclay, who is representing Oswego County Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann in the matter, stated that the county has already done its share in generating power for downstate.
“Oswego County has done its part in power generation for downstate,” he said. “It produces more electric power than any other county with three nuclear facilities and a gas generating plant and other generating facilities, including water power on the Salmon River.”
He continued, “Downstate wants us to produce its power so that it can shut down its plants, for example, Indian River nuclear plant. Oswego County has become the dumping ground for power generation for downstate, gaining few benefits. The county would welcome the fourth nuclear generator, which would solve the generation problem for downstate without having to construct more power lines."
Barclay also spoke of the company’s plans to construct the lines elsewhere and the rejection of those alternate routes.
“There have been a number of alternatives suggested by Upstate, for example, the underwater line from Galloo to Scriba, but all rejected out of hand by Upstate as being too costly,” he said. “What is the rush? These alternatives must be studied in depth and not summarily dismissed.”
Barclay also pointed out the potential for excessive tax incentives for Upstate Power.
“The project may receive a thirty-percent income-tax credit on the total cost of the project under the America Recovery Act and a multi-million dollar real-property tax exclusion under a PILOT agreement with the Jefferson County IDA,” he noted. “Even if it costs more to go underwater or bury the lines through the Town of Richland, it is a good investment for the future. Burying all present lines is being planned downstate in Nassau County.”
There is precedence for spending more money for an alternative, Barclay said.
“The Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island was built and finished at a cost of $5 billion dollars but never activated—a $5 billion dollar loss that had to be picked up by the rate payers,” he said. “The residents believed that they did not have a proper escape route in the event of a disaster. The residents of Jefferson and Oswego counties are interested in future jobs, not tax breaks to Upstate."
An administrative judge for the Public Service Commission held two public hearings in Pulaski last week with only one of the many speakers supporting the current transmission line plan. It was reported that there is little support from the citizens in Jefferson County, hence, the idea for the joint resolution in opposition.
Opponents of the plan claim that as many as 1,000 jobs could be lost if the current plan is approved. Lawmakers said they have many concerns about the adverse economical impact to both counties.
County government is dependent on northern Oswego County for tourism revenue, most reaped from Salmon River fishing and snowmobiling.
Oswego County Legislator Shawn Doyle, who serves as the majority leader, has been working with Jefferson County leadership in regard to the matter and together they are seeking a resolution that will send a strong message to the company to reconsider the original plan of burying the line under Lake Ontario.
Both entities could pass the resolution next month.
The two government agencies are hoping to pass a joint resolution to ask Upstate Power relocate the proposed lines to the bottom of Lake Ontario.
The 230-kilovolt line has been proposed to run from Galloo Island in the Jefferson County Town of Hounsfield through the towns of Henderson, Ellisburg, Sandy Creek, and Richland, as well as the Village of Pulaski to a proposed substation and interconnection with existing transmission lines in Mexico.
Upstate Power has proposed to construct a wind farm on Galloo Island, off the shore in Hounsfield, along with a new power line with the capability of transporting 1,000 megawatts south to assist in the need of downstate consumers.
Lawmakers are urging the lines be buried underground, and preferably under water, to preserve the aesthetics and economic-development potential of their communities, and further claim that there is no benefit to the counties for hosting the lines.
Former State Senator and U.S. Ambassador H. Douglas Barclay spoke at a public hearing held last week at the Pulaski High School. Barclay, who is representing Oswego County Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann in the matter, stated that the county has already done its share in generating power for downstate.
“Oswego County has done its part in power generation for downstate,” he said. “It produces more electric power than any other county with three nuclear facilities and a gas generating plant and other generating facilities, including water power on the Salmon River.”
He continued, “Downstate wants us to produce its power so that it can shut down its plants, for example, Indian River nuclear plant. Oswego County has become the dumping ground for power generation for downstate, gaining few benefits. The county would welcome the fourth nuclear generator, which would solve the generation problem for downstate without having to construct more power lines."
Barclay also spoke of the company’s plans to construct the lines elsewhere and the rejection of those alternate routes.
“There have been a number of alternatives suggested by Upstate, for example, the underwater line from Galloo to Scriba, but all rejected out of hand by Upstate as being too costly,” he said. “What is the rush? These alternatives must be studied in depth and not summarily dismissed.”
Barclay also pointed out the potential for excessive tax incentives for Upstate Power.
“The project may receive a thirty-percent income-tax credit on the total cost of the project under the America Recovery Act and a multi-million dollar real-property tax exclusion under a PILOT agreement with the Jefferson County IDA,” he noted. “Even if it costs more to go underwater or bury the lines through the Town of Richland, it is a good investment for the future. Burying all present lines is being planned downstate in Nassau County.”
There is precedence for spending more money for an alternative, Barclay said.
“The Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island was built and finished at a cost of $5 billion dollars but never activated—a $5 billion dollar loss that had to be picked up by the rate payers,” he said. “The residents believed that they did not have a proper escape route in the event of a disaster. The residents of Jefferson and Oswego counties are interested in future jobs, not tax breaks to Upstate."
An administrative judge for the Public Service Commission held two public hearings in Pulaski last week with only one of the many speakers supporting the current transmission line plan. It was reported that there is little support from the citizens in Jefferson County, hence, the idea for the joint resolution in opposition.
Opponents of the plan claim that as many as 1,000 jobs could be lost if the current plan is approved. Lawmakers said they have many concerns about the adverse economical impact to both counties.
County government is dependent on northern Oswego County for tourism revenue, most reaped from Salmon River fishing and snowmobiling.
Oswego County Legislator Shawn Doyle, who serves as the majority leader, has been working with Jefferson County leadership in regard to the matter and together they are seeking a resolution that will send a strong message to the company to reconsider the original plan of burying the line under Lake Ontario.
Both entities could pass the resolution next month.
Packed house
Hartsville, N.Y.
Gusts of concern blew into the Hartsville Town Hall Monday night for a public hearing on a draft wind regulatory law that, if passed, the German-based company E.ON Climate and Renewables claims will prevent any large scale wind operations in the town and likely lead to a lawsuit.
Around 60 members of the public, including town residents, officials, E.ON representatives and members of the media packed into the town hall and listened to the latest details in what has become a four year debate with many legal loopholes on a proposed 51-megawatt industrial wind turbine project primarily in Hartsville.
A wind law from 2007 stands to be revised with a 2,460 foot residential setback distance from turbines, compared to the 1,200 foot that stands now.
“We are here tonight to make sure residents know there is no scientific validity to any medical problems with wind farms,” said John Reynolds, a consultant working for E.ON on the project. Reynolds also proposed the board use the existing wind law with a stricter noise clause.
E.ON brought Chicago doctor Mark Roberts, who works with a consulting firm looking at public health, to address the public.
“Reviewing this from a medical standpoint, there is not an indication in any peer-reviewed literature that there is increased risk of health affects associated with wind turbines,” said Roberts.
During the two and a half hour meeting, the board was presented with several informational handouts, a proposal to keep the existing law with stricter modifications on background noise, and contact information for people that have worked successfully with E.On on other wind projects.
Residents on both sides of the issue threatened to sue the town board if the law is passed.
George Prior blasted town attorney David Pullen and accused him of not protecting the town’s best interest and said officials are ignoring information that doesn’t support their opinions.
“Eating a lot of the time is more important than noise,” said Fran Clancy, who runs Francile Dairy Farm, and who’s family his been farming in the town for 160 years. He said a wind farm would ensure his farm continues to turn a profit and he urged the board to use “common sense” and not pass the law.
To the contrary, said Bill Galbraith of Webster, who recently purchased 30 acres in Hartsville for the “peace and quiet”. He supports the proposed law and said that irritating turbine noise will lower property values and disturb the environment.
Resident Alice Bosch presented the board with a petition signed by 110 land owners against the proposed law, a document she claims represents 29-percent of the land in the town. John Bowles, another Hartsville resident and former board member, said the petition legally prevents the board from passing the law because more than 20-percent of property owners signed the document.
Gary Abraham, the town’s attorney for wind issues, said previously that if 20-percent of the town residents that voted in the last election were to sign a petition asking for it, a referendum would be offered up for public vote.
Town Supervisor Steve Dombert said the meeting and proposal is the first indication that E.ON has acknowledged the town board’s authority.
He did not give a date when officials will vote on the new law, but said it could be as soon as the second week of December.
“I’m glad to see that E.ON is adapting its plan. This is something we haven’t seen until tonight, but I would still question the specifics of what this law intends to do,” said Dombert.
E.ON officials maintain the 2,460-foot setback distance in the new law will make it impossible to go forward with any type of project. Reynolds said the background noise restrictions are too strict for any type of industrial turbines as well.
“They are so severe that mother nature would violate them,” he said.
Reynolds also said the board is using Internet material that is unvalidated in its findings.
The board will meet at 7 p.m. Dec. 9 at the Hartsville Town Hall for its monthly meeting.
Gusts of concern blew into the Hartsville Town Hall Monday night for a public hearing on a draft wind regulatory law that, if passed, the German-based company E.ON Climate and Renewables claims will prevent any large scale wind operations in the town and likely lead to a lawsuit.
Around 60 members of the public, including town residents, officials, E.ON representatives and members of the media packed into the town hall and listened to the latest details in what has become a four year debate with many legal loopholes on a proposed 51-megawatt industrial wind turbine project primarily in Hartsville.
A wind law from 2007 stands to be revised with a 2,460 foot residential setback distance from turbines, compared to the 1,200 foot that stands now.
“We are here tonight to make sure residents know there is no scientific validity to any medical problems with wind farms,” said John Reynolds, a consultant working for E.ON on the project. Reynolds also proposed the board use the existing wind law with a stricter noise clause.
E.ON brought Chicago doctor Mark Roberts, who works with a consulting firm looking at public health, to address the public.
“Reviewing this from a medical standpoint, there is not an indication in any peer-reviewed literature that there is increased risk of health affects associated with wind turbines,” said Roberts.
During the two and a half hour meeting, the board was presented with several informational handouts, a proposal to keep the existing law with stricter modifications on background noise, and contact information for people that have worked successfully with E.On on other wind projects.
Residents on both sides of the issue threatened to sue the town board if the law is passed.
George Prior blasted town attorney David Pullen and accused him of not protecting the town’s best interest and said officials are ignoring information that doesn’t support their opinions.
“Eating a lot of the time is more important than noise,” said Fran Clancy, who runs Francile Dairy Farm, and who’s family his been farming in the town for 160 years. He said a wind farm would ensure his farm continues to turn a profit and he urged the board to use “common sense” and not pass the law.
To the contrary, said Bill Galbraith of Webster, who recently purchased 30 acres in Hartsville for the “peace and quiet”. He supports the proposed law and said that irritating turbine noise will lower property values and disturb the environment.
Resident Alice Bosch presented the board with a petition signed by 110 land owners against the proposed law, a document she claims represents 29-percent of the land in the town. John Bowles, another Hartsville resident and former board member, said the petition legally prevents the board from passing the law because more than 20-percent of property owners signed the document.
Gary Abraham, the town’s attorney for wind issues, said previously that if 20-percent of the town residents that voted in the last election were to sign a petition asking for it, a referendum would be offered up for public vote.
Town Supervisor Steve Dombert said the meeting and proposal is the first indication that E.ON has acknowledged the town board’s authority.
He did not give a date when officials will vote on the new law, but said it could be as soon as the second week of December.
“I’m glad to see that E.ON is adapting its plan. This is something we haven’t seen until tonight, but I would still question the specifics of what this law intends to do,” said Dombert.
E.ON officials maintain the 2,460-foot setback distance in the new law will make it impossible to go forward with any type of project. Reynolds said the background noise restrictions are too strict for any type of industrial turbines as well.
“They are so severe that mother nature would violate them,” he said.
Reynolds also said the board is using Internet material that is unvalidated in its findings.
The board will meet at 7 p.m. Dec. 9 at the Hartsville Town Hall for its monthly meeting.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wind Industry Leaders Applaud ARRA, Express Concern Over PPAs
The federal stimulus package has been successful in helping to get the wind power industry through 2009's economy-wide woes, but market challenges remain and policy issues require immediate attention, panelists and speakers said at this year's AWEA Wind Energy Fall Symposium in Orlando, Fla.
An improvement would be to remove the 2010 deadline and simply allow projects going online by 2012 to be eligible, said panelists.
“The [American Reinvestment and] Recovery Act (ARRA) really has been a fantastic tool” at keeping the industry on track, said Jan Kjaersgaard, vice president at turbine producer Siemens Wind Power Americas.
At the conference industry executives painted a 2009 picture that turned out to be far better than expected. At this time last year, Horizon Wind Energy’s parent, EDP Renewables, was in the process of assessing whether to shift a sizable portion of its investment capital earmarked for the U.S. to other countries after the credit crisis and the devaluation of the production tax credit (PTC) slammed the industry. But then in February Congress passed ARRA, which contained several measures intended to have a positive impact on the industry, including one providing federal loan guarantees as well as the all-important grant program designed to counteract the PTC’s lost value in the flagging economy.
The other piece of the ARRA story, panelists agreed, was the swift implementation of the legislation by the notoriously plodding federal government. The Obama Administraton and federal government as a whole showed “an amazing ability to deliver,” said Horizon CEO Gabriel Alonso. Kjaersgaard echoed that sentiment, calling the implementation “a fast reaction.”
Panelist Matt Rogers, senior advisor to Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu for the Recovery Act, had to have been pleased with such comments coming from the other presenters. Rogers said that the renewables component of ARRA should be viewed as a “down payment” on the energy and climate challenges that need to be solved in the next decade. “Today, perhaps for the first time ever, we have energy policy aligned with environmental policy” with resources to go along with it, he said.
Nevertheless, “Not everything is wine and roses,” as Alonso said, for the industry faces serious challenges both now and in the near future. One troubling market dynamic echoed throughout the conference is the difficulty in securing power purchase agreements, in part as a result of soft natural gas prices.
While on the panel, Rogers had the chance to hear, straight from leading industry players, concerns about the grant program, which is available to projects on which construction is started by the end of 2010 and that are online by the end of 2012. That 2010 construction deadline is right around the corner, and it’s “already causing a lot of our customers and us concern right now,” said Kjaersgaard.
An improvement would be to remove the 2010 deadline and simply allow projects going online by 2012 to be eligible, said panelists. In spite of such challenges, panelists generally expressed optimism for the coming years.
Speakers also stressed the importance of getting a national renewable standard on the books. While the industry should continue to post respectable numbers through 2010, “We believe that the market will recover even more and get back to 2008 numbers” in the 2011 and 2012 timeframe, said Kjaersgaard.
In order for that momentum to continue, however, demand for wind power must be further cemented via a national renewable electricity standard, said panelists, who drew a strong link between such policies and job creation, particularly given the global nature of the market. The Department of Energy’s Rogers said that the goal is for the U.S. to be the world leader in renewable energy manufacturing, and therefore welcomed the input from industry panelists, who urged that strong and stable policies be quickly put in place so that the U.S. can become an industry hub. A global footrace is now under way, and so the U.S. needs to respond, panelists agreed.
“In my view the window is short” for the U.S. to establish itself as a leader, said Dirk Matthys, CEO at Gamesa Wind U.S.
An improvement would be to remove the 2010 deadline and simply allow projects going online by 2012 to be eligible, said panelists.
“The [American Reinvestment and] Recovery Act (ARRA) really has been a fantastic tool” at keeping the industry on track, said Jan Kjaersgaard, vice president at turbine producer Siemens Wind Power Americas.
At the conference industry executives painted a 2009 picture that turned out to be far better than expected. At this time last year, Horizon Wind Energy’s parent, EDP Renewables, was in the process of assessing whether to shift a sizable portion of its investment capital earmarked for the U.S. to other countries after the credit crisis and the devaluation of the production tax credit (PTC) slammed the industry. But then in February Congress passed ARRA, which contained several measures intended to have a positive impact on the industry, including one providing federal loan guarantees as well as the all-important grant program designed to counteract the PTC’s lost value in the flagging economy.
The other piece of the ARRA story, panelists agreed, was the swift implementation of the legislation by the notoriously plodding federal government. The Obama Administraton and federal government as a whole showed “an amazing ability to deliver,” said Horizon CEO Gabriel Alonso. Kjaersgaard echoed that sentiment, calling the implementation “a fast reaction.”
Panelist Matt Rogers, senior advisor to Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu for the Recovery Act, had to have been pleased with such comments coming from the other presenters. Rogers said that the renewables component of ARRA should be viewed as a “down payment” on the energy and climate challenges that need to be solved in the next decade. “Today, perhaps for the first time ever, we have energy policy aligned with environmental policy” with resources to go along with it, he said.
Nevertheless, “Not everything is wine and roses,” as Alonso said, for the industry faces serious challenges both now and in the near future. One troubling market dynamic echoed throughout the conference is the difficulty in securing power purchase agreements, in part as a result of soft natural gas prices.
While on the panel, Rogers had the chance to hear, straight from leading industry players, concerns about the grant program, which is available to projects on which construction is started by the end of 2010 and that are online by the end of 2012. That 2010 construction deadline is right around the corner, and it’s “already causing a lot of our customers and us concern right now,” said Kjaersgaard.
An improvement would be to remove the 2010 deadline and simply allow projects going online by 2012 to be eligible, said panelists. In spite of such challenges, panelists generally expressed optimism for the coming years.
Speakers also stressed the importance of getting a national renewable standard on the books. While the industry should continue to post respectable numbers through 2010, “We believe that the market will recover even more and get back to 2008 numbers” in the 2011 and 2012 timeframe, said Kjaersgaard.
In order for that momentum to continue, however, demand for wind power must be further cemented via a national renewable electricity standard, said panelists, who drew a strong link between such policies and job creation, particularly given the global nature of the market. The Department of Energy’s Rogers said that the goal is for the U.S. to be the world leader in renewable energy manufacturing, and therefore welcomed the input from industry panelists, who urged that strong and stable policies be quickly put in place so that the U.S. can become an industry hub. A global footrace is now under way, and so the U.S. needs to respond, panelists agreed.
“In my view the window is short” for the U.S. to establish itself as a leader, said Dirk Matthys, CEO at Gamesa Wind U.S.
PILOT Agreements - Corporate Welfare Ad Nauseum
When you purchase a new home or build one for, let’s say $200k, the transaction must be recorded with the county clerk in the county where the property is located. The sale/build price is also part of this legal requirement and this figure is publicly available and of interest to your local assessor. As a result - the property assessment must be as close as possible to 100% of the property value – the price you paid for it. Therefore if you paid $200K then the assessment will likely be $200K – period. And your property tax will be based on this assessment.
Now consider a wind developer who comes into a rural community and builds a “wind farm”. The average cost of buying & installing a commercial wind turbine (per internet estimates) is roughly between $2M and $3M each. Then the wind developer and local IDA negotiate a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) “deal” and the wind developer avoids paying his fare share of taxes – pays a small fraction of the project’s net worth – as a result of the IDA PILOT “deal”. Furthermore – the developer is probably based in a foreign country and never even visited the area where the wind farm is located. Because of the PILOT program the foreign wind developer can legally pay a mere fraction of the true 100% value of the wind farm while home owner’s taxes are based on 100% value of his new property. How can this be fair? This is corporate greed and manipulation at its worst combined with misdirected irresponsible government. And it’s likely the turbines are manufactured in a foreign country too. And the crew that installs the entire wind project would never be from your community – they are a transient bunch and gone a few months after construction never to return. And often the lessor is an absentee landlord and doesn’t live anywhere near where the turbines are sited, Turbinetown, and avoids the noise, loss of viewshed, shadowing, etc. much less face-to-face contact with extremely upset neighbors who have suffered physical pain and permanent loss of property value. Turbine neighbors have become prisoners in their own homes (because their homes will never sell for anywhere near what they were worth before the creation of the windfarm – if they’re sold at all) and their only escape is to abandon their life’s major investment to gain relief for health reasons. But some town board members make out well approving wind development because they are likely to have a conflict of interest and benefit financially either directly or indirectly and as a result betray their own neighbors including people that trusted them and may have actually voted for them. And think about this – the bad guys assisting the foreign wind developer with PILOTs are your county IDA reps. They would sell out their mother for a low paying job in your county and IDA staff are not even elected. The whole relationship between your IDA and your county legislative board needs constant monitoring. The IDA officials are appointed by your county legislature or board of supervisors. Like a bad cold - corrupt IDA staff are difficult to get rid of. PILOT agreements are developed by your IDA not the town board.
*************
The office of the NYS Comptroller says the following about IDAs:
There are 20 Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) in the eight county region of western New York. Pursuant to General Municipal Law, Section 858, these IDAs are independent public benefit corporations created by State legislation to improve economic conditions by encouraging and assisting businesses in maintaining, constructing or improving facilities. In so doing, they advance job opportunities and improve the health, general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of the State of New York.
To accomplish this, IDAs provide project owners financial assistance which includes, among other things, exemptions from taxation. Without this assistance, project owners would generally pay a real property tax based on the assessed value of land and improvements to a site. Any real property owned or controlled by an IDA is not subject to ad valorem real property taxes. Therefore, the IDA would take title to, or leasehold interest in, real property and the property would become 100 percent exempt from ad valorem real property taxes. To accommodate the needs of affected taxing jurisdictions, many IDAs execute written agreements requiring Payments In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) by project owners to municipalities and school districts where the projects are located. These affected tax jurisdictions (ATJ)receive PILOT revenue that is generally equal to, or a portion of, the amount they would have received had the IDA not been involved. PILOT agreements must contain, among other things, the amount due annually to each ATJ, or a formula by which the amount due can be calculated.
*************
PILOTs are supposed to make jobs for communities but with wind farms this never happens. Only about one mediocre paying job is created for every 10 turbines installed – that’s hardly job creation. Government watchdog groups say the absence of uniform standards makes the whole PILOT program open to abuse, because each wind company gets to negotiate its own private deal with the IDA. In addition, wind companies that fail to meet their original IDA job creation promises rarely get penalized.
In addition, the presence of a wind power facility will drive down the value of surrounding properties (homes), lowering assessments and thus causing a loss of tax revenue that cuts into any possible gain by the presence of a wind farm. NYS property owners have already successfully had their assessments reduced because their properties had the unfortunate circumstance of being located near a new wind farm. This reduces the tax base for the community and must be made up by increasing the tax rate which is then paid by those property owners within the community. Once again the taxpayer is paying higher taxes to support the corrupt wind industry and people say the wind is free.
And think about this - 65% of a commercial wind farm is being paid for with your American tax dollars thanks to stimulus money, NYSERDA, PTC (Production Tax Credits), rapid depreciation schedules, PILOTs, etc. while the foreign owner enjoys the profits while raping your community.
One of the worst recent situations involving IDAs & PILOTs is in Cattaraugus County New York. In Cattaraugus County, a proposed 32-turbine Everpower wind farm in the Chipmunk area of the town of Allegany – the town’s portion of the payment in lieu of taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) negotiated by the Cattaraugus county IDA would be roughly $22,000 a year for the entire wind farm! That’s right - the town would only be getting about $22,000 in PILOT payments a year. That’s for all 32 wind turbines, not each one. Town supervisor Eaton said he did not believe there would be additional “host community fees” available outside of the PILOT agreement, which is negotiated by the IDA. “We’re not doing it for $22,000,” he stated.
Attorney Dan Spitzer said the wind-turbine issue, and its legalities, are complicated at best.
“It’s a very complicated topic and the one thing I say, whether I’m representing the community or representing the developer, is that it will change your community for a generation, at least,” Mr. Spitzer said of a wind-turbine farm.
Mr. Eaton, Allegany town supervisor, who was listening in the background, revised Mr. Spitzer’s statement by saying, “It will change it forever.” Can you imagine a more outrageous IDA than the one in Cattaraugus County? Are they taking a kickback from the wind developer? They are certainly not acting in the best interests of the community. Shame on the Cattaraugus County Legislature and the IDA for attempting to sell the Allegany residents all out, for so very little.
New Yorkers in general are beginning to become completely fed up with PILOTs, IDAs, wind farms and seeing their tax dollars squandered by politicians and bureaucrats to offshore ownership. Taxpayers are beginning to revolt against the wind developers, IDAs and local governments and the November 2009 election results underscore this attitude.
PILOTs should be completely repealed and eliminated and taxpayers should demand the full value of tax revenue from the wind project and nothing less. Industrial Development Agencies should not endorse industrial wind development in NYS, since IDAs were created to stimulate economic development by industries that create permanent jobs and financially benefit the area. Industrial wind will do neither, and is actually contrary to the IDA mission. IDAs are eroding your quality of life in collusion with an “unscrupulous” industry and this must stop. Can you wonder why NYS Attorney General Cuomo is investigating the corrupt wind industry and asking the wind developers to adopt and sign his wind industry ethics code? What other industry or business have you ever heard of in NYS being asked to sign an ethics code? Does this speak well of the wind industry? New Yorkers cannot afford the corrupt wind industry or PILOT agreements.
Now consider a wind developer who comes into a rural community and builds a “wind farm”. The average cost of buying & installing a commercial wind turbine (per internet estimates) is roughly between $2M and $3M each. Then the wind developer and local IDA negotiate a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) “deal” and the wind developer avoids paying his fare share of taxes – pays a small fraction of the project’s net worth – as a result of the IDA PILOT “deal”. Furthermore – the developer is probably based in a foreign country and never even visited the area where the wind farm is located. Because of the PILOT program the foreign wind developer can legally pay a mere fraction of the true 100% value of the wind farm while home owner’s taxes are based on 100% value of his new property. How can this be fair? This is corporate greed and manipulation at its worst combined with misdirected irresponsible government. And it’s likely the turbines are manufactured in a foreign country too. And the crew that installs the entire wind project would never be from your community – they are a transient bunch and gone a few months after construction never to return. And often the lessor is an absentee landlord and doesn’t live anywhere near where the turbines are sited, Turbinetown, and avoids the noise, loss of viewshed, shadowing, etc. much less face-to-face contact with extremely upset neighbors who have suffered physical pain and permanent loss of property value. Turbine neighbors have become prisoners in their own homes (because their homes will never sell for anywhere near what they were worth before the creation of the windfarm – if they’re sold at all) and their only escape is to abandon their life’s major investment to gain relief for health reasons. But some town board members make out well approving wind development because they are likely to have a conflict of interest and benefit financially either directly or indirectly and as a result betray their own neighbors including people that trusted them and may have actually voted for them. And think about this – the bad guys assisting the foreign wind developer with PILOTs are your county IDA reps. They would sell out their mother for a low paying job in your county and IDA staff are not even elected. The whole relationship between your IDA and your county legislative board needs constant monitoring. The IDA officials are appointed by your county legislature or board of supervisors. Like a bad cold - corrupt IDA staff are difficult to get rid of. PILOT agreements are developed by your IDA not the town board.
*************
The office of the NYS Comptroller says the following about IDAs:
There are 20 Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) in the eight county region of western New York. Pursuant to General Municipal Law, Section 858, these IDAs are independent public benefit corporations created by State legislation to improve economic conditions by encouraging and assisting businesses in maintaining, constructing or improving facilities. In so doing, they advance job opportunities and improve the health, general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of the State of New York.
To accomplish this, IDAs provide project owners financial assistance which includes, among other things, exemptions from taxation. Without this assistance, project owners would generally pay a real property tax based on the assessed value of land and improvements to a site. Any real property owned or controlled by an IDA is not subject to ad valorem real property taxes. Therefore, the IDA would take title to, or leasehold interest in, real property and the property would become 100 percent exempt from ad valorem real property taxes. To accommodate the needs of affected taxing jurisdictions, many IDAs execute written agreements requiring Payments In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) by project owners to municipalities and school districts where the projects are located. These affected tax jurisdictions (ATJ)receive PILOT revenue that is generally equal to, or a portion of, the amount they would have received had the IDA not been involved. PILOT agreements must contain, among other things, the amount due annually to each ATJ, or a formula by which the amount due can be calculated.
*************
PILOTs are supposed to make jobs for communities but with wind farms this never happens. Only about one mediocre paying job is created for every 10 turbines installed – that’s hardly job creation. Government watchdog groups say the absence of uniform standards makes the whole PILOT program open to abuse, because each wind company gets to negotiate its own private deal with the IDA. In addition, wind companies that fail to meet their original IDA job creation promises rarely get penalized.
In addition, the presence of a wind power facility will drive down the value of surrounding properties (homes), lowering assessments and thus causing a loss of tax revenue that cuts into any possible gain by the presence of a wind farm. NYS property owners have already successfully had their assessments reduced because their properties had the unfortunate circumstance of being located near a new wind farm. This reduces the tax base for the community and must be made up by increasing the tax rate which is then paid by those property owners within the community. Once again the taxpayer is paying higher taxes to support the corrupt wind industry and people say the wind is free.
And think about this - 65% of a commercial wind farm is being paid for with your American tax dollars thanks to stimulus money, NYSERDA, PTC (Production Tax Credits), rapid depreciation schedules, PILOTs, etc. while the foreign owner enjoys the profits while raping your community.
One of the worst recent situations involving IDAs & PILOTs is in Cattaraugus County New York. In Cattaraugus County, a proposed 32-turbine Everpower wind farm in the Chipmunk area of the town of Allegany – the town’s portion of the payment in lieu of taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) negotiated by the Cattaraugus county IDA would be roughly $22,000 a year for the entire wind farm! That’s right - the town would only be getting about $22,000 in PILOT payments a year. That’s for all 32 wind turbines, not each one. Town supervisor Eaton said he did not believe there would be additional “host community fees” available outside of the PILOT agreement, which is negotiated by the IDA. “We’re not doing it for $22,000,” he stated.
Attorney Dan Spitzer said the wind-turbine issue, and its legalities, are complicated at best.
“It’s a very complicated topic and the one thing I say, whether I’m representing the community or representing the developer, is that it will change your community for a generation, at least,” Mr. Spitzer said of a wind-turbine farm.
Mr. Eaton, Allegany town supervisor, who was listening in the background, revised Mr. Spitzer’s statement by saying, “It will change it forever.” Can you imagine a more outrageous IDA than the one in Cattaraugus County? Are they taking a kickback from the wind developer? They are certainly not acting in the best interests of the community. Shame on the Cattaraugus County Legislature and the IDA for attempting to sell the Allegany residents all out, for so very little.
New Yorkers in general are beginning to become completely fed up with PILOTs, IDAs, wind farms and seeing their tax dollars squandered by politicians and bureaucrats to offshore ownership. Taxpayers are beginning to revolt against the wind developers, IDAs and local governments and the November 2009 election results underscore this attitude.
PILOTs should be completely repealed and eliminated and taxpayers should demand the full value of tax revenue from the wind project and nothing less. Industrial Development Agencies should not endorse industrial wind development in NYS, since IDAs were created to stimulate economic development by industries that create permanent jobs and financially benefit the area. Industrial wind will do neither, and is actually contrary to the IDA mission. IDAs are eroding your quality of life in collusion with an “unscrupulous” industry and this must stop. Can you wonder why NYS Attorney General Cuomo is investigating the corrupt wind industry and asking the wind developers to adopt and sign his wind industry ethics code? What other industry or business have you ever heard of in NYS being asked to sign an ethics code? Does this speak well of the wind industry? New Yorkers cannot afford the corrupt wind industry or PILOT agreements.
Seasonal residents protect natural resources
In response to the comment by "outgoing" Cape Vincent Supervisor Thomas Rienbeck wherein he refers to seasonal voters as selfish rich folks only interested in their cottages: Mr. Rienbeck no doubt loves seasonal residents when they pay their higher-than-average property taxes and when they financially support local business and community events.
Left in office, he would continue to appreciate all the revenue that seasonals pour into the community just so long as they dare not vote in opposition to polices he promotes, policies that would result in the destruction of many of the area's natural resources and the small-town ambience that attract seasonal residents and vacationers here in the first place.
Seasonal residents are in fact rich, but in most cases not financially rich as his comments imply. They are enriched by their enjoyment of time spent in some of the most relaxing and beautiful locations in the country, the Thousand Islands and the Golden Crescent. Seasonals choose to come to upstate New York (and in many cases retire here) from many distant destinations.
As community residents they should be afforded the same rights of citizenship as longtime residents. They pay their share, they support the community, and they also feel an obligation to protect the natural and wildlife resources of the area, an obligation that Mr. Rienbeck seems all too willing to sell to the highest bidder and deface in the process.
Also in the same edition, Don DiMonda of Sackets Harbor condemns the Times for speaking out against the Galloo Island payment-in-lieu-of-taxes arrangement. While he freely admonishes the Times for speaking out against a project that would seemingly generate millions of dollars of revenue for area towns and school districts, he conveniently forgets to say just where those millions come from. The PILOT payments are in fact only a small portion of the proceeds of millions and millions of dollars in financial incentives and tax adjustments freely given to wind developers and funded by we the people of the already bankrupt state of New York.
Every dollar of tax concessions (PILOTs, sales tax, etc.) extracted from local taxing jurisdictions becomes an instant dollar of profit for the project developer. These people know not and care not that their endeavors destroy the natural beauty, wildlife and recreational attractions of the area; they care not about negative impacts on the area's number two revenue source (travel, tourism and seasonal residents). They care not about decreased property values (and corresponding lower tax assessments).
Charles Wilson
Three Mile Bay
Left in office, he would continue to appreciate all the revenue that seasonals pour into the community just so long as they dare not vote in opposition to polices he promotes, policies that would result in the destruction of many of the area's natural resources and the small-town ambience that attract seasonal residents and vacationers here in the first place.
Seasonal residents are in fact rich, but in most cases not financially rich as his comments imply. They are enriched by their enjoyment of time spent in some of the most relaxing and beautiful locations in the country, the Thousand Islands and the Golden Crescent. Seasonals choose to come to upstate New York (and in many cases retire here) from many distant destinations.
As community residents they should be afforded the same rights of citizenship as longtime residents. They pay their share, they support the community, and they also feel an obligation to protect the natural and wildlife resources of the area, an obligation that Mr. Rienbeck seems all too willing to sell to the highest bidder and deface in the process.
Also in the same edition, Don DiMonda of Sackets Harbor condemns the Times for speaking out against the Galloo Island payment-in-lieu-of-taxes arrangement. While he freely admonishes the Times for speaking out against a project that would seemingly generate millions of dollars of revenue for area towns and school districts, he conveniently forgets to say just where those millions come from. The PILOT payments are in fact only a small portion of the proceeds of millions and millions of dollars in financial incentives and tax adjustments freely given to wind developers and funded by we the people of the already bankrupt state of New York.
Every dollar of tax concessions (PILOTs, sales tax, etc.) extracted from local taxing jurisdictions becomes an instant dollar of profit for the project developer. These people know not and care not that their endeavors destroy the natural beauty, wildlife and recreational attractions of the area; they care not about negative impacts on the area's number two revenue source (travel, tourism and seasonal residents). They care not about decreased property values (and corresponding lower tax assessments).
Charles Wilson
Three Mile Bay
Can Wind Power Lift Maine's Economy?
New England’s largest wind power producer broke ground Monday on the second phase of a project near Danforth that local officials hope is another step toward making rural Washington County an energy hub.
First Wind plans to erect 17 wind turbines on Jimmey Mountain and Owl Mountain north of Route 169 in northern Washington County. The project, dubbed Stetson II, will extend First Wind’s 38-turbine Stetson Wind facility that was completed earlier this year on a ridgeline just south of Route 169.
Massachusetts-based First Wind received regulatory approval for Stetson II earlier this year but, like other wind power companies nationwide, had trouble lining up financing after the lending market for wind energy projects collapsed because of the recession.
But the company received more than $40 million in federal stimulus money to jumpstart Stetson II. First Wind officials said Monday that they hope to complete construction on the $60 million project and connect it to the electricity grid by next spring.
“Our projects help spur the surrounding region’s economic activity and growth,” Paul Gaynor, CEO of First Wind, said in a statement. “Today’s groundbreaking and the jobs it is creating would not be happening without the recovery act tax credits granted to us earlier this fall.”
The roughly 400-foot-tall turbines and blades in Stetson II are rated to generate 1.5 megawatts of electricity each, giving the entire project a maximum output of 25.5 megawatts. But critics point out that because of the intermittent nature of wind, wind power facilities typically do not come close to producing their maximum output.
Critics of the wind industry in Maine also question whether the facilities provide a permanent boost to the host region’s economy after construction is complete. Once operational, wind energy facilities employ only a handful of full-time workers.
But Chris Gardner, a Washington County commissioner who attended Monday’s event, said in a phone interview it would be wrong to “belittle” any permanent jobs that are created in that part of Maine.
“I’m certain those are very valuable to the 10 to 15 people able to get those jobs and then live and work in Washington County,” Gardner said.
Gardner hopes First Wind’s additional investment helps send a positive message to other energy companies that Washington County is “open for business.”
“We have an industry that is interested [in the region] and I think we owe it to the people of Washington County to extend our hand out to that industry,” he said.
Not everyone agrees that the wind industry’s growing interest in Maine is a good thing.
On Monday, about a half-dozen people protested First Wind’s latest project, accusing the company and state officials of deceiving the public about the impacts of industrial wind power and its benefits.
Among them were Marilyn and Harrison Roper, who will be able to see — and likely hear — the massive turbines located between 1.5 miles and 2 miles from a camp and properties they own on both Upper Hot Brook Lake and Lower Hot Brook Lake.
Marilyn Roper said by phone Monday that she is most concerned about how low-frequency noise and vibrations from the spinning blades will affect local residents and wildlife, including fish in the lakes. Some people living near wind power facilities claim the noise and vibrations make them physically ill.
Roper said she and her husband are very pro-environment, powering their Houlton home with solar energy and living “off the grid” at camp. But she questioned the “greenness” of inland wind farms that require permanent clearings of carbon dioxide-absorbing trees and that work only when the wind blows.
“We don’t have a problem with these offshore, where the wind is strong and constant,” Roper said. “But that is not the case with these inland wind farms.”
But Sen. Kevin Raye, R-Perry, said he believes energy could be a major industry for Washington County. Raye and other local officials are fighting to bring liquefied natural gas terminals to the Passamaquoddy Bay region. Also Monday, Ocean Renewable Power Co. received a $150,000 federal grant to continue developing tidal power technology that would be deployed in Cobscook Bay.
“Washington County could be poised to become a major player in energy,” Raye said.
In addition to the original Stetson project, First Wind also operates a 28-turbine wind power facility in the Aroostook County town of Mars Hill. The company also is in the process of seeking regulatory approval or financing for several other projects in Maine, including a 40-turbine wind farm on Rollins Mountain in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn. That project has also encountered opposition from some local residents and property owners.
The only other large-scale wind energy project operating in Maine is a 22-turbine facility located on Kibby Mountain in the western part of the state.
TransCanada plans to add another 22 turbines on Kibby Mountain over the next year.
First Wind plans to erect 17 wind turbines on Jimmey Mountain and Owl Mountain north of Route 169 in northern Washington County. The project, dubbed Stetson II, will extend First Wind’s 38-turbine Stetson Wind facility that was completed earlier this year on a ridgeline just south of Route 169.
Massachusetts-based First Wind received regulatory approval for Stetson II earlier this year but, like other wind power companies nationwide, had trouble lining up financing after the lending market for wind energy projects collapsed because of the recession.
But the company received more than $40 million in federal stimulus money to jumpstart Stetson II. First Wind officials said Monday that they hope to complete construction on the $60 million project and connect it to the electricity grid by next spring.
“Our projects help spur the surrounding region’s economic activity and growth,” Paul Gaynor, CEO of First Wind, said in a statement. “Today’s groundbreaking and the jobs it is creating would not be happening without the recovery act tax credits granted to us earlier this fall.”
The roughly 400-foot-tall turbines and blades in Stetson II are rated to generate 1.5 megawatts of electricity each, giving the entire project a maximum output of 25.5 megawatts. But critics point out that because of the intermittent nature of wind, wind power facilities typically do not come close to producing their maximum output.
Critics of the wind industry in Maine also question whether the facilities provide a permanent boost to the host region’s economy after construction is complete. Once operational, wind energy facilities employ only a handful of full-time workers.
But Chris Gardner, a Washington County commissioner who attended Monday’s event, said in a phone interview it would be wrong to “belittle” any permanent jobs that are created in that part of Maine.
“I’m certain those are very valuable to the 10 to 15 people able to get those jobs and then live and work in Washington County,” Gardner said.
Gardner hopes First Wind’s additional investment helps send a positive message to other energy companies that Washington County is “open for business.”
“We have an industry that is interested [in the region] and I think we owe it to the people of Washington County to extend our hand out to that industry,” he said.
Not everyone agrees that the wind industry’s growing interest in Maine is a good thing.
On Monday, about a half-dozen people protested First Wind’s latest project, accusing the company and state officials of deceiving the public about the impacts of industrial wind power and its benefits.
Among them were Marilyn and Harrison Roper, who will be able to see — and likely hear — the massive turbines located between 1.5 miles and 2 miles from a camp and properties they own on both Upper Hot Brook Lake and Lower Hot Brook Lake.
Marilyn Roper said by phone Monday that she is most concerned about how low-frequency noise and vibrations from the spinning blades will affect local residents and wildlife, including fish in the lakes. Some people living near wind power facilities claim the noise and vibrations make them physically ill.
Roper said she and her husband are very pro-environment, powering their Houlton home with solar energy and living “off the grid” at camp. But she questioned the “greenness” of inland wind farms that require permanent clearings of carbon dioxide-absorbing trees and that work only when the wind blows.
“We don’t have a problem with these offshore, where the wind is strong and constant,” Roper said. “But that is not the case with these inland wind farms.”
But Sen. Kevin Raye, R-Perry, said he believes energy could be a major industry for Washington County. Raye and other local officials are fighting to bring liquefied natural gas terminals to the Passamaquoddy Bay region. Also Monday, Ocean Renewable Power Co. received a $150,000 federal grant to continue developing tidal power technology that would be deployed in Cobscook Bay.
“Washington County could be poised to become a major player in energy,” Raye said.
In addition to the original Stetson project, First Wind also operates a 28-turbine wind power facility in the Aroostook County town of Mars Hill. The company also is in the process of seeking regulatory approval or financing for several other projects in Maine, including a 40-turbine wind farm on Rollins Mountain in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn. That project has also encountered opposition from some local residents and property owners.
The only other large-scale wind energy project operating in Maine is a 22-turbine facility located on Kibby Mountain in the western part of the state.
TransCanada plans to add another 22 turbines on Kibby Mountain over the next year.
Recovery Act Incentivizes Portugal to Build $4 Billion Worth of New US Wind Power Projects
Through its Texas subsidiary Horizon Wind Energy, the giant Portuguese company EDP Renewables; the second largest wind company in the world, intends to almost triple its US projects to $4 billion worth of new wind energy projects in the United States through 2012.
This year alone Horizon Wind Energy installed $1.5 billion worth of wind power, adding 800 megawatts of clean energy to the grid to bring its US total to more than 2,500 MW in 21 states.
The CEO attributes the expansion to our new renewable energy incentives.
“EDP Renewables is serious about partnering with the United States for a number of reasons, but most of all because of the leadership we have seen from the federal government,” said Antonio Mexia, chief executive of EDP and chairman of EDP Renewables.
Current legislation does extend the investment tax credit (ITC) available to wind developers; till 2012. But uncertainty about passage of the on-again off-again ITC extension at the end of last year created a dive in wind projects into the first quarter of 2009. In the bailout bill last Fall it was extended (after eight attempts) at least long enough to prevent expiration until a more renewable-friendly administration would be sworn in.
In February the Obama administration not only extended the ITC till 2012, but also allowed wind developers to also benefit from a 30% production tax credit available to homeowners and businesses that encourages development of any form of renewable energy.
To help companies hard-hit by the downturn; the 30% tax credit legislation was modified under the Recovery Act to be made available as a cash grant within 60 days if a business had no profit to take a tax credit against.
There were no size limits on eligible businesses, only that it have no profits to take an investment tax credit against. An excel file listing ongoing awarded cash grants begins with an architectural office, that received almost $20,000 to put on a solar roof.
The cash grants, that began with these awards in September, also encourage investors by providing secure returns. For example, Texas-based JPM Capital is investing just over $101 million in a Horizon wind farm and will get paid back via cash grants that it expects to receive instead of tax credits. Like the rest of the wind sector Horizon was hit by the threatened ITC expiration last year.
The new legislation is also designed to encourage immediate reinvestment of renewable energy profits, so manufacturing for the nacelles, blades and other parts must be done here in the US to qualify.
Investment in wind power creates thousands of installation, maintenance and manufacturing jobs as well as some you might not have thought of like asking farmers if they want to host wind turbines.
This year alone Horizon Wind Energy installed $1.5 billion worth of wind power, adding 800 megawatts of clean energy to the grid to bring its US total to more than 2,500 MW in 21 states.
The CEO attributes the expansion to our new renewable energy incentives.
“EDP Renewables is serious about partnering with the United States for a number of reasons, but most of all because of the leadership we have seen from the federal government,” said Antonio Mexia, chief executive of EDP and chairman of EDP Renewables.
Current legislation does extend the investment tax credit (ITC) available to wind developers; till 2012. But uncertainty about passage of the on-again off-again ITC extension at the end of last year created a dive in wind projects into the first quarter of 2009. In the bailout bill last Fall it was extended (after eight attempts) at least long enough to prevent expiration until a more renewable-friendly administration would be sworn in.
In February the Obama administration not only extended the ITC till 2012, but also allowed wind developers to also benefit from a 30% production tax credit available to homeowners and businesses that encourages development of any form of renewable energy.
To help companies hard-hit by the downturn; the 30% tax credit legislation was modified under the Recovery Act to be made available as a cash grant within 60 days if a business had no profit to take a tax credit against.
There were no size limits on eligible businesses, only that it have no profits to take an investment tax credit against. An excel file listing ongoing awarded cash grants begins with an architectural office, that received almost $20,000 to put on a solar roof.
The cash grants, that began with these awards in September, also encourage investors by providing secure returns. For example, Texas-based JPM Capital is investing just over $101 million in a Horizon wind farm and will get paid back via cash grants that it expects to receive instead of tax credits. Like the rest of the wind sector Horizon was hit by the threatened ITC expiration last year.
The new legislation is also designed to encourage immediate reinvestment of renewable energy profits, so manufacturing for the nacelles, blades and other parts must be done here in the US to qualify.
Investment in wind power creates thousands of installation, maintenance and manufacturing jobs as well as some you might not have thought of like asking farmers if they want to host wind turbines.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wind turbine jobs blowing toward China
WASHINGTON — The rush to America of foreign wind-turbine manufacturers shows that the Obama administration’s plan for stimulating the creation of green-energy jobs is going in an odd direction.
Two weeks ago, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, led by Dallas investor Cappy McGarr, announced plans to build a $1.5 billion wind energy farm in West Texas. About a third of the money would come from federal stimulus funds. All of the wind turbines (and much of the remaining investment capital) would come from China.
“We believe that this project will greatly contribute to job creation, the goals of the Obama administration and our desire to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and increase our energy independence,” McGarr said in announcing the deal.
There would be perhaps 330 jobs created in Texas. Most would be temporary construction jobs. Meanwhile, thousands of Chinese workers in the northeastern industrial city Shenyang would build the labor-intensive turbines.
Most of the wind energy projects seeking money under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act rely on foreign-made turbines. Even the industry we have here at home, led by GE, is looking abroad. GE’s technology will power the gearboxes of the turbines for the U.S. Renewable Energy Group. The gearboxes will be made in China.
U.S. companies emerging from the financial shocks of the last year haven’t started investing in American factory jobs. Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, told an Austin audience last week that the company CEOs he speaks with are more interested in investing abroad.
That doesn’t fit with the administration’s plans. To fix the big economic imbalances of the U.S. economy, administration economists say, Americans must save more, import less and sell more U.S. goods to the world. This is particularly important in the U.S. relationship with China, which is America’s biggest creditor.
Democrats, with union support, included a “Buy America” provision in the stimulus bill. This hasn’t proved to be an obstacle to moving ahead with wind projects that rely on foreign-made turbines.
When the wind is right, the U.S. Renewable project would generate more than 600 megawatts of electricity, or enough for 180,000 homes. Texas has long recognized such energy projects as a public good and provides incentives to support them.
Haphazard support
Federal support has been more haphazard. Wind energy advocates say that’s a reason other countries are taking the lead with alternative energy technologies developed in the United States.
President Barack Obama said the stimulus bill would create environmentally friendly manufacturing jobs in America. He’s using the same rhetoric to promote legislation that would curb greenhouse gas emissions.
To get there, however, it now looks like we’ll have to rely on foreign investors.
The engineering for the U.S. Renewable turbines was developed in Germany. Joachim Fuhrlander, CEO of this namesake company, says the West Texas project and others will eventually lead to service jobs for more than a thousand Americans.
Denise Bode, president of the American Wind Energy Association, says other foreign manufacturers are moving plants to the United States to be nearer the world’s biggest wind market.
In a roundabout way, those plants will create American jobs. That might be behind another wind farm announcement scheduled for Wednesday, this time by the Portuguese-owned firm Horizon Wind Energy.
Horizon says its latest investment “will create thousands of good-paying jobs on American soil.”
X Jim Landers is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Two weeks ago, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, led by Dallas investor Cappy McGarr, announced plans to build a $1.5 billion wind energy farm in West Texas. About a third of the money would come from federal stimulus funds. All of the wind turbines (and much of the remaining investment capital) would come from China.
“We believe that this project will greatly contribute to job creation, the goals of the Obama administration and our desire to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and increase our energy independence,” McGarr said in announcing the deal.
There would be perhaps 330 jobs created in Texas. Most would be temporary construction jobs. Meanwhile, thousands of Chinese workers in the northeastern industrial city Shenyang would build the labor-intensive turbines.
Most of the wind energy projects seeking money under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act rely on foreign-made turbines. Even the industry we have here at home, led by GE, is looking abroad. GE’s technology will power the gearboxes of the turbines for the U.S. Renewable Energy Group. The gearboxes will be made in China.
U.S. companies emerging from the financial shocks of the last year haven’t started investing in American factory jobs. Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, told an Austin audience last week that the company CEOs he speaks with are more interested in investing abroad.
That doesn’t fit with the administration’s plans. To fix the big economic imbalances of the U.S. economy, administration economists say, Americans must save more, import less and sell more U.S. goods to the world. This is particularly important in the U.S. relationship with China, which is America’s biggest creditor.
Democrats, with union support, included a “Buy America” provision in the stimulus bill. This hasn’t proved to be an obstacle to moving ahead with wind projects that rely on foreign-made turbines.
When the wind is right, the U.S. Renewable project would generate more than 600 megawatts of electricity, or enough for 180,000 homes. Texas has long recognized such energy projects as a public good and provides incentives to support them.
Haphazard support
Federal support has been more haphazard. Wind energy advocates say that’s a reason other countries are taking the lead with alternative energy technologies developed in the United States.
President Barack Obama said the stimulus bill would create environmentally friendly manufacturing jobs in America. He’s using the same rhetoric to promote legislation that would curb greenhouse gas emissions.
To get there, however, it now looks like we’ll have to rely on foreign investors.
The engineering for the U.S. Renewable turbines was developed in Germany. Joachim Fuhrlander, CEO of this namesake company, says the West Texas project and others will eventually lead to service jobs for more than a thousand Americans.
Denise Bode, president of the American Wind Energy Association, says other foreign manufacturers are moving plants to the United States to be nearer the world’s biggest wind market.
In a roundabout way, those plants will create American jobs. That might be behind another wind farm announcement scheduled for Wednesday, this time by the Portuguese-owned firm Horizon Wind Energy.
Horizon says its latest investment “will create thousands of good-paying jobs on American soil.”
X Jim Landers is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)