Once again, Gerald Norlander at PULP Network in Albany has broken news on his blog about important state energy matters.
This time, Norlander writes that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued an unfavorable audit of the New York Independent System Operator, the East Greenbush nonprofit that regulates the state’s wholesale electric market.
To see a copy of the audit, as well as a cover sheet, click here.
NYISO spokesman Ken Klapp could not immediately be reached for comment on the audit, although the document does say that NYISO is taking steps to correct problems.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Breaking news: Federal judge halts Greenbrier wind project
A federal district court judge in Maryland placed a huge roadblock in the path of a planned industrial wind facility in northern Greenbrier County, saying construction of the wind turbines would violate the Endangered Species Act.
Judge Roger W. Titus issued an order Tuesday afternoon granting an injunction, which halts the project in its tracks.
Two organizations and an individual filed suit in June to stop construction on the project, which would include 119 turbines along several miles of ridgelines in northern Greenbrier County. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy (MCRE) and Greenbrier County resident Dave Cowan argued the project would kill endangered Indiana Bats and that the project should not proceed because the developer, Beech Ridge Energy, LLC, had not obtained an incidental take permit.
Beech Ridge is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Invenergy, a Chicago-based corporation.
AWI is a nonprofit, charitable organization founded in 1951 to reduce suffering inflicted on animals by humans. MCRE is a nonprofit organization formed in September of 2005 to assess and disclose the impacts of the proposed wind energy facility in Greenbrier County.
Judge Titus’ opinion states that Beech Ridge’s only recourse is to apply for an incidental take permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
“This Court has concluded that the only avenue available to Defendants to resolve the self-imposed plight in which they now find themselves is to do belatedly that which they should have done long ago: apply for an ITP. The Court does express the concern that any extraordinary delays by the FWS in the processing of a permit application would frustrate Congress’ intent to encourage responsible wind turbine development. Assuming that Defendants now proceed to file an application for an ITP, the Court urges the FWS to act with reasonable promptness, but with necessary thoroughness, in acting upon that application,” the opinion states in part.
Judge Roger W. Titus issued an order Tuesday afternoon granting an injunction, which halts the project in its tracks.
Two organizations and an individual filed suit in June to stop construction on the project, which would include 119 turbines along several miles of ridgelines in northern Greenbrier County. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy (MCRE) and Greenbrier County resident Dave Cowan argued the project would kill endangered Indiana Bats and that the project should not proceed because the developer, Beech Ridge Energy, LLC, had not obtained an incidental take permit.
Beech Ridge is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Invenergy, a Chicago-based corporation.
AWI is a nonprofit, charitable organization founded in 1951 to reduce suffering inflicted on animals by humans. MCRE is a nonprofit organization formed in September of 2005 to assess and disclose the impacts of the proposed wind energy facility in Greenbrier County.
Judge Titus’ opinion states that Beech Ridge’s only recourse is to apply for an incidental take permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
“This Court has concluded that the only avenue available to Defendants to resolve the self-imposed plight in which they now find themselves is to do belatedly that which they should have done long ago: apply for an ITP. The Court does express the concern that any extraordinary delays by the FWS in the processing of a permit application would frustrate Congress’ intent to encourage responsible wind turbine development. Assuming that Defendants now proceed to file an application for an ITP, the Court urges the FWS to act with reasonable promptness, but with necessary thoroughness, in acting upon that application,” the opinion states in part.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
OGDENSBURG JOURNAL EDITORIAL.....DIVIDING HAMMOND
Tuesday, December 9, 2009
The Hammond Town Board demonstrated last night why the voters of their community removed two of them from office during the November elections.
After spending the past two years dividing the citizens of Hammond into opposing camps and convincing the majority of the community that their allegiance was to out of town wind companies instead of the people who elected them, they voted to pass a controversial wind law with no public notice, no public hearing and no effort to take into consideration any of the objections that their constituents have raised over the past two years.
No one could be too surprised that the town board passed the law just before they left office.
The newly elected members of the town board will just have to use their new majority to repeal the law when they take office in January.
By starting over again, it's possible that the new town board can hammer out a compromise ordinance that's acceptable to the majority of citizens in Hammond.
The first step, however, will be to give the citizens of Hammond an opportunity to offer their views to a board whose membership is committed to the citizens who elected them instead of out of town multi-billion dollar foreign corporations.
The Hammond Town Board demonstrated last night why the voters of their community removed two of them from office during the November elections.
After spending the past two years dividing the citizens of Hammond into opposing camps and convincing the majority of the community that their allegiance was to out of town wind companies instead of the people who elected them, they voted to pass a controversial wind law with no public notice, no public hearing and no effort to take into consideration any of the objections that their constituents have raised over the past two years.
No one could be too surprised that the town board passed the law just before they left office.
The newly elected members of the town board will just have to use their new majority to repeal the law when they take office in January.
By starting over again, it's possible that the new town board can hammer out a compromise ordinance that's acceptable to the majority of citizens in Hammond.
The first step, however, will be to give the citizens of Hammond an opportunity to offer their views to a board whose membership is committed to the citizens who elected them instead of out of town multi-billion dollar foreign corporations.
Hammond Board Adopts Wind Law
LAME-DUCK ACT: Board members who voted for ordinance lost in fall election
By MATT MCALLISTER
JOHNSON NEWSPAPERS
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2009
HAMMOND — The Hammond Town Council adopted a local wind ordinance Monday night, just weeks before some members who supported the measure are set to leave office.
Town Supervisor Janie G. Hollister joined councilmen Ronald E. Tulley II and James E. Langtry in voting during a special meeting to enact a new "Wind Energy Facilities" law. Setbacks and other provisions in the new law are considered favorable to wind projects.
Mrs. Hollister, Mr. Tulley and Mr. Stewart will leave the board at the end of the month. All three were defeated at the polls in November by candidates who promised to take a more critical look at wind development.
Incoming Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram and council members Douglas E. Delosh and James R. Tague will take office Jan. 1. When asked after Monday's meeting what the development will mean for the new board, Dr. Tague offered four words: "A lot of work.
Local Law No. 1 of 2009 was approved 3-0. Councilmen and wind company lease holders James C. Pitcher and Russell Stewart recused themselves from the vote.
The newly adopted wind law puts setback distances at the greater of 11/2 times the total tower height or 500 feet from the nearest site boundary property line, public road or edge of the Wind Overlay District. The setback requirement for towers near off-site residences that exist at the time of application is set at the greater of 21/2 times the total tower height or 1,500 feet.
The adoption of the new wind law comes almost a year after the town board rescinded a previous version of the law after special counsel Joseph W. Russell recommended the board conduct a state Environmental Quality Review Assessment. A grass-roots citizens group, Concerned Residents of Hammond, also brought a lawsuit against the town board over the law.
Before adopting the law Monday, the town board conducted what it called a SEQRA review in open session. Mrs. Hollister said that since the action being made by the board — adopting the law — itself had no physical impacts on the land involved, a declaration that the law will have no negative impact on the environment should be determined.
"This is a local law, not a project," she said. "It is being adopted to regulate the process."
The board subsequently agreed with Mrs. Hollister to answer "not applicable" to nearly every question on the SEQRA review.
After adopting its new wind law, the town board also unanimously adopted Local Law No. 2 of 2009, which amends the Hammond Site Plan and Subdivision Review Law to exempt wind energy facilities from review. Instead, wind energy facilities will now be governed only by Local Law No. 1.
The Hammond Town Board will hold its final regularly scheduled meeting of the year at 7:30 p.m. Monday.
By MATT MCALLISTER
JOHNSON NEWSPAPERS
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2009
HAMMOND — The Hammond Town Council adopted a local wind ordinance Monday night, just weeks before some members who supported the measure are set to leave office.
Town Supervisor Janie G. Hollister joined councilmen Ronald E. Tulley II and James E. Langtry in voting during a special meeting to enact a new "Wind Energy Facilities" law. Setbacks and other provisions in the new law are considered favorable to wind projects.
Mrs. Hollister, Mr. Tulley and Mr. Stewart will leave the board at the end of the month. All three were defeated at the polls in November by candidates who promised to take a more critical look at wind development.
Incoming Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram and council members Douglas E. Delosh and James R. Tague will take office Jan. 1. When asked after Monday's meeting what the development will mean for the new board, Dr. Tague offered four words: "A lot of work.
Local Law No. 1 of 2009 was approved 3-0. Councilmen and wind company lease holders James C. Pitcher and Russell Stewart recused themselves from the vote.
The newly adopted wind law puts setback distances at the greater of 11/2 times the total tower height or 500 feet from the nearest site boundary property line, public road or edge of the Wind Overlay District. The setback requirement for towers near off-site residences that exist at the time of application is set at the greater of 21/2 times the total tower height or 1,500 feet.
The adoption of the new wind law comes almost a year after the town board rescinded a previous version of the law after special counsel Joseph W. Russell recommended the board conduct a state Environmental Quality Review Assessment. A grass-roots citizens group, Concerned Residents of Hammond, also brought a lawsuit against the town board over the law.
Before adopting the law Monday, the town board conducted what it called a SEQRA review in open session. Mrs. Hollister said that since the action being made by the board — adopting the law — itself had no physical impacts on the land involved, a declaration that the law will have no negative impact on the environment should be determined.
"This is a local law, not a project," she said. "It is being adopted to regulate the process."
The board subsequently agreed with Mrs. Hollister to answer "not applicable" to nearly every question on the SEQRA review.
After adopting its new wind law, the town board also unanimously adopted Local Law No. 2 of 2009, which amends the Hammond Site Plan and Subdivision Review Law to exempt wind energy facilities from review. Instead, wind energy facilities will now be governed only by Local Law No. 1.
The Hammond Town Board will hold its final regularly scheduled meeting of the year at 7:30 p.m. Monday.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Wind farm claims are fuzzy math
I think your readers would be interested in knowing what wasn't said about Constellation Energy's agreement to purchase the Criterion wind project of Clipper Windpower, Inc. ("Wind, solar, 'farms' slated for 2 counties, Dec. 1). The industry claims that their poroposed 70 megawatt project consisting of 28 turbines on top of Backbone Mountain in Garrett County will provide enough electricty for 23,000 households. What the industry is not telling you is that to realize that scenario the wind would have to be blowing and capable of producing 50 percent their of their maximum output thoughout the year. In reality, land-based turbines today produce about 30 percent of their rated energy capacity on a yearly average and as little as 13 percent when demand is highest (during hot summer afternoons).
Re-calculated, the amount of energy produced under real circumstances would only provide electricity for 13,700 homes. What's more, Maryland residents use only 40 percent of their electrical energy in their homes. The rest is used in public and commercial buildings and in the manufacture of the goods they use. So the Clipper wind "farm" will provide the electrical needs of the people living in 5,500 households, not 23,000. To put this into better perspective, there are 2 million occupied housing units in Maryland, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
By comparison, the proposed nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs will reliably produce 90 percent of its rated energy capacity all of the time on only 300 acres, whereas to produce an equivalent amount of wind energy throughout a year, it would take 1,900 turbines on 11,200 acres. It is ridiculous to think that Maryalnd will ever be able to achieve its goal of having 20 percent of its energy come from renewable sources by 2020.
Re-calculated, the amount of energy produced under real circumstances would only provide electricity for 13,700 homes. What's more, Maryland residents use only 40 percent of their electrical energy in their homes. The rest is used in public and commercial buildings and in the manufacture of the goods they use. So the Clipper wind "farm" will provide the electrical needs of the people living in 5,500 households, not 23,000. To put this into better perspective, there are 2 million occupied housing units in Maryland, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
By comparison, the proposed nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs will reliably produce 90 percent of its rated energy capacity all of the time on only 300 acres, whereas to produce an equivalent amount of wind energy throughout a year, it would take 1,900 turbines on 11,200 acres. It is ridiculous to think that Maryalnd will ever be able to achieve its goal of having 20 percent of its energy come from renewable sources by 2020.
Lakes Ontario, Erie eyed for wind turbines
Some Canadians claim that on clear days, they can see the now-defunct Russell Station in Greece from the province of Ontario.
Soon they may be seeing a series of lake-based wind turbines in the water along the coasts of Rochester and Wayne County.
The New York Power Authority has raised the issue of wind power from lake-based turbines before, but on Tuesday it formally requested proposals from private developers.
The developers would build, operate and decommission wind turbines in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, according to Richard Kessel, president and CEO of the power authority.
Depending on the timing of delivery, the wind turbines in the water could be a North American first.
The proposed wind farm would generate between 300 megawatts and 500 megawatts, he said, and would sell its juice to the power authority, which would then sell it to the New York Independent System Operator, which runs the state grid.
While ruling nothing out, the power authority released feasibility maps showing that the best Lake Ontario areas are north of Oswego, Rochester, Wayne County and Niagara County.
Lake Erie's feasible areas stretch longer, wider and more consistently, from west of Lackawanna, Erie County, to north of the Pennsylvania border.
Kessel said lake areas not in the feasibility areas could be considered for the project, which would require approval and coordination from a number of state and federal agencies.
"We don't want to close ourselves off to anything," said Kessel.
The power would be part of New York state's goal to get 45 percent of electricity from renewable resources by 2015.
Mike Townsend, chairman of the power authority and a Perinton attorney for Harris Beach LLP, said he desires to get Rochester cheaper electricity for businesses.
However, the wind power will not be as cheap as New York's bountiful hydropower, said Kessel.
Mark Peterson, president and CEO of Greater Rochester Enterprise, said he has long supported the concept of lake-based wind farms, and added New York's electricity costs and availability will continue to be an ongoing issue for state businesses.
The due date for proposals is June 1.
Any plan is likely to raise the ire of some seeking to protect the aesthetics of the lakes, or migrating birds.
Cape Wind Associates LLC is seeking to build water-based turbines in Nantucket Sound. The plan has drawn criticism because of possible risk to birds.
Bert Bowers December 3, 2009 Letter to NYS DEC
December 3, 2009
Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
Energy Projects and Management
Division of Environmental Permits
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway - 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750
Galloo Island Cumulative Impact
Dear Mr. Tomasik
I have previously corresponded with you about my concerns with various issues surrounding the proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm Project (Galloo Island) through my interest as a member of the planning board in the Town of Lyme and as Co- Chair of the recently formed Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent, an organization that includes representation from the various towns included in the Golden Crescent.
There are a number of issues that have not been adequately explored and for these reasons, the public comment period must be extended:
· I recently attended a presentation in Oswego by the NYPA about its intention to ask developers to bid on installing offshore wind turbine facilities in areas of Lake Ontario immediately adjacent to Galloo Island. This changes everything. It will be essential to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed Galloo Island Project with the offshore WTG fields proposed by NYPA and also the nearby and essentially contiguous onshore developments currently proposed in the towns of Cape Vincent, Lyme, Clayton, Orleans, and Hammond.
· These projects, if they go forward, will have a profound and enormous effect on everyone who calls the eastern end of Lake Ontario home. This area has been referred to historically as the Golden Crescent because of the beauty and uniqueness of the area
· Because of New York’s home rule system, the enormity of the combined effects of these proposed projects has heretofore not been fully appreciated by the communities that will be impacted. The potential implications have only been recognized very late in the approval process. Only recently has there been any community reaction and only recently have the citizens of these communities begun to push back
· There are many, many unanswered questions about the effects of these multiple proposed projects. Some of our concerns are related to the potential destruction of the delicate ecosystem of Lake Ontario, Galloo Island, the nearby islands, the Lakeshore and the rivers and streams flowing into the Lake.
· There is concern about the destruction of the view-shed, the recreational use of the Lake, its islands and beaches, including the many State Parklands that will be adversely affected
· The area's fisheries will be negatively impacted.
· There will be a serious devaluation of lake front property and the seasonal based businesses such as cottages, campsites and marinas that are so significant to the local economy. This will also reduce the assessed values of the regions most valuable properties causing a painful realignment of tax revenue for the towns.
· Many of us have only recently learned that portions of Galloo Island are included in the DEC open space plans and that the DEC had attempted only a few years ago to acquire and preserve Galloo Island because of its habitat significance for a wide variety of living creatures. Other near by islands and Lakeshore areas are also included in the open space plan for similar ecological reasons.
As I and others in the area have learned more about this developing situation, we are appalled at the prospect of turning eastern Lake Ontario and Galloo Island, as well as many of our towns into an industrial complex for wind generation. Regardless of any so called mitigating actions, the combined effect of these proposed projects, on top of the already accomplished destruction on Wolfe Island, will seriously and negatively impact our local economy as well as the ecology and natural beauty of Eastern Lake Ontario and Galloo Island.
Proposals bringing cumulative change of this magnitude need to be considered very carefully in their entirety before any decisions are made to proceed with any of the individual projects. Please extend and appropriately augment your review. The residents of the area call upon the DEC to conduct a proper review of the cumulative effects of these proposed actions.
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
Co-Chair, The Coalition to Preserve 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
Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
Energy Projects and Management
Division of Environmental Permits
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway - 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750
Galloo Island Cumulative Impact
Dear Mr. Tomasik
I have previously corresponded with you about my concerns with various issues surrounding the proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm Project (Galloo Island) through my interest as a member of the planning board in the Town of Lyme and as Co- Chair of the recently formed Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent, an organization that includes representation from the various towns included in the Golden Crescent.
There are a number of issues that have not been adequately explored and for these reasons, the public comment period must be extended:
· I recently attended a presentation in Oswego by the NYPA about its intention to ask developers to bid on installing offshore wind turbine facilities in areas of Lake Ontario immediately adjacent to Galloo Island. This changes everything. It will be essential to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed Galloo Island Project with the offshore WTG fields proposed by NYPA and also the nearby and essentially contiguous onshore developments currently proposed in the towns of Cape Vincent, Lyme, Clayton, Orleans, and Hammond.
· These projects, if they go forward, will have a profound and enormous effect on everyone who calls the eastern end of Lake Ontario home. This area has been referred to historically as the Golden Crescent because of the beauty and uniqueness of the area
· Because of New York’s home rule system, the enormity of the combined effects of these proposed projects has heretofore not been fully appreciated by the communities that will be impacted. The potential implications have only been recognized very late in the approval process. Only recently has there been any community reaction and only recently have the citizens of these communities begun to push back
· There are many, many unanswered questions about the effects of these multiple proposed projects. Some of our concerns are related to the potential destruction of the delicate ecosystem of Lake Ontario, Galloo Island, the nearby islands, the Lakeshore and the rivers and streams flowing into the Lake.
· There is concern about the destruction of the view-shed, the recreational use of the Lake, its islands and beaches, including the many State Parklands that will be adversely affected
· The area's fisheries will be negatively impacted.
· There will be a serious devaluation of lake front property and the seasonal based businesses such as cottages, campsites and marinas that are so significant to the local economy. This will also reduce the assessed values of the regions most valuable properties causing a painful realignment of tax revenue for the towns.
· Many of us have only recently learned that portions of Galloo Island are included in the DEC open space plans and that the DEC had attempted only a few years ago to acquire and preserve Galloo Island because of its habitat significance for a wide variety of living creatures. Other near by islands and Lakeshore areas are also included in the open space plan for similar ecological reasons.
As I and others in the area have learned more about this developing situation, we are appalled at the prospect of turning eastern Lake Ontario and Galloo Island, as well as many of our towns into an industrial complex for wind generation. Regardless of any so called mitigating actions, the combined effect of these proposed projects, on top of the already accomplished destruction on Wolfe Island, will seriously and negatively impact our local economy as well as the ecology and natural beauty of Eastern Lake Ontario and Galloo Island.
Proposals bringing cumulative change of this magnitude need to be considered very carefully in their entirety before any decisions are made to proceed with any of the individual projects. Please extend and appropriately augment your review. The residents of the area call upon the DEC to conduct a proper review of the cumulative effects of these proposed actions.
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
Co-Chair, The Coalition to Preserve 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
Green Power investment companies and the State Pension Fund scandals
RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS is financing the Prattsburgh [NY] Wind Project and the Italy [NY] Wind Project. Apparently RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS is involved in some shady investment dealings in the State Pension system of NY.
"...New York's scandal and a related inquiry in California have also touched two private equity firms in which Oregon has invested, RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS and MARKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS. The former was named in the SEC's New York indictment. The latter has been mentioned in some of the more salacious allegations in New York, and its chairman was asked for financial records by the SEC in connection with an inquiry at the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions. A Markstone spokesman stressed that the firm had not been mentioned in any criminal indictment. ..."
Read Link
MARKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS is heavily involved in 'green economic development' [see article further below].
Today 03 December 2009, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced a guilty plea by the founder of Markstone Capital Partners, L.P. (the “Markstone Fund”) for crooked investments influence dealing with the Pension Fund of the State of New York.
Read Link
see page 1 of this document which lists Scott Gluck of MARKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS as a member of the select working group in the "Economic Development of the Green Sector" Policy Brief of June 2006
Read Link
see page 20 of this document which lists Scott Gluck of MARKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS as a "Participant" in the "Economic Development of the Green Sector" Policy Brief of June 2006
Read Link
"...New York's scandal and a related inquiry in California have also touched two private equity firms in which Oregon has invested, RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS and MARKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS. The former was named in the SEC's New York indictment. The latter has been mentioned in some of the more salacious allegations in New York, and its chairman was asked for financial records by the SEC in connection with an inquiry at the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions. A Markstone spokesman stressed that the firm had not been mentioned in any criminal indictment. ..."
Read Link
MARKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS is heavily involved in 'green economic development' [see article further below].
Today 03 December 2009, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced a guilty plea by the founder of Markstone Capital Partners, L.P. (the “Markstone Fund”) for crooked investments influence dealing with the Pension Fund of the State of New York.
Read Link
see page 1 of this document which lists Scott Gluck of MARKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS as a member of the select working group in the "Economic Development of the Green Sector" Policy Brief of June 2006
Read Link
see page 20 of this document which lists Scott Gluck of MARKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS as a "Participant" in the "Economic Development of the Green Sector" Policy Brief of June 2006
Read Link
New York?! A utility there wants to be the first with wind turbines in the Great Lakes
The New York Power Authority is seeking proposals to develop offshore wind projects in the New York waters of Lakes Erie and Ontario.
"Not only will this represent the first initiative in the Great Lakes, it will be the first wind power development of any kind in a fresh water body in the nation," Authority President and Chief Executive Officer Richard M. Kessel said in an announcement.
New York's governor has a goal of meeting 30 percent of the state's electricity needs from renewable sources by 2015.
Michigan has a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent by 2015.
Michigan is still the Great Lakes State, right?
"Not only will this represent the first initiative in the Great Lakes, it will be the first wind power development of any kind in a fresh water body in the nation," Authority President and Chief Executive Officer Richard M. Kessel said in an announcement.
New York's governor has a goal of meeting 30 percent of the state's electricity needs from renewable sources by 2015.
Michigan has a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent by 2015.
Michigan is still the Great Lakes State, right?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
2009 Natural Gas Electric Generating Project - Glenn Schleede
I'd suggest viewing Iberdrola's California natural gas - wind generation project as a rational "tax play" for Iberdrola and a fairly clever way to get political backing for building a gas-fired plant.
By building "wind farms" in the US, Iberdrola is racking up huge amounts of tax breaks of two kinds:
a. Production tax credits from "wind farms" that are NOT covered by the new direct payments (authorized by the stimulus bill).
b. Five-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation (deductions from taxable income over 6 tax years (20% 1st year, 32% 2nd year, etc.) Depending on when facility is built, there is a 50% first year "bonus" deduction (total of 60% in 1st year, 16% in 2nd year, etc.).
For these tax benefits to have value, Iberdrola must have taxable income. Otherwise, the tax credits and depreciation deductions would be of no value. (That's why some "wind farm" developers hook up with other companies that DO have taxable income.)
Iberdrola bought Energy East's gas and electric distribution companies in New York and New England about a year ago. Those companies will throw off taxable income.
So will the new gas-fired plant in California -- and other income producing stuff that Iberdrola buys or builds.
Our clever political leaders have found a way to maximize the outflow of wealth (i.e., untaxed profits) from the US to other countries -- and they wonder why the US is in debt and short of jobs.*
Incidentally, once the California "wind farm" and gas-fired plant are built, the gas-fired plant may actually "back down" reduce its electrical output (and fuel use) when the "wind farm" is producing electricity.
As many have observed, gas-fired turbine-generator plants often serve in a "back-up" or "balancing" role for "wind farms" because they can be started up or ramped up and down quite quickly to keep an electricity grid in balance. (Hydro also works well in the balancing role.)
Please don't interpret these comments as saying that building "wind farms" is in the US national and public interest. No, in this case it is in the interest of Iberdrola and its shareholders.
Glenn Schleede
*This FACT didn't slow down NY political leaders (Governor, Sen. Schumer) from their push on the NY PSC to approve the sale of Energy East's distribution companies to Iberdrola.
By building "wind farms" in the US, Iberdrola is racking up huge amounts of tax breaks of two kinds:
a. Production tax credits from "wind farms" that are NOT covered by the new direct payments (authorized by the stimulus bill).
b. Five-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation (deductions from taxable income over 6 tax years (20% 1st year, 32% 2nd year, etc.) Depending on when facility is built, there is a 50% first year "bonus" deduction (total of 60% in 1st year, 16% in 2nd year, etc.).
For these tax benefits to have value, Iberdrola must have taxable income. Otherwise, the tax credits and depreciation deductions would be of no value. (That's why some "wind farm" developers hook up with other companies that DO have taxable income.)
Iberdrola bought Energy East's gas and electric distribution companies in New York and New England about a year ago. Those companies will throw off taxable income.
So will the new gas-fired plant in California -- and other income producing stuff that Iberdrola buys or builds.
Our clever political leaders have found a way to maximize the outflow of wealth (i.e., untaxed profits) from the US to other countries -- and they wonder why the US is in debt and short of jobs.*
Incidentally, once the California "wind farm" and gas-fired plant are built, the gas-fired plant may actually "back down" reduce its electrical output (and fuel use) when the "wind farm" is producing electricity.
As many have observed, gas-fired turbine-generator plants often serve in a "back-up" or "balancing" role for "wind farms" because they can be started up or ramped up and down quite quickly to keep an electricity grid in balance. (Hydro also works well in the balancing role.)
Please don't interpret these comments as saying that building "wind farms" is in the US national and public interest. No, in this case it is in the interest of Iberdrola and its shareholders.
Glenn Schleede
*This FACT didn't slow down NY political leaders (Governor, Sen. Schumer) from their push on the NY PSC to approve the sale of Energy East's distribution companies to Iberdrola.
Lisa Linowes reply to Hedonic analysis of the impact of wind power projects on residential property values in the United States
First, I wish to express our thanks to you for your efforts in investigating the potential impacts of utility-scale wind power projects on residential property values. This is an important topic that demands careful study and follow-up review. With public policy focused on the rapid deployment of renewable energy facilities, wind energy in particular, your research provides important insight into how difficult it is to remain objective and unbiased in assessing such impacts.
I represent Industrial Wind Action Group, a national organization focused on raising awareness of the negative impacts of utility-scale wind if sited improperly. In this capacity, our organization closely monitors wind energy proposals, development, and post-construction performance and attendant impacts. We are very pleased to have this opportunity to submit our comments on your research.
We read your report carefully paying particular attention to the methodology employed to arrive at your conclusions. Our comments are outlined below.
1. Regression analysis is not in accordance with the International Association of Assessing Officers' (IAAO) established methods.
We are concerned at the outset that the analysis employed is not in accordance with the International Association of Assessing Officers' (IAAO) established methods for measuring the accuracy and reliability of regression models [1] for the purposes of estimating real estate values and certifying those models. We are unaware of any other recognized certification schemes.
The study appears to make no distinction between regression as a recognized tool used by statisticians to estimate a relationship between dependent and independent variables and that of hedonic analysis which is an interpretive technique used to evaluate the results of a regression.
2. No clear evidence the data used was checked for accuracy.
The report states it included "valid sales" in the data set, however we can find no reference to what the authors consider a valid sale. While we expect the data set to include only sales which are arms-length, we cannot determine from the report whether the local officials who assisted in gathering the data included or excluded the below categories of properties. [2] In many cases, sales that would fall into the below categories are difficult to ferret out and may require investigation beyond looking at available real estate transfer records.
a) Short sales where buyers cooperated with lenders to sell a property;
b) Foreclosure sales or Sheriff sales where bidders may be denied access to the inside of a property to evaluate possible deficiencies. Bidders may also risk buying second and third mortgages;
c) Real estate owned or lender sales where the lender has already taken possession of the property and is now the owner. These sales may also include 'deed in lieu of foreclosure' transactions;
d) Fannie Mae, VA, and Federal Housing Administration sales which are marketed in the MLS along with normal sales;
e) Flipping of properties involving purchase and quick sale which can artificially drive up the values of homes in an area;
f) Other auction sales.
The impact of just a handful of invalid sales can skew large data sets as was found in the case study in the Longmont area of Colorado. [3] In that situation, just fifteen "dirty sales" adversely and significantly affected the mass appraisal results for approximately 26,000 residential properties.
3. No information in the study confirms whether the model was tested or calibrated using actual sales data.
According to IAAO, when a model is specified an iterative process of calibrating the model using data sets is necessary to test and fine tune the model's coefficients. In regression, there is no means otherwise of knowing whether one regression is better than another, except by measuring how well the model estimates sales prices. Thousands of possible real estate regression models can apply to any given situation. If the model had been calibrated, we recommend the authors explain in the report the process followed.
4. Model is not peer-reviewed. Data withheld from independent reviewers.
While the authors have suggested this study will be peer-reviewed they have refused to release any of the data set to reviewers. [4] Any market analysis must be prepared with an expectation that the results can be defended and/or the process duplicated by independent reviewers. Absent access to the data, third party reviewers cannot test the methodology. As long as the data set is withheld from the public we believe it would be inappropriate to characterize this study as being 'peer-reviewed'.
5. The data set is not homogeneous; data is drawn from across the country.
A basic assumption of a regression is that the database is reasonably homogeneous. Homogeneous means that the housing is similar in market characteristics such as approximate size, age, quality, available amenities (schools, shopping, security, access to work and recreation, etc) and are examined in a similar economic setting (employment, availability and cost of financing, market growth or decline and the like), among other factors. Homogeneity of the marketplace is fundamental to regression analysis and it is well documented regression techniques are difficult to utilize on data sets that vary substantially due to differing characteristics. In this study, data was included from nine different states across the United States making similarities and differences impossible to properly assess.
The data set selected by the authors includes 4,895 "valid sales" of which a subset of property characteristics is identified and then averaged to produce a composite home of 47 years in age with 1,628 square feet of finished living area above ground, 1.75 bathrooms situated on 1.09 acres and having an average condition. The data shows home sale prices ranging from as low as $10,492 to as high as $647,500.
The variation in house price alone indicates a failure to meet the requirement of homogeniality. But the problem is more pervasive. If we look at the 'age' characteristic in Table 4 of the report, average age of the home at the time of the sale was 47 years with a standard deviation of 36. In other words, within one standard deviation, 68.2% of the homes in the data set range in age from 11 years to 83 years. We have no way of knowing how age is influencing sale prices within the study's data set. A similar concern is raised with regard to the square footage of the home, number of baths, etc.
In addition, since the data set is drawn from diverse locations across the country, we cannot be certain that the coefficients used in the hedonic analysis are appropriate for each location. For example, fireplaces or finished basements in Texas may be perceived as less valuable than central air conditioning and the reverse may be true for the same characteristics found in homes in upstate New York.
6. The data set omits property characteristics.
A host of property characteristics are omitted making it impossible to segment out the influence of these characteristics despite their omission. We cannot understand why the study looked at exterior finish but omitted the number of bedrooms or the availability of a garage.
The Hedonic analysis method argues that the coefficients of the regression may be quantitatively interpreted as the marginal contribution of specific independent variables to the sale price. If a coefficient is accurate it should reflect only the contribution of the specific variable to the sale price. However, when variables are omitted from the model, such as number of bedrooms, the effect may be to inflate the size of the other coefficients by the omitted variable's contribution. [5] There is no way to know the effect of not including number of bedrooms in the model unless the authors rerun the analysis with that variable included.
The authors argue that despite some omitted variables, the restricted model performs well producing an adjusted R2 of 0.78 and that adding additional variables did not significantly improve the model's performance. The IAAO would disagree with the authors' conclusion. The IAAO standard for regression models states the estimate-to-sale price "should be within 5 percent of the overall estimate-to-sale ratio for all strata; and the overall estimate-to-sale level should be within 10 percent of the desired level of 100 percent. An R2 of 0.78 is not good enough according to the IAAO.
7. Study neglects to explain the risks of employing Hedonic analysis.
Causal conclusions drawn about a data set when utilizing hedonic analysis are often times unsupportable. Neter, Kutner et.al. [6] state:
"The existence of a statistical relation between the response variable Y and the explanatory or predictor variable X does not imply in any way that Y depends causally on X. No matter how strong is the statistical relation between X and Y, no cause-and effect pattern is necessarily implied by the regression model. ... Regression analysis by itself provides no information about causal patterns and must be supplemented by additional analyses to obtain insight about causal relations. ... A major limitation of observational data is that they often do not provide adequate information about cause-and effect relationships."
This is just one of several flaws identified in the literature, yet the authors of this study neglect to describe any of the pitfalls of hedonic analysis. While the study appears to advocate for hedonic analysis we would expect the authors to make at least some attempt to defend their reliance on this method in light of literature which is highly critical, in fact dismissive, of the methodology used.
8. Background review of other studies.
All of the studies mentioned in Section 2 under 'Previous Research' have limitations, and in some cases fatal flaws which render their results misleading and perhaps invalid. Study author Ben Hoen captured some of these issues in his 2006 report on the Fenner wind project. We recommend that this study, at a minimum, detail what is already known about the existing studies to assist those reviewing the literature in assessing prior works. We see no point in perpetuating the results of studies that are known to be flawed.
9. Closing Comments
We have other areas of concern with the current study but the main issues relate to the basic analysis employed.
Since the study attempts to use a recognized method of appraising properties (regression), we believe the authors would have benefited by having a certified appraiser and member of IAAO on their team at the outset. While appraisers may be reviewing this draft report, the study is largely complete and it's likely too late to make the corrections necessary to correct for the problems.
We believe the flaws we found in the methodology render the results of this study meaningless. More to the point, should an expert witness rely on this study to argue property values are not diminished by proximity to industrial scale turbines, it is likely a qualified appraiser with experience in regression techniques and the problems of hedonic analysis will counter such assertions.
Thank you very much for permitting us to review and submit comments on this important study. I hope you find our comments useful and look forward to being kept updated on your continued progress.
Lisa Linowes
Industrial Wind Action www.windaction.org
__________________________________
[1] International Association of Assessing Officers. Sep 2003. Standard on Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) http://www.iaao.org/uploads/AVM_STANDARD.pdf
[2] Liflander, John. Jun 2000. Foreclosure - The Looming Threat to Property Values. Fair & Equitable.
[3] Cholvin, Brooke and Simpson, Danielle. Aug. 2009. Assessing Mortgage Fraud. Fair & Equitable.
[4] E-mail correspondence between Ben Hoen and Lisa Linowes, Sep 8, 2009.
[5] Wilson, Albert R. Summer 2006. Real Property Damages and Rubber Rulers. Real Estate Issues.
[6] John Neter, Michael Kutner, Christopher J. Nachtsheim, William Wasserman, Applied Linear Regression Models, Third Edition (Chicago: Irwin, 1996).
I represent Industrial Wind Action Group, a national organization focused on raising awareness of the negative impacts of utility-scale wind if sited improperly. In this capacity, our organization closely monitors wind energy proposals, development, and post-construction performance and attendant impacts. We are very pleased to have this opportunity to submit our comments on your research.
We read your report carefully paying particular attention to the methodology employed to arrive at your conclusions. Our comments are outlined below.
1. Regression analysis is not in accordance with the International Association of Assessing Officers' (IAAO) established methods.
We are concerned at the outset that the analysis employed is not in accordance with the International Association of Assessing Officers' (IAAO) established methods for measuring the accuracy and reliability of regression models [1] for the purposes of estimating real estate values and certifying those models. We are unaware of any other recognized certification schemes.
The study appears to make no distinction between regression as a recognized tool used by statisticians to estimate a relationship between dependent and independent variables and that of hedonic analysis which is an interpretive technique used to evaluate the results of a regression.
2. No clear evidence the data used was checked for accuracy.
The report states it included "valid sales" in the data set, however we can find no reference to what the authors consider a valid sale. While we expect the data set to include only sales which are arms-length, we cannot determine from the report whether the local officials who assisted in gathering the data included or excluded the below categories of properties. [2] In many cases, sales that would fall into the below categories are difficult to ferret out and may require investigation beyond looking at available real estate transfer records.
a) Short sales where buyers cooperated with lenders to sell a property;
b) Foreclosure sales or Sheriff sales where bidders may be denied access to the inside of a property to evaluate possible deficiencies. Bidders may also risk buying second and third mortgages;
c) Real estate owned or lender sales where the lender has already taken possession of the property and is now the owner. These sales may also include 'deed in lieu of foreclosure' transactions;
d) Fannie Mae, VA, and Federal Housing Administration sales which are marketed in the MLS along with normal sales;
e) Flipping of properties involving purchase and quick sale which can artificially drive up the values of homes in an area;
f) Other auction sales.
The impact of just a handful of invalid sales can skew large data sets as was found in the case study in the Longmont area of Colorado. [3] In that situation, just fifteen "dirty sales" adversely and significantly affected the mass appraisal results for approximately 26,000 residential properties.
3. No information in the study confirms whether the model was tested or calibrated using actual sales data.
According to IAAO, when a model is specified an iterative process of calibrating the model using data sets is necessary to test and fine tune the model's coefficients. In regression, there is no means otherwise of knowing whether one regression is better than another, except by measuring how well the model estimates sales prices. Thousands of possible real estate regression models can apply to any given situation. If the model had been calibrated, we recommend the authors explain in the report the process followed.
4. Model is not peer-reviewed. Data withheld from independent reviewers.
While the authors have suggested this study will be peer-reviewed they have refused to release any of the data set to reviewers. [4] Any market analysis must be prepared with an expectation that the results can be defended and/or the process duplicated by independent reviewers. Absent access to the data, third party reviewers cannot test the methodology. As long as the data set is withheld from the public we believe it would be inappropriate to characterize this study as being 'peer-reviewed'.
5. The data set is not homogeneous; data is drawn from across the country.
A basic assumption of a regression is that the database is reasonably homogeneous. Homogeneous means that the housing is similar in market characteristics such as approximate size, age, quality, available amenities (schools, shopping, security, access to work and recreation, etc) and are examined in a similar economic setting (employment, availability and cost of financing, market growth or decline and the like), among other factors. Homogeneity of the marketplace is fundamental to regression analysis and it is well documented regression techniques are difficult to utilize on data sets that vary substantially due to differing characteristics. In this study, data was included from nine different states across the United States making similarities and differences impossible to properly assess.
The data set selected by the authors includes 4,895 "valid sales" of which a subset of property characteristics is identified and then averaged to produce a composite home of 47 years in age with 1,628 square feet of finished living area above ground, 1.75 bathrooms situated on 1.09 acres and having an average condition. The data shows home sale prices ranging from as low as $10,492 to as high as $647,500.
The variation in house price alone indicates a failure to meet the requirement of homogeniality. But the problem is more pervasive. If we look at the 'age' characteristic in Table 4 of the report, average age of the home at the time of the sale was 47 years with a standard deviation of 36. In other words, within one standard deviation, 68.2% of the homes in the data set range in age from 11 years to 83 years. We have no way of knowing how age is influencing sale prices within the study's data set. A similar concern is raised with regard to the square footage of the home, number of baths, etc.
In addition, since the data set is drawn from diverse locations across the country, we cannot be certain that the coefficients used in the hedonic analysis are appropriate for each location. For example, fireplaces or finished basements in Texas may be perceived as less valuable than central air conditioning and the reverse may be true for the same characteristics found in homes in upstate New York.
6. The data set omits property characteristics.
A host of property characteristics are omitted making it impossible to segment out the influence of these characteristics despite their omission. We cannot understand why the study looked at exterior finish but omitted the number of bedrooms or the availability of a garage.
The Hedonic analysis method argues that the coefficients of the regression may be quantitatively interpreted as the marginal contribution of specific independent variables to the sale price. If a coefficient is accurate it should reflect only the contribution of the specific variable to the sale price. However, when variables are omitted from the model, such as number of bedrooms, the effect may be to inflate the size of the other coefficients by the omitted variable's contribution. [5] There is no way to know the effect of not including number of bedrooms in the model unless the authors rerun the analysis with that variable included.
The authors argue that despite some omitted variables, the restricted model performs well producing an adjusted R2 of 0.78 and that adding additional variables did not significantly improve the model's performance. The IAAO would disagree with the authors' conclusion. The IAAO standard for regression models states the estimate-to-sale price "should be within 5 percent of the overall estimate-to-sale ratio for all strata; and the overall estimate-to-sale level should be within 10 percent of the desired level of 100 percent. An R2 of 0.78 is not good enough according to the IAAO.
7. Study neglects to explain the risks of employing Hedonic analysis.
Causal conclusions drawn about a data set when utilizing hedonic analysis are often times unsupportable. Neter, Kutner et.al. [6] state:
"The existence of a statistical relation between the response variable Y and the explanatory or predictor variable X does not imply in any way that Y depends causally on X. No matter how strong is the statistical relation between X and Y, no cause-and effect pattern is necessarily implied by the regression model. ... Regression analysis by itself provides no information about causal patterns and must be supplemented by additional analyses to obtain insight about causal relations. ... A major limitation of observational data is that they often do not provide adequate information about cause-and effect relationships."
This is just one of several flaws identified in the literature, yet the authors of this study neglect to describe any of the pitfalls of hedonic analysis. While the study appears to advocate for hedonic analysis we would expect the authors to make at least some attempt to defend their reliance on this method in light of literature which is highly critical, in fact dismissive, of the methodology used.
8. Background review of other studies.
All of the studies mentioned in Section 2 under 'Previous Research' have limitations, and in some cases fatal flaws which render their results misleading and perhaps invalid. Study author Ben Hoen captured some of these issues in his 2006 report on the Fenner wind project. We recommend that this study, at a minimum, detail what is already known about the existing studies to assist those reviewing the literature in assessing prior works. We see no point in perpetuating the results of studies that are known to be flawed.
9. Closing Comments
We have other areas of concern with the current study but the main issues relate to the basic analysis employed.
Since the study attempts to use a recognized method of appraising properties (regression), we believe the authors would have benefited by having a certified appraiser and member of IAAO on their team at the outset. While appraisers may be reviewing this draft report, the study is largely complete and it's likely too late to make the corrections necessary to correct for the problems.
We believe the flaws we found in the methodology render the results of this study meaningless. More to the point, should an expert witness rely on this study to argue property values are not diminished by proximity to industrial scale turbines, it is likely a qualified appraiser with experience in regression techniques and the problems of hedonic analysis will counter such assertions.
Thank you very much for permitting us to review and submit comments on this important study. I hope you find our comments useful and look forward to being kept updated on your continued progress.
Lisa Linowes
Industrial Wind Action www.windaction.org
__________________________________
[1] International Association of Assessing Officers. Sep 2003. Standard on Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) http://www.iaao.org/uploads/AVM_STANDARD.pdf
[2] Liflander, John. Jun 2000. Foreclosure - The Looming Threat to Property Values. Fair & Equitable.
[3] Cholvin, Brooke and Simpson, Danielle. Aug. 2009. Assessing Mortgage Fraud. Fair & Equitable.
[4] E-mail correspondence between Ben Hoen and Lisa Linowes, Sep 8, 2009.
[5] Wilson, Albert R. Summer 2006. Real Property Damages and Rubber Rulers. Real Estate Issues.
[6] John Neter, Michael Kutner, Christopher J. Nachtsheim, William Wasserman, Applied Linear Regression Models, Third Edition (Chicago: Irwin, 1996).
Engineer says complaints about noise from wind turbines is to be expected
COLUMBUS — David Hessler, an acoustical engineer for Hessler Associates Inc., testified Tuesday, Dec. 1, that he expects some complaints from residents if wind turbines are installed in Champaign County as part of the Buckeye Wind Project.
Hessler testified before the Ohio Power Siting Board, which is in its third week of hearings over a proposal to build 70 electricity-generating wind turbines in Champaign County.
However, Hessler said he worked with Everpower, the New York based company that proposed the project, to minimize the potential noise impact of the turbines on residents. He said he expected only a small percentage of complaints, while most residents should not be affected at all.
Hessler also questioned a recommendation provided by another sound expert who testified earlier that turbines should be sited at least 1.25 miles from a residence to eliminate sound complaints. If that were the case, he argued, it would be almost impossible to site any turbines in the proposed project.
“I think the reality of the situation is that it’s very difficult to avoid putting a wind project near houses in this country,” Hessler said.
Hearings are expected to wrap up today, Dec. 2. A decision by the Power Siting Board is not expected for several weeks.
The project has been controversial in the county, and if approved, it would be the first large-scale wind project site in Ohio.
While many residents have sent letters of support for the project to the OPSB, many other also oppose the turbines. A group of those opponents, known as the Buckeye Wind Project, have scheduled a rally for Saturday, Dec. 5, from noon to 2 p.m. at Monument Square in downtown Urbana.
After the rally, an informational meeting will take place on Miami Street across from the Depot Coffee House. Janet Dye, who helped organize the rally, said some residents are concerned with issues such as possible effects of the turbines at Grimes Field. She also said the rally is not affiliated with Union Neighbors United, a group that has also opposed the project.
“I think most of us that are planning this are just hoping to make it informational,” Dye said.
Hessler testified before the Ohio Power Siting Board, which is in its third week of hearings over a proposal to build 70 electricity-generating wind turbines in Champaign County.
However, Hessler said he worked with Everpower, the New York based company that proposed the project, to minimize the potential noise impact of the turbines on residents. He said he expected only a small percentage of complaints, while most residents should not be affected at all.
Hessler also questioned a recommendation provided by another sound expert who testified earlier that turbines should be sited at least 1.25 miles from a residence to eliminate sound complaints. If that were the case, he argued, it would be almost impossible to site any turbines in the proposed project.
“I think the reality of the situation is that it’s very difficult to avoid putting a wind project near houses in this country,” Hessler said.
Hearings are expected to wrap up today, Dec. 2. A decision by the Power Siting Board is not expected for several weeks.
The project has been controversial in the county, and if approved, it would be the first large-scale wind project site in Ohio.
While many residents have sent letters of support for the project to the OPSB, many other also oppose the turbines. A group of those opponents, known as the Buckeye Wind Project, have scheduled a rally for Saturday, Dec. 5, from noon to 2 p.m. at Monument Square in downtown Urbana.
After the rally, an informational meeting will take place on Miami Street across from the Depot Coffee House. Janet Dye, who helped organize the rally, said some residents are concerned with issues such as possible effects of the turbines at Grimes Field. She also said the rally is not affiliated with Union Neighbors United, a group that has also opposed the project.
“I think most of us that are planning this are just hoping to make it informational,” Dye said.
Huffing and puffing over wind power by Jeremy Moule
Did the federal government, as some have said, give millions of dollars in stimulus funds to a non-producing wind farm in the Southern Tier town of Cohocton? Not exactly.
Cohocton Wind is a 50-turbine project with a total 125-megawatt generation capacity - the potential to power 50,000 homes, say officials with First Wind, Cohocton Wind's parent company. In September, the project was awarded $74.6 million in federal stimulus funds from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury - part of a large block of funding meant to encourage renewable energy development nationwide.
That grant's come under protest, however, by Congress member Eric Massa, who wrote the president to ask that the funding be revoked.
"We should not be rewarding anything, let alone cash grants, to companies like this that have abused the public trust and created such a toxic atmosphere in our region on the topic of wind power," Massa wrote.
The project's been plagued by controversy, including lawsuits and an attorney general's office investigation into First Wind and other wind power development companies. Since the project came online in January, it's been dogged by questions about what it's actually producing electricity-wise - lately that's been one of the most persistent issues. Massa made the claim in his letter, which he sent in September, that the project wasn't producing any power, information he said he received from the organization that operates New York's power grid.
"Nobody knows what they produce or what they don't produce," Massa said in an interview last week. "They demand the privacy of a private corporation and the subsidies of a public utility."
But John Lamontagne, a First Wind spokesperson, says the turbines produced 133,370 megawatt hours of electricity from when they came online in January, to the end of September. That's enough energy to power 1,200 homes with average monthly electricity consumption.
The wind farm hasn't produced the amount of energy the company would like, but it's had some maintenance issues involving gears and blades, Lamontagne says. The same issues plagued the company's Steel Winds development in Lackawanna, near Buffalo.
"The project hasn't been at 100 percent," he says.
The New York Independent Systems Operator, the body that operates the state's power grid, issues a yearly report detailing the amount of electricity produced by the state's individual power plants. Cohocton Wind's status as a producer was not included in this year's report, because the farm only came online in January. It should be included in next year's report, however. Calls to the ISO were not returned by this paper's deadline.
Massa's comments illustrate just one aspect of the ongoing feud between wind farm critics and developers. Critics say that wind companies oversell the turbines' performance and play down potential drawbacks such as noise, visual impact, and an intermittent electric supply. Wind developers say the turbines are vital clean energy generators that will help the US reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and that they serve as an economic benefit to the communities they're in.
The federal stimulus money serves as an incentive to develop wind farms, which is exactly what the government intended. But these recent grants -about $475 million went out to renewable energy projects across the country - replaced tax credits. It's a swap of sorts - the companies get upfront funding and agree to forgo the tax credits in future years. The idea was to create upfront funding for companies that, thanks to the economy, were having trouble getting financing, say statements from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury.
The stimulus money came with no restrictions on how it can be used - whether it's to finish an uncompleted project, to add on to an existing project, or to pay back investors. In Cohocton Wind's case the project was already finished by January of this year.
Massa said he was told initially that First Wind was going to use the money for repairs to its wind generators, and that the parts would come from overseas - and that would violate the Buy American clause of the stimulus act, he said.� But First Wind's Lamontagne says the money might be reinvested in the development of other renewable projects.
"We have no clue where the money's going," Massa said. "We have no way of knowing. They're under no obligation to tell anyone where the taxpayer money is going."
Massa said that his plea to revoke Cohocton Wind's stimulus funding has gone unheeded. The check's been cut, he said, and while he'd like to see the action reversed, he doesn't expect that will happen.
And he doesn't have much faith in the wind companies operating in the Southern Tier: not just First Wind, but Ecogen, and others as well.
First Wind, formerly known as UPC, was one of a handful of wind power companies operating in New York that was investigated by the state attorney general. The office wanted to probe allegations that wind company officials improperly sought land-use agreements, and whether public officials were given improper benefits to influence official actions.
The investigation resulted in a code of conduct, developed by the AG and agreed to by the wind companies. First Wind was one of the initial adopters. The code prohibited wind companies from providing gifts or benefits to municipal officials or their families, and required lease agreement disclosures.
Massa, however, said that some of these companies are already violating the spirit, if not the letter of the code. Ecogen, for example, is suing the Towns of Prattsburgh and Italy, claiming that both town boards have prevented the company from moving forward with proposed wind power projects.
"They have millions and millions of dollars to spend on attorneys and they know these small towns don't have any money at all," Massa said. "What they do is they just go in and overrun the ability of the community to defend itself."
Cohocton Wind is a 50-turbine project with a total 125-megawatt generation capacity - the potential to power 50,000 homes, say officials with First Wind, Cohocton Wind's parent company. In September, the project was awarded $74.6 million in federal stimulus funds from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury - part of a large block of funding meant to encourage renewable energy development nationwide.
That grant's come under protest, however, by Congress member Eric Massa, who wrote the president to ask that the funding be revoked.
"We should not be rewarding anything, let alone cash grants, to companies like this that have abused the public trust and created such a toxic atmosphere in our region on the topic of wind power," Massa wrote.
The project's been plagued by controversy, including lawsuits and an attorney general's office investigation into First Wind and other wind power development companies. Since the project came online in January, it's been dogged by questions about what it's actually producing electricity-wise - lately that's been one of the most persistent issues. Massa made the claim in his letter, which he sent in September, that the project wasn't producing any power, information he said he received from the organization that operates New York's power grid.
"Nobody knows what they produce or what they don't produce," Massa said in an interview last week. "They demand the privacy of a private corporation and the subsidies of a public utility."
But John Lamontagne, a First Wind spokesperson, says the turbines produced 133,370 megawatt hours of electricity from when they came online in January, to the end of September. That's enough energy to power 1,200 homes with average monthly electricity consumption.
The wind farm hasn't produced the amount of energy the company would like, but it's had some maintenance issues involving gears and blades, Lamontagne says. The same issues plagued the company's Steel Winds development in Lackawanna, near Buffalo.
"The project hasn't been at 100 percent," he says.
The New York Independent Systems Operator, the body that operates the state's power grid, issues a yearly report detailing the amount of electricity produced by the state's individual power plants. Cohocton Wind's status as a producer was not included in this year's report, because the farm only came online in January. It should be included in next year's report, however. Calls to the ISO were not returned by this paper's deadline.
Massa's comments illustrate just one aspect of the ongoing feud between wind farm critics and developers. Critics say that wind companies oversell the turbines' performance and play down potential drawbacks such as noise, visual impact, and an intermittent electric supply. Wind developers say the turbines are vital clean energy generators that will help the US reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and that they serve as an economic benefit to the communities they're in.
The federal stimulus money serves as an incentive to develop wind farms, which is exactly what the government intended. But these recent grants -about $475 million went out to renewable energy projects across the country - replaced tax credits. It's a swap of sorts - the companies get upfront funding and agree to forgo the tax credits in future years. The idea was to create upfront funding for companies that, thanks to the economy, were having trouble getting financing, say statements from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury.
The stimulus money came with no restrictions on how it can be used - whether it's to finish an uncompleted project, to add on to an existing project, or to pay back investors. In Cohocton Wind's case the project was already finished by January of this year.
Massa said he was told initially that First Wind was going to use the money for repairs to its wind generators, and that the parts would come from overseas - and that would violate the Buy American clause of the stimulus act, he said.� But First Wind's Lamontagne says the money might be reinvested in the development of other renewable projects.
"We have no clue where the money's going," Massa said. "We have no way of knowing. They're under no obligation to tell anyone where the taxpayer money is going."
Massa said that his plea to revoke Cohocton Wind's stimulus funding has gone unheeded. The check's been cut, he said, and while he'd like to see the action reversed, he doesn't expect that will happen.
And he doesn't have much faith in the wind companies operating in the Southern Tier: not just First Wind, but Ecogen, and others as well.
First Wind, formerly known as UPC, was one of a handful of wind power companies operating in New York that was investigated by the state attorney general. The office wanted to probe allegations that wind company officials improperly sought land-use agreements, and whether public officials were given improper benefits to influence official actions.
The investigation resulted in a code of conduct, developed by the AG and agreed to by the wind companies. First Wind was one of the initial adopters. The code prohibited wind companies from providing gifts or benefits to municipal officials or their families, and required lease agreement disclosures.
Massa, however, said that some of these companies are already violating the spirit, if not the letter of the code. Ecogen, for example, is suing the Towns of Prattsburgh and Italy, claiming that both town boards have prevented the company from moving forward with proposed wind power projects.
"They have millions and millions of dollars to spend on attorneys and they know these small towns don't have any money at all," Massa said. "What they do is they just go in and overrun the ability of the community to defend itself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)