The Maine Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments from a Lincoln-based residents group next month on why First Wind of Massachusetts should not be allowed to build a $130 million industrial wind site on Rollins Mountain, officials said Tuesday.
The court will hear arguments in Portland at 1:45 p.m. Feb. 10 both for and against the Maine Board of Environmental Protection’s decision to support the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s permit approval of the proposed 60-megawatt facility in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn in April.
The Friends of Lincoln Lakes group, which opposes the development, is expected to argue, among other things, that:
— The board’s determination that the project met applicable licensing criteria with respect to noise, and would minimize the impact on wildlife habitats, is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.
— The state law allowing appeals of board decisions to go directly to the state supreme court is unconstitutional.
The group’s attorney, Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor, said she wasn’t surprised that the board reaffirmed the DEP permit approval.
“In documents we have gotten, the state has really shown that it has been of a mind that any noise from one of these [projects] is merely an annoyance, and I think they are doing a real disservice to the people of this state when they do that,” Williams said.
In her 27-page brief filed with the court on Nov. 30, Williams cited notes from an internal conference call at DEP in March, which she acquired as she prepared the group’s appeal, in which the DEP’s own peer reviewer stated that he “has issues with [the] model being used.”
The DEP issued the project a permit despite the reviewer never reconciling his expressed concerns with his ultimate approval of the project, Williams said.
Low-decibel sounds or vibrations are allegedly the primary cause of “wind turbine syndrome,” or “acoustic radiation,” in which people have claimed to suffer symptoms — including nausea, back problems, mood disorders, seizures and heart attacks — due to their proximity to turbines. Strobe effects caused by rotating blades cutting sunlight also contribute, opponents say.
First Wind attorneys and other project supporters say that claims regarding the syndrome are scientifically unsupported. Low-level sound or vibration standards and many scientific peer reviews are part of DEP regulations and low-level vibrations have been studied since the 1960s. Other health agencies, including the U.S. Cen-ters for Disease Control and Prevention, also find no harm associated with the low-level vibrations.
DEP regulations are adequate for wind site reviews, agency officials have said.
The Rollins Mountain project is a 40-turbine industrial wind site proposed for the Rollins Mountain ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn.
The friends group contends the turbines would lower land values and threaten human and animal health with light flicker and low-decibel sound; disrupt the pastoral nature of Rollins; and typically generate a fraction of their capacity.
First Wind has argued that its project meets or exceeds all state environmental requirements and that wind turbines have no adverse impact on land values. They say the Lincoln Lakes project would create as much as 60 megawatts of pollution-free electricity in peak winds while helping create many jobs in the area.
Under the state’s fast-track law, Williams has said, the friends group’s appeal must go to the Law Court, a requirement she called unconstitutional, as it denies appellants the opportunity to appeal to lesser courts first.
In October, the Maine Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved awarding a 20-year contract to First Wind Holding LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Evergreen Wind Power III LLC, that would make Rollins Mountain the state’s first wind farm to supply electricity to Central Maine Power Co. and Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., state officials said.
The friends group also has another appeal pending in civil court. The group’s second court action protests the Lincoln Board of Appeals’ refusal to hear the group’s appeal of a permit the Lincoln Planning Board issued to the proposed wind farm.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The 'green' lining developers' pockets
Donald Alexander and the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency have decided to continue their unseemly push for the Galloo Island wind project, lest the developer and his Wall Street friends lose an opportunity to grab another $150 million of taxpayer's money.
Not being satisfied to walk off with only $150 million, the developer demands further concessions from Jefferson County taxpayers in a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement negotiated with the JCIDA. The developer hides behind the "green" cloak, pretending it is doing something wonderful for the environment, while it is really all about the "green" they stuff in their pockets.
Developers speak of "clean energy." The power produced by wind turbines is, however, unpredictable and highly variable. The power is proportional to the cube of wind speed and, thereby, wind's natural variability is magnified. In order to accept wind power and its variable and unpredictable nature, the electric utility must have generating capacity that can ramp up or down quickly to accommodate the variability of wind power, while supplying uniform power to the grid.
The only commonly utilized generators that can accommodate wind's inherent variability are simple-cycle gas turbines. These machines are flexible in output, but at the sacrifice of efficiency, being only 35 percent to 40 percent efficient. If the utility did not have to accommodate wind and its variability, it could utilize combined-cycle gas turbines with an efficiency approaching 60 percent.
The combined-cycle gas turbine, without wind turbines, produces the same amount of power as the simple-cycle turbine augmented by wind turbines, at a fuel saving of at least 14 percent. The use of wind turbines, with their highly variable and unpredictable output, actually increases the usage of fuel and resulting emissions from the system.
The increased usage of fuel when wind turbines are added to the system, plus the added investment for two underutilized power plants — wind typically produces about 25 percent of its rated power and the necessary gas turbine backup produces the other 75 percent will raise electrical rates for residential and commercial users.
Increased electrical rates will make it more difficult to attract or retain real businesses providing lasting employment. Another benefit of the more efficient combined-cycle gas turbine generator is that it can be located where the power is needed without the need for additional distribution lines.
We must ask our county legislators to vote against this blatant giveaway to Wall Street at the expense of Jefferson County residents and businesses.
Albert H. Bowers III
Chaumont
Not being satisfied to walk off with only $150 million, the developer demands further concessions from Jefferson County taxpayers in a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement negotiated with the JCIDA. The developer hides behind the "green" cloak, pretending it is doing something wonderful for the environment, while it is really all about the "green" they stuff in their pockets.
Developers speak of "clean energy." The power produced by wind turbines is, however, unpredictable and highly variable. The power is proportional to the cube of wind speed and, thereby, wind's natural variability is magnified. In order to accept wind power and its variable and unpredictable nature, the electric utility must have generating capacity that can ramp up or down quickly to accommodate the variability of wind power, while supplying uniform power to the grid.
The only commonly utilized generators that can accommodate wind's inherent variability are simple-cycle gas turbines. These machines are flexible in output, but at the sacrifice of efficiency, being only 35 percent to 40 percent efficient. If the utility did not have to accommodate wind and its variability, it could utilize combined-cycle gas turbines with an efficiency approaching 60 percent.
The combined-cycle gas turbine, without wind turbines, produces the same amount of power as the simple-cycle turbine augmented by wind turbines, at a fuel saving of at least 14 percent. The use of wind turbines, with their highly variable and unpredictable output, actually increases the usage of fuel and resulting emissions from the system.
The increased usage of fuel when wind turbines are added to the system, plus the added investment for two underutilized power plants — wind typically produces about 25 percent of its rated power and the necessary gas turbine backup produces the other 75 percent will raise electrical rates for residential and commercial users.
Increased electrical rates will make it more difficult to attract or retain real businesses providing lasting employment. Another benefit of the more efficient combined-cycle gas turbine generator is that it can be located where the power is needed without the need for additional distribution lines.
We must ask our county legislators to vote against this blatant giveaway to Wall Street at the expense of Jefferson County residents and businesses.
Albert H. Bowers III
Chaumont
How stimulus saved renewable energy
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- On a mountain top 80 miles northeast of Bangor, Maine, in country where houses and gravel pits are mere pinpricks on a map green with forest, Paul Gaynor is making stimulus work.
Gaynor, chief executive of First Wind, is using $40 million in federal funds to help build a wind farm that will produce enough power for 13,000 homes and has created 200construction jobs.
Without stimulus, First Wind's project -- and most renewable energy projects across the country -- may not have happened.
"To us, it's been essential to get through the nuclear winter of financing ability," Gaynor said, referring to the dark days of early 2009 right after the financial collapse. "The recovery act was the bridge that got us from a broken market to one where projects actually get done."
Because of the way tax incentives worked prior to stimulus, few industries were more dependent on Wall Street profits than renewable energy.
Pre-stimulus, renewable energy developments were funded largely by big banks. As an incentive to expand clean, homegrown power, the government offered generous tax credits.
The credit wasn't limited to just big banks, said Ethan Zindler, head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a firm that tracks renewable energy investments. But the banks had the money and understood the rules, so they were by far the biggest financiers.
But tax credits only work when you're paying taxes. When Wall Street profits dried up and their tax bill fell, almost all funding for new renewable energy froze up.
"The market for financing large-scale power projects collapsed," said Zindler. "Stimulus fixed that."
Stimulus fixed it by changing the tax credit to an outright government grant worth roughly the same amount.
There is no limit to the amount that can be spent under the grant program, although it is set to expire at the end of this year. The government originally estimated it would cost taxpayers $5 billion.
The Energy Department said that from the start of the program in July though September, the last month for which data is available, over $1 billion has been paid to finance 32 projects nationwide.
It's hard to say for sure how many projects stimulus saved or what the renewable energy industry would look like without it, said Zindler.
In 2009, some 9,000 megawatts of renewable energy was built in this country, he said. The vast majority of that was wind power.
That's just slightly less than 2008, although without stimulus he estimated that maybe only half the 2009 projects would have been built.
Numbers from the American Wind Energy Association suggest that even fewer projects could have gotten built.
In years when Congress let a previous tax credit lapse, investments in wind energy fell by 75%.
That wouldn't bode well for President Obama's stated goal of doubling the country's renewable energy capacity by 2012.
And it wouldn't bode well for companies like First Wind, or anyone hoping to get a job in renewable energy.
The company's Maine project is actually an expansion of an existing $160-million facility right across the street that was completed last year.
First Wind took that tax credit and rolled it right over into the current expansion. Even on a frigid day in January, Gaynor said more than a hundred people are busy on the mountain constructing the new facility.
"It's a beehive of activity up there," he said.
Before 2010 is out, First Wind hopes to construct another 4 to 6 projects -- all partially paid for with stimulus money.
Gaynor, chief executive of First Wind, is using $40 million in federal funds to help build a wind farm that will produce enough power for 13,000 homes and has created 200construction jobs.
Without stimulus, First Wind's project -- and most renewable energy projects across the country -- may not have happened.
"To us, it's been essential to get through the nuclear winter of financing ability," Gaynor said, referring to the dark days of early 2009 right after the financial collapse. "The recovery act was the bridge that got us from a broken market to one where projects actually get done."
Because of the way tax incentives worked prior to stimulus, few industries were more dependent on Wall Street profits than renewable energy.
Pre-stimulus, renewable energy developments were funded largely by big banks. As an incentive to expand clean, homegrown power, the government offered generous tax credits.
The credit wasn't limited to just big banks, said Ethan Zindler, head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a firm that tracks renewable energy investments. But the banks had the money and understood the rules, so they were by far the biggest financiers.
But tax credits only work when you're paying taxes. When Wall Street profits dried up and their tax bill fell, almost all funding for new renewable energy froze up.
"The market for financing large-scale power projects collapsed," said Zindler. "Stimulus fixed that."
Stimulus fixed it by changing the tax credit to an outright government grant worth roughly the same amount.
There is no limit to the amount that can be spent under the grant program, although it is set to expire at the end of this year. The government originally estimated it would cost taxpayers $5 billion.
The Energy Department said that from the start of the program in July though September, the last month for which data is available, over $1 billion has been paid to finance 32 projects nationwide.
It's hard to say for sure how many projects stimulus saved or what the renewable energy industry would look like without it, said Zindler.
In 2009, some 9,000 megawatts of renewable energy was built in this country, he said. The vast majority of that was wind power.
That's just slightly less than 2008, although without stimulus he estimated that maybe only half the 2009 projects would have been built.
Numbers from the American Wind Energy Association suggest that even fewer projects could have gotten built.
In years when Congress let a previous tax credit lapse, investments in wind energy fell by 75%.
That wouldn't bode well for President Obama's stated goal of doubling the country's renewable energy capacity by 2012.
And it wouldn't bode well for companies like First Wind, or anyone hoping to get a job in renewable energy.
The company's Maine project is actually an expansion of an existing $160-million facility right across the street that was completed last year.
First Wind took that tax credit and rolled it right over into the current expansion. Even on a frigid day in January, Gaynor said more than a hundred people are busy on the mountain constructing the new facility.
"It's a beehive of activity up there," he said.
Before 2010 is out, First Wind hopes to construct another 4 to 6 projects -- all partially paid for with stimulus money.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Impact of State RPS’s and the Prospect of a Federal RPS on What Utilities are Doing in Terms of Purchasing the Output of Wind Farms
With 3/5 of the States having Renewable Portfolio Standard in place and the prospect of a Federal RPS, many utilities are seeking to become first time purchasers of the output from wind projects. And utilities with a history of purchasing wind are seeking additional resources. In 2009, the presenters collectively worked on over 40 wind power purchase agreements for projects located throughout the United States, enabling them to present a comprehensive overview of the impact of these developments. A number of first time purchasers have been using the RFP process as a vehicle for educating themselves about wind, and often experience difficulty in translating PPA terms that are appropriate for base load resources into PPA terms that work for intermittent resources like wind. Through various PPA terms, utilities are increasingly seeking to place the risk of non-compliance with the RPS on the wind project developer. These developments can result in PPA terms that are very problematic for the financing of the project. This webinar will explore these recent developments, including issues related to output and availability guarantees, allocation of curtailment risk for long-distance transmission to load, wind integration charges, delay damages, conditions precedent, termination rights and the measure of damages.
Just Energy Purchases Local, Green Power From First Wind's Steel Winds Project in New York
MISSISSAUGA, Ontario, Jan. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Just Energy (JE.UN), one of North America's leading energy retailers, is pleased to announce it will enter into a five year power purchase agreement (PPA) to purchase electricity, capacity and Renewable Energy Certificates ("RECs") from First Wind, an independent North American wind energy company. First Wind is a leading developer of wind energy projects and is focused on the development and operation of wind farms in the northeastern and western United States and Hawaii.
Under the agreement, Just Energy will purchase the entire output of capacity and RECs generated from First Wind's Steel Winds I wind energy project, located in Lackawanna, NY. In addition, as part of the agreement, Just Energy will bid and schedule the energy output from Steel Winds I into the NYISO power market. Built on a former Bethlehem Steel site, Steel Winds I is one of the largest urban wind power developments in the United States. Its eight state-of-the-art wind turbines have the rated capacity to generate over 50 million kWh of electric energy annually: enough to power about 9,000 New York homes.
"In the battle against global climate change and given the growing demand for electricity, wind power is becoming a crucial part of North America's long-term energy solution," said Ken Hartwick, Just Energy's President and Chief Executive Officer. "Our position as a leading energy retailer accords us with the responsibility to provide an increasing number of environmentally-conscious consumers with clean, renewable energy supply options. Our partnership with First Wind enables us to provide New York energy customers with green electric power from local, clean energy sources."
"We are pleased to enter into this power purchase agreement with Just Energy for the electricity, capacity and RECs from our Steel Winds I facility," said Michael Alvarez, President of First Wind. "The transaction with Just Energy is further proof that the demand for clean energy continues to be a driving force behind the energy needs of the future. We are happy to work with Just Energy to deliver green energy solutions to those customers who desire it."
About Just Energy:
Just Energy is one of North America's leading electricity and natural gas retailers with offices in Canada and the U.S. Through its affiliates under its parent, Just Energy Income Fund, a publicly traded Income Trust (TSX: JE.UN), Just Energy provides over 1.6 million residential, small to mid-sized commercial and small industrial customers with the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they are protected from energy price volatility. In addition, through its subsidiary National Home Services, Just Energy sells and rents high efficiency and tankless water heaters, and through its subsidiary Terra Grain Fuels, produces and sells wheat-based ethanol. Just Energy is poised to become an industry leader in providing environmentally responsible energy supply solutions to consumers across North America. Visit Just Energy at www.justenergy.com
Under the agreement, Just Energy will purchase the entire output of capacity and RECs generated from First Wind's Steel Winds I wind energy project, located in Lackawanna, NY. In addition, as part of the agreement, Just Energy will bid and schedule the energy output from Steel Winds I into the NYISO power market. Built on a former Bethlehem Steel site, Steel Winds I is one of the largest urban wind power developments in the United States. Its eight state-of-the-art wind turbines have the rated capacity to generate over 50 million kWh of electric energy annually: enough to power about 9,000 New York homes.
"In the battle against global climate change and given the growing demand for electricity, wind power is becoming a crucial part of North America's long-term energy solution," said Ken Hartwick, Just Energy's President and Chief Executive Officer. "Our position as a leading energy retailer accords us with the responsibility to provide an increasing number of environmentally-conscious consumers with clean, renewable energy supply options. Our partnership with First Wind enables us to provide New York energy customers with green electric power from local, clean energy sources."
"We are pleased to enter into this power purchase agreement with Just Energy for the electricity, capacity and RECs from our Steel Winds I facility," said Michael Alvarez, President of First Wind. "The transaction with Just Energy is further proof that the demand for clean energy continues to be a driving force behind the energy needs of the future. We are happy to work with Just Energy to deliver green energy solutions to those customers who desire it."
About Just Energy:
Just Energy is one of North America's leading electricity and natural gas retailers with offices in Canada and the U.S. Through its affiliates under its parent, Just Energy Income Fund, a publicly traded Income Trust (TSX: JE.UN), Just Energy provides over 1.6 million residential, small to mid-sized commercial and small industrial customers with the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they are protected from energy price volatility. In addition, through its subsidiary National Home Services, Just Energy sells and rents high efficiency and tankless water heaters, and through its subsidiary Terra Grain Fuels, produces and sells wheat-based ethanol. Just Energy is poised to become an industry leader in providing environmentally responsible energy supply solutions to consumers across North America. Visit Just Energy at www.justenergy.com
Prattsburgh sets hearing on wind farm moratorium
Prattsburgh, N.Y.
Prattsburgh residents will have an opportunity next month to weigh in on issues surrounding a proposed moratorium on wind development in the town.
Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said the public hearing set for 6 p.m. Feb. 15 is on the town’s comprehensive plan and a proposal made at the regular board meeting last week to set up a zoning board.
A study of the comprehensive plan and possible land use regulations are expected to be the town’s focus during a proposed six-month ban on any wind development-related matters in Prattsburgh. The ban was given preliminary, 4-1 approval by the board during a special meeting Jan. 7.
Wordingham, and councilmen Anneke Radin-Snaith, Chuck Shick and Steve Kula voted for the proposed moratorium. Councilwoman Stacey Bottoni voted against it.
The public hearing will cap a year of increasing tension and lawsuits as wind farm supporters and skeptics argued the merits of allowing wind development in the town. Complicating the issue were claims by wind developer Ecogen their 16-turbine project was ready for construction in Prattsburgh.
Supporters and critics of new board members took three hours last week to air their views, Wordingham said.
“A lot of people I’ve never met say it’s a great idea to be able to have an open forum,” Wordingham said. “So far, it’s worked pretty well, I think.”
Wordingham said the “open forum” extends to Ecogen, which filed a lawsuit in November against the previous town board.
“If they want to sit down with us and discuss things, well, none of us want to shut the door on an economic opportunity for the town,” Wordingham said. “Their big claim is, ‘We want to be your partner.’ Well, my definition of a partnership is where everybody wins.”
The public hearing will be held at the Fire Hall.
Prattsburgh residents will have an opportunity next month to weigh in on issues surrounding a proposed moratorium on wind development in the town.
Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said the public hearing set for 6 p.m. Feb. 15 is on the town’s comprehensive plan and a proposal made at the regular board meeting last week to set up a zoning board.
A study of the comprehensive plan and possible land use regulations are expected to be the town’s focus during a proposed six-month ban on any wind development-related matters in Prattsburgh. The ban was given preliminary, 4-1 approval by the board during a special meeting Jan. 7.
Wordingham, and councilmen Anneke Radin-Snaith, Chuck Shick and Steve Kula voted for the proposed moratorium. Councilwoman Stacey Bottoni voted against it.
The public hearing will cap a year of increasing tension and lawsuits as wind farm supporters and skeptics argued the merits of allowing wind development in the town. Complicating the issue were claims by wind developer Ecogen their 16-turbine project was ready for construction in Prattsburgh.
Supporters and critics of new board members took three hours last week to air their views, Wordingham said.
“A lot of people I’ve never met say it’s a great idea to be able to have an open forum,” Wordingham said. “So far, it’s worked pretty well, I think.”
Wordingham said the “open forum” extends to Ecogen, which filed a lawsuit in November against the previous town board.
“If they want to sit down with us and discuss things, well, none of us want to shut the door on an economic opportunity for the town,” Wordingham said. “Their big claim is, ‘We want to be your partner.’ Well, my definition of a partnership is where everybody wins.”
The public hearing will be held at the Fire Hall.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
First Wind calls it quits in Prattsburgh
Prattsburgh, N.Y.
One of two potential wind farm developers in the town of Prattsburgh announced Friday it is abandoning plans to put up nearly 50 turbines in the town.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said lease holders for potential turbine sites have been notified of the firm’s decision, made at the end of December.
Lamontagne said First Wind’s decision to pull out was made after a careful, internal review of pending, “viable” projects.
“We appreciate the support – and there was a lot of support – from the people in Prattsburgh,” Lamontagne said.
First Wind also drew a fair share of critics, particularly after it launched eminent domain procedures via a divided town board. Plagued by the economic downturn during the summer and fall of 2008, the developer announced a yearlong hiatus in 2009, in order to reassess its projects.
First Wind intends to pursue projects this year in Maine, Vermont, Utah and Hawaii, but remains committed to its projects in the town of Cohocton and Lackawanna, Lamontagne said.
He did not rule out the possibility of future development in Prattsburgh, “but we’d be back starting at ground zero, so it would be pretty difficult.”
Lamontagne said the decision to leave was not influenced by the disputes that erupted last year between second developer Ecogen, town residents, and some town board members.
The disputes -- which were driven in part over concerns about excessive noise at First Wind’s operating wind farm in Cohocton -- led to angry charges from both sides, unseated two pro-wind board members in November and resulted in a flurry of lawsuits.
The new town board is now considering a six-month moratorium in order to review its comprehensive plan and possibly set up a zoning board.
Town Councilman Steve Kula wondered if the move would benefit the Ecogen project.
“Does this open up more land, to identify possibly new sites for Ecogen?” he asked.
Kula has advocated for greater setbacks than those currently in place to ensure residents’ health and safety.
“Before, you had two projects squeezed into one small town. First Wind had 50 (turbines),” Kula said. “Now you’ll have one project and more land. I don’t know. But maybe.”
Supervisor Al Wordingham said a First Wind representative left a message, but so far he has not spoken with the developer’s agent.
“All I can say is, after the experience they had in Cohocton, which is less densely populated than Prattsburgh, maybe they just decided this is not a suitable place for any wind farm,” Wordingham said.
One of two potential wind farm developers in the town of Prattsburgh announced Friday it is abandoning plans to put up nearly 50 turbines in the town.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said lease holders for potential turbine sites have been notified of the firm’s decision, made at the end of December.
Lamontagne said First Wind’s decision to pull out was made after a careful, internal review of pending, “viable” projects.
“We appreciate the support – and there was a lot of support – from the people in Prattsburgh,” Lamontagne said.
First Wind also drew a fair share of critics, particularly after it launched eminent domain procedures via a divided town board. Plagued by the economic downturn during the summer and fall of 2008, the developer announced a yearlong hiatus in 2009, in order to reassess its projects.
First Wind intends to pursue projects this year in Maine, Vermont, Utah and Hawaii, but remains committed to its projects in the town of Cohocton and Lackawanna, Lamontagne said.
He did not rule out the possibility of future development in Prattsburgh, “but we’d be back starting at ground zero, so it would be pretty difficult.”
Lamontagne said the decision to leave was not influenced by the disputes that erupted last year between second developer Ecogen, town residents, and some town board members.
The disputes -- which were driven in part over concerns about excessive noise at First Wind’s operating wind farm in Cohocton -- led to angry charges from both sides, unseated two pro-wind board members in November and resulted in a flurry of lawsuits.
The new town board is now considering a six-month moratorium in order to review its comprehensive plan and possibly set up a zoning board.
Town Councilman Steve Kula wondered if the move would benefit the Ecogen project.
“Does this open up more land, to identify possibly new sites for Ecogen?” he asked.
Kula has advocated for greater setbacks than those currently in place to ensure residents’ health and safety.
“Before, you had two projects squeezed into one small town. First Wind had 50 (turbines),” Kula said. “Now you’ll have one project and more land. I don’t know. But maybe.”
Supervisor Al Wordingham said a First Wind representative left a message, but so far he has not spoken with the developer’s agent.
“All I can say is, after the experience they had in Cohocton, which is less densely populated than Prattsburgh, maybe they just decided this is not a suitable place for any wind farm,” Wordingham said.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
NY Town of Huron Votes "NO" on Offshore Wind
The NYS Town of Huron town board (Wayne County) officially took a position opposing the New York Power Authority's plan for offshore wind farms in Lake Ontario and voted 5 to 0 against it. Huron is a rural lake shore town and NYPA's map indicated the potential for an offshore wind farm off Huron's coast. ALL towns and counties along Lakes Ontario and Erie need to follow Huron's lead and pass similar resolutions to put a halt to NYPA's and Gov. Paterson's threat of industrializing the Great Lakes.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Wind PILOT - County should consider negotiating
The Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency disregarded county lawmakers in resubmitting for approval the same payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the Galloo Island wind farm, which lawmakers questioned.
The agency raised expectations that it would revise the PILOT to address growing doubts about the plan when IDA officials withdrew the proposal from consideration at a Board of Legislators meeting earlier this month. Now the same PILOT is back. The JCIDA intends to resubmit the same proposal despite objections that county residents should not provide millions and millions of dollars in tax subsidies.
Lawmakers questioned the 20-year term of the proposed PILOT rather than the standard 15-year plan. Has that changed? No.
The route of the proposed transmission line through parts of southern Jefferson County with the possible use of eminent domain has been in doubt. Has that been resolved? No.
The cost of decommissioning has been raised. Is that part of the PILOT? No.
Legislators requested a uniform PILOT agreement instead of one specifically designed for this project. Is this a policy for all wind power developers? No.
Absolutely nothing changes. The JCIDA offers only promises of more agreements to come on decommissioning and a project development agreement to hire local workers and support county businesses.
Huge local tax subsidies and federal stimulus funds are underwriting the project. The 20-year PILOT proposal gives Upstate NY Power more than $5 million in tax breaks beyond what they would receive in the standard pilot. County taxpayers will pay for that lost revenue. Yet, the JCIDA did not even bother to take Upstate NY Power Corp. up on its offer to accept a shorter 18-year agreement worth another $5 million to the county, town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor School District.
In exchange, Upstate stands to receive $150 million in federal stimulus funding if it meets construction schedule guidelines. It will get another $23 million break on mortgage and sales taxes for the wind farm at a loss of $4.5 million to Jefferson County and $5 million to the city of Watertown, towns and villages that could use it to build a street, replenish reserves or hold the line on property taxes.
Contrary to JCIDA claims that the proposed PILOT will be the exception to a uniform policy, it sets a precedent for all other wind power developers to demand the same terms in their PILOT .
The PILOT remains a win for developers exploiting Jefferson County's natural resources at the expense of county residents.
The JCIDA had its chance to negotiate a PILOT that will serve Jefferson County. It did not. Now it's time for the county Legislature to assert more leadership.
We do not object to the wind farm on Galloo Island. However, there should be a standard 15-year PILOT, no sales tax exemption, no mortgage tax exmption, and an underwater route for the transmission line to Oswego County that does not go through some of the best farmland in Jefferson County.
The Legislature should make clear those terms for a PILOT and then let JCIDA reach an agreement, or better yet take over the negotiations.
The agency raised expectations that it would revise the PILOT to address growing doubts about the plan when IDA officials withdrew the proposal from consideration at a Board of Legislators meeting earlier this month. Now the same PILOT is back. The JCIDA intends to resubmit the same proposal despite objections that county residents should not provide millions and millions of dollars in tax subsidies.
Lawmakers questioned the 20-year term of the proposed PILOT rather than the standard 15-year plan. Has that changed? No.
The route of the proposed transmission line through parts of southern Jefferson County with the possible use of eminent domain has been in doubt. Has that been resolved? No.
The cost of decommissioning has been raised. Is that part of the PILOT? No.
Legislators requested a uniform PILOT agreement instead of one specifically designed for this project. Is this a policy for all wind power developers? No.
Absolutely nothing changes. The JCIDA offers only promises of more agreements to come on decommissioning and a project development agreement to hire local workers and support county businesses.
Huge local tax subsidies and federal stimulus funds are underwriting the project. The 20-year PILOT proposal gives Upstate NY Power more than $5 million in tax breaks beyond what they would receive in the standard pilot. County taxpayers will pay for that lost revenue. Yet, the JCIDA did not even bother to take Upstate NY Power Corp. up on its offer to accept a shorter 18-year agreement worth another $5 million to the county, town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor School District.
In exchange, Upstate stands to receive $150 million in federal stimulus funding if it meets construction schedule guidelines. It will get another $23 million break on mortgage and sales taxes for the wind farm at a loss of $4.5 million to Jefferson County and $5 million to the city of Watertown, towns and villages that could use it to build a street, replenish reserves or hold the line on property taxes.
Contrary to JCIDA claims that the proposed PILOT will be the exception to a uniform policy, it sets a precedent for all other wind power developers to demand the same terms in their PILOT .
The PILOT remains a win for developers exploiting Jefferson County's natural resources at the expense of county residents.
The JCIDA had its chance to negotiate a PILOT that will serve Jefferson County. It did not. Now it's time for the county Legislature to assert more leadership.
We do not object to the wind farm on Galloo Island. However, there should be a standard 15-year PILOT, no sales tax exemption, no mortgage tax exmption, and an underwater route for the transmission line to Oswego County that does not go through some of the best farmland in Jefferson County.
The Legislature should make clear those terms for a PILOT and then let JCIDA reach an agreement, or better yet take over the negotiations.
Are wind developers turning off the generators when hosting site visits?
There has been much discussion lately about industrial wind power on Vermont’s mountains. The Lempster, N.H., turbine site is often used as an example of a typical wind tower site, especially after Green Mountain Power’s Dec. 5 bus trip for Lowell residents.
I am a Vermont resident, but I have an insider’s perspective of the Lempster site. I own two pieces of land on Lempster Mountain, one of which has been in my family for over 70 years.
There are 12 turbines in Lempster, but because they are artfully sited on a mountain with a wide top, most of them appear to be tucked into the terrain instead of strung along a steep ridge in an intimidating line, like marching metal monsters from War of the Worlds. Because of how they are sited and the rolling terrain, it is difficult to see more than a handful of these towers from most viewsheds in Lempster.
I was in Lempster on Dec. 5 when Lowell area residents were visiting the site. During the entire time I was there, the blades of the turbines were most likely free-wheeling (not generating electricity) in the gentle breeze. When a turbine is free-wheeling it hardly makes any noise, and the blade tips are only barely bent backwards, such as was the case that day. I recently read a comment from one of the Dec. 5 bus riders, expounding on how quiet wind turbines are, based on what he heard that day.
Oh, I wish it were true.
When turbine blades are spinning in an average decent wind, the tips of these blades are moving at about 180 miles per hour and are bent back severely because of resistance to the wind. This resistance to the wind, plus the high speed of the tips, causes turbulence, which creates noise. The noise sounds like that of a stiff wind when one stands only a couple hundred yards away from the towers. But when one stands at a spot ½-mile to over 2 miles away, the sound is a low, dull, penetrating, throbbing series of never-ending pressure waves—hour after hour, day and night, sometimes for days on end, like Chinese water torture.
The Lempster turbines have been operating for about a year now. While I was hunting there this year, I noticed that I didn’t need a compass to orient myself in the deep, dark woods 2½ miles away so long as the turbines were throbbing.
On Dec. 5, I talked to two people who work for the town of Lempster. They told me that people are grieving their taxes because of noise. They also told me that the wind company has turned from being Mr. Friend before the project to being Mr. Foe now. The company is contesting the town’s assertion that the company’s massively heavy machinery caused road damage.
Will Vermont learn from the experiences of others? Not if people don’t have the facts. I submitted this piece to the Burlington Free Press two times and they never even contacted me.
I am a Vermont resident, but I have an insider’s perspective of the Lempster site. I own two pieces of land on Lempster Mountain, one of which has been in my family for over 70 years.
There are 12 turbines in Lempster, but because they are artfully sited on a mountain with a wide top, most of them appear to be tucked into the terrain instead of strung along a steep ridge in an intimidating line, like marching metal monsters from War of the Worlds. Because of how they are sited and the rolling terrain, it is difficult to see more than a handful of these towers from most viewsheds in Lempster.
I was in Lempster on Dec. 5 when Lowell area residents were visiting the site. During the entire time I was there, the blades of the turbines were most likely free-wheeling (not generating electricity) in the gentle breeze. When a turbine is free-wheeling it hardly makes any noise, and the blade tips are only barely bent backwards, such as was the case that day. I recently read a comment from one of the Dec. 5 bus riders, expounding on how quiet wind turbines are, based on what he heard that day.
Oh, I wish it were true.
When turbine blades are spinning in an average decent wind, the tips of these blades are moving at about 180 miles per hour and are bent back severely because of resistance to the wind. This resistance to the wind, plus the high speed of the tips, causes turbulence, which creates noise. The noise sounds like that of a stiff wind when one stands only a couple hundred yards away from the towers. But when one stands at a spot ½-mile to over 2 miles away, the sound is a low, dull, penetrating, throbbing series of never-ending pressure waves—hour after hour, day and night, sometimes for days on end, like Chinese water torture.
The Lempster turbines have been operating for about a year now. While I was hunting there this year, I noticed that I didn’t need a compass to orient myself in the deep, dark woods 2½ miles away so long as the turbines were throbbing.
On Dec. 5, I talked to two people who work for the town of Lempster. They told me that people are grieving their taxes because of noise. They also told me that the wind company has turned from being Mr. Friend before the project to being Mr. Foe now. The company is contesting the town’s assertion that the company’s massively heavy machinery caused road damage.
Will Vermont learn from the experiences of others? Not if people don’t have the facts. I submitted this piece to the Burlington Free Press two times and they never even contacted me.
Bert Bowers January 22, 2010 Letter to the Editor - Galloo Island
Donald Alexander and the JCIDA have decided to continue their unseemly push for the Galloo Island wind project, lest the developer and his Wall Street friends lose an opportunity to grab another $150 million of taxpayer’s money. Not being satisfied to walk off with only $150 million, the developer demands further concessions from Jefferson County taxpayers in a PILOT negotiated with the JCIDA. The developer hides behind the “green” cloak, pretending it is doing something wonderful for the environment, while it is really all about the “green” they stuff in their pockets.
Developers speak of “clean energy.” The power produced by wind turbines is, however, unpredictable and highly variable. The power is proportional to the cube of wind speed and, thereby, winds natural variability is magnified. In order to accept wind power and its variable and unpredictable nature, the electric utility must have generating capacity that can ramp up or down quickly to accommodate the variability of wind power, while supplying uniform power to the grid.
The only commonly utilized generators that can accommodate wind’s inherent variability are simple-cycle gas turbines. These machines are flexible in output, but at the sacrifice of efficiency, being only 35-40% efficient. If the utility did not have to accommodate wind and its variability, it could utilize combined-cycle gas turbines with an efficiency approaching 60%. The combined-cycle gas turbine, without wind turbines, produces the same amount of power as the simple-cycle turbine augmented by wind turbines, at a fuel saving of at least 14%. The use of wind turbines, with their highly variable and unpredictable output, actually increases the usage of fuel and resulting emissions from the system!
The increased usage of fuel when wind turbines are added to the system, plus the added investment for two underutilized power plants – wind typically produces about 25% of its rated power and the necessary gas turbine backup produces the other 75% will raise electrical rates for residential and commercial users. Increased electrical rates will make it more difficult to attract or retain real businesses providing lasting employment. Another benefit of the more efficient combined-cycle gas turbine generator is that it can be located where the power is needed without the need for additional distribution lines.
We must ask our County Legislators to vote against this blatant giveaway to Wall Street at the expense of Jefferson County residents and businesses.
Albert H. Bowers III
Chaumont, NY
Developers speak of “clean energy.” The power produced by wind turbines is, however, unpredictable and highly variable. The power is proportional to the cube of wind speed and, thereby, winds natural variability is magnified. In order to accept wind power and its variable and unpredictable nature, the electric utility must have generating capacity that can ramp up or down quickly to accommodate the variability of wind power, while supplying uniform power to the grid.
The only commonly utilized generators that can accommodate wind’s inherent variability are simple-cycle gas turbines. These machines are flexible in output, but at the sacrifice of efficiency, being only 35-40% efficient. If the utility did not have to accommodate wind and its variability, it could utilize combined-cycle gas turbines with an efficiency approaching 60%. The combined-cycle gas turbine, without wind turbines, produces the same amount of power as the simple-cycle turbine augmented by wind turbines, at a fuel saving of at least 14%. The use of wind turbines, with their highly variable and unpredictable output, actually increases the usage of fuel and resulting emissions from the system!
The increased usage of fuel when wind turbines are added to the system, plus the added investment for two underutilized power plants – wind typically produces about 25% of its rated power and the necessary gas turbine backup produces the other 75% will raise electrical rates for residential and commercial users. Increased electrical rates will make it more difficult to attract or retain real businesses providing lasting employment. Another benefit of the more efficient combined-cycle gas turbine generator is that it can be located where the power is needed without the need for additional distribution lines.
We must ask our County Legislators to vote against this blatant giveaway to Wall Street at the expense of Jefferson County residents and businesses.
Albert H. Bowers III
Chaumont, NY
Officials snubbed advisers' warnings about wind farm
SUNBURY — Two separate Northumberland County boards of commissioners were cautioned since 2006 by three legal advisers about “shortcomings” in a Sunbury firm’s wind farm proposal.
At issue is the land-lease agreement between the county and Penn Wind, a 29-year deal that is in the midst of being renewed and has been in jeopardy for months.
The two sides are hoping to keep the project afloat and plan to meet early next week.
Commissioner Vinny Clausi, who has loudly voiced his displeasure with the financial details and discrepancy about the amount of land involved, and Commissioner Kurt Masser said they’re optimistic about reaching an agreement.
Since 2007, the county has been leasing land in Coal and East Cameron townships to the company for $1 a year, with an agreement that the county would receive $56,000 a year once the site begins generating wind energy.
Late last week, Penn Wind CEO Justin Dunkelberger revealed the company’s intention to sell the lease to an unidentified California company for $1 million and allow it to set up wind turbines on the land.
Masser said he was surprised to learn an outside company might be stepping in, but said he’s willing to work with any business that’s able to bring jobs and revenue to the county.
“I want to do what’s right for the taxpayer,” he said, agreeing that the county should reap more financially from the project.
Masser played down the impact of political contributions he received from Penn Wind representatives during the 2007 election, including $600 from James Garman and $500 from Chris Purdy, both of Sunbury, and $100 from Dunkelberger, of Northumberland.
“If I was pushing to get (the deal) done, it might be an issue,” Masser said. “But I’ve been saying all along that we should put our concerns on the table and lay out what we want.”
He said that will likely occur when commissioners return to the negotiating table with Penn Wind next week.
And, Masser said, “Unless everyone can agree to the terms, I won’t vote for it.”
Even before the first contract was signed in 2007, then-county solicitor Guy Schlesinger raised questions about whether the county would receive its fair share. The former board, headed by Samuel Deitrick, along with Masser and Frank Sawicki, went ahead with the contract to lease about 500 acres for $1 a year until a 23-acre site is developed.
In 2008, solicitor Hugh Jones wrote to the commissioners recommending the contract not be signed.
He cited “shortcomings” in the deal cited by former planning Director Steve Bartos, including the lack of provisions for giving the county a percentage of the wind energy revenue and failure to place a limit on how long Penn Wind can lease the property at $1 a year without developing the site.
Despite the concerns addressed by Jones, the current board — Sawicki, Masser and Vinny Clausi — signed the deal for another year.
Assistant solicitor Kymberley Best added her concerns about the project last week in a letter in which she described the contract as “disadvantageous” to the county.
On Friday, three days after Best’s letter was written, the commissioners learned that Penn Wind planned to sell its lease and allow an outside company to develop the site.
At issue is the land-lease agreement between the county and Penn Wind, a 29-year deal that is in the midst of being renewed and has been in jeopardy for months.
The two sides are hoping to keep the project afloat and plan to meet early next week.
Commissioner Vinny Clausi, who has loudly voiced his displeasure with the financial details and discrepancy about the amount of land involved, and Commissioner Kurt Masser said they’re optimistic about reaching an agreement.
Since 2007, the county has been leasing land in Coal and East Cameron townships to the company for $1 a year, with an agreement that the county would receive $56,000 a year once the site begins generating wind energy.
Late last week, Penn Wind CEO Justin Dunkelberger revealed the company’s intention to sell the lease to an unidentified California company for $1 million and allow it to set up wind turbines on the land.
Masser said he was surprised to learn an outside company might be stepping in, but said he’s willing to work with any business that’s able to bring jobs and revenue to the county.
“I want to do what’s right for the taxpayer,” he said, agreeing that the county should reap more financially from the project.
Masser played down the impact of political contributions he received from Penn Wind representatives during the 2007 election, including $600 from James Garman and $500 from Chris Purdy, both of Sunbury, and $100 from Dunkelberger, of Northumberland.
“If I was pushing to get (the deal) done, it might be an issue,” Masser said. “But I’ve been saying all along that we should put our concerns on the table and lay out what we want.”
He said that will likely occur when commissioners return to the negotiating table with Penn Wind next week.
And, Masser said, “Unless everyone can agree to the terms, I won’t vote for it.”
Even before the first contract was signed in 2007, then-county solicitor Guy Schlesinger raised questions about whether the county would receive its fair share. The former board, headed by Samuel Deitrick, along with Masser and Frank Sawicki, went ahead with the contract to lease about 500 acres for $1 a year until a 23-acre site is developed.
In 2008, solicitor Hugh Jones wrote to the commissioners recommending the contract not be signed.
He cited “shortcomings” in the deal cited by former planning Director Steve Bartos, including the lack of provisions for giving the county a percentage of the wind energy revenue and failure to place a limit on how long Penn Wind can lease the property at $1 a year without developing the site.
Despite the concerns addressed by Jones, the current board — Sawicki, Masser and Vinny Clausi — signed the deal for another year.
Assistant solicitor Kymberley Best added her concerns about the project last week in a letter in which she described the contract as “disadvantageous” to the county.
On Friday, three days after Best’s letter was written, the commissioners learned that Penn Wind planned to sell its lease and allow an outside company to develop the site.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
DOE Releases Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study
The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory today released a major study of the technical, operational, and economic issues facing the integration of large amounts of wind energy into the power system. The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS), the largest study of its kind conducted in the United States to date, evaluates the future operational and integration impacts of up to 30% wind energy penetration into the power system in the study year 2024. The study encompasses the majority of the utilities in the Eastern Interconnection. The study also includes a high-level analysis of transmission needed to deliver the wind energy to load centers and a cursory analysis of carbon pricing impacts.
The study consists of three main parts: a wind resource assessment and wind plant siting study, a transmission study, and a wind integration study. The results of the study show that:
•There are no fundamental technical barriers to the integration of 20% wind energy into the electrical system, but transmission planning and system operation policy and market development need to continue to evolve in order for these penetration levels to be achieved;
•Without transmission enhancements, substantial curtailment of wind generation would be required for all of the 20% wind penetration scenarios;
•Interconnection-wide costs for integrating large amounts of wind generation are manageable with large regional operating pools, because increasing the geographic diversity of wind power projects in a given operating pool generally makes the aggregated wind power output more predicable and less variable, while also reducing the variation in load and increasing the number of generation assets that can be committed and dispatched;
•Although the costs of aggressive expansion of the existing grid are significant, they make up a relatively small piece of the total annual power system costs in any of the scenarios studied;
•Wind generation displaces carbon-based fuels, directly reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions continue to decline as more wind generation is added to the energy supply; and
•Reduced expenditures on fossil fuel costs more than pay for the increased costs of transmission in all wind scenarios.
For more information about DOE's work on incorporating increasing amounts of wind energy into the power system while maintaining reliable grid operations, see the Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program's Renewable Systems Interconnection page.
DOE is sponsoring a similar study that is examining the integration of both wind and solar energy into part of the Western Interconnection. The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study will evaluate issues similar to EWITS and is scheduled for completion in mid-2010.
The study consists of three main parts: a wind resource assessment and wind plant siting study, a transmission study, and a wind integration study. The results of the study show that:
•There are no fundamental technical barriers to the integration of 20% wind energy into the electrical system, but transmission planning and system operation policy and market development need to continue to evolve in order for these penetration levels to be achieved;
•Without transmission enhancements, substantial curtailment of wind generation would be required for all of the 20% wind penetration scenarios;
•Interconnection-wide costs for integrating large amounts of wind generation are manageable with large regional operating pools, because increasing the geographic diversity of wind power projects in a given operating pool generally makes the aggregated wind power output more predicable and less variable, while also reducing the variation in load and increasing the number of generation assets that can be committed and dispatched;
•Although the costs of aggressive expansion of the existing grid are significant, they make up a relatively small piece of the total annual power system costs in any of the scenarios studied;
•Wind generation displaces carbon-based fuels, directly reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions continue to decline as more wind generation is added to the energy supply; and
•Reduced expenditures on fossil fuel costs more than pay for the increased costs of transmission in all wind scenarios.
For more information about DOE's work on incorporating increasing amounts of wind energy into the power system while maintaining reliable grid operations, see the Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program's Renewable Systems Interconnection page.
DOE is sponsoring a similar study that is examining the integration of both wind and solar energy into part of the Western Interconnection. The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study will evaluate issues similar to EWITS and is scheduled for completion in mid-2010.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
State subsidies could impact wind energy PILOT
Herkimer, N.Y.
A recent announcement that the proposed Hardscrabble wind farm is eligible to receive government subsidies may impact the amount of money local taxing jurisdictions receive from the project, county officials said.
State officials have said they are unable to provide how much the Hardscrabble project may receive, but they did say it is one of five clean energy projects splitting $96 million. The funds are part of a total of $300 million pledged for clean energy production.
County officials want to know how these additional funds will affect a payment in lieu of taxes agreement, which sets how much a company pays to those affected by the project.
Patrick Russell, county Finance Committee chair, said “due diligence” requires looking into how the state money could affect any PILOT agreement.
County Finance Committee members last week proposed hiring a consultant to provide advice on the issue. The legislature will address the resolution at its meeting Wednesday at 7:30 p.m.
Steven Levine, of Encap Development LLC, had previously acted as consultant to the county on an original PILOT resolution in November 2008. Levine could not be reached for comment Monday.
Russell said he anticipates re-hiring the same consultant at an estimated cost of nearly $5,000. The services mainly involve providing advise on the potential fluctuations in the energy market, he added.
The 2008 resolution set a payment from energy companies to taxing jurisdictions of $8,000 per megawatt produced by wind energy projects. The county, towns of Fairfield, Norway and Little Falls and West Canada Valley school district would each share a portion of nearly $600,000 annually, based on the Hardscrabble project’s 37 turbines producing 2-megawatts each. Over a 20-year agreement, as has been proposed, the project could generate $11.8 million in PILOT revenues.
But now that state officials are promising subsidies for the company, only once energy production begins, a PILOT agreement may have to reflect the impact government funds would have on the project and energy market.
What’s Next:
If a PILOT agreement is reached in principle with the company Atlantic Wind LLC (a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables), the county Industrial Development Agency must hold a public hearing prior to approval.
A recent announcement that the proposed Hardscrabble wind farm is eligible to receive government subsidies may impact the amount of money local taxing jurisdictions receive from the project, county officials said.
State officials have said they are unable to provide how much the Hardscrabble project may receive, but they did say it is one of five clean energy projects splitting $96 million. The funds are part of a total of $300 million pledged for clean energy production.
County officials want to know how these additional funds will affect a payment in lieu of taxes agreement, which sets how much a company pays to those affected by the project.
Patrick Russell, county Finance Committee chair, said “due diligence” requires looking into how the state money could affect any PILOT agreement.
County Finance Committee members last week proposed hiring a consultant to provide advice on the issue. The legislature will address the resolution at its meeting Wednesday at 7:30 p.m.
Steven Levine, of Encap Development LLC, had previously acted as consultant to the county on an original PILOT resolution in November 2008. Levine could not be reached for comment Monday.
Russell said he anticipates re-hiring the same consultant at an estimated cost of nearly $5,000. The services mainly involve providing advise on the potential fluctuations in the energy market, he added.
The 2008 resolution set a payment from energy companies to taxing jurisdictions of $8,000 per megawatt produced by wind energy projects. The county, towns of Fairfield, Norway and Little Falls and West Canada Valley school district would each share a portion of nearly $600,000 annually, based on the Hardscrabble project’s 37 turbines producing 2-megawatts each. Over a 20-year agreement, as has been proposed, the project could generate $11.8 million in PILOT revenues.
But now that state officials are promising subsidies for the company, only once energy production begins, a PILOT agreement may have to reflect the impact government funds would have on the project and energy market.
What’s Next:
If a PILOT agreement is reached in principle with the company Atlantic Wind LLC (a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables), the county Industrial Development Agency must hold a public hearing prior to approval.
WindTamer Corporation Announces Installation of Wind Turbine at Perry-Warsaw, NY Airport
WindTamer Corporation ("WindTamer" or the "Company"), (OTCBB: WNDT) a developer and manufacturer of a patented new wind turbine technology, announced today that it has completed the installation of one of its wind turbines at the Perry-Warsaw Airport, a public general aviation airport located 3 miles northwest of the village of Perry in Wyoming County, New York. The Airport, which covers 158 acres and has two runways, is operated by the towns of Perry and Warsaw.
The installation of the WindTamer turbine required approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, which was received in 2009.
Gerald E. Brock, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of WindTamer, said that FAA approval was received after WindTamer and the Airport demonstrated to the FAA's satisfaction that the turbine would not interfere with radar and radio signals, affect wildlife or otherwise impact the operation of the airport or the surrounding community, among other things. He added that because the WindTamer turbine is less than 40 feet high it will not create any aviation problems.
"Receiving FAA approval to install our turbine at a general aviation airport is a significant event for WindTamer," said Mr. Brock. "The FAA is actively encouraging airports to look at 'green' alternatives as a means of reducing carbon emissions and reducing energy costs. Large airports with thousands of people passing through them every day are like mini-cities, with their own costs and environmental concerns. We think airports will be a significant market for WindTamer going forward."
According to Ralph Thompson, Manager of the Airport Planning & Environmental Division of the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA has embarked on a pilot program with some airports designed to develop ways to reduce energy consumption and encourage reduction of greenhouse gasses. Mr. Thompson said that the FAA may step up such programs in the future, and may eventually assist airports in funding greener initiatives. "The FAA is definitely looking for ways to make airports more environmentally-friendly," he said.
Charles Bell, Manager of the Perry-Warsaw Airport, said that, "We view the installation of the WindTamer turbine as a very positive thing in several respects. Our airport is located at one of the windiest points in our area, so we expect a dramatic reduction in our energy costs. And we like the idea of doing something to be more environmentally friendly. We also think that this will be a nice showcase for WindTamer, because as people pass through our airport they will see an exciting new technology in operation firsthand."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)