Cape Vincent, NY -- Across the St. Lawrence River from Cape Vincent, 86 windmills — each more than 400 feet high from base to blade tip — tower over Canada’s Wolfe Island.
They’ve been there less than a year, a preview of what could be in store for Cape Vincent if two proposed wind farms, totaling more than 100 turbines, are built.
Just as surely as the river divides the U.S. from Canada, the windmill plans have divided Cape Vincent.
On one side: supporters who see the windmills as a source of income for struggling farmers, tax revenue for the town and county, and jobs, however temporary, in a community whose economy is dependent on summer tourism and a state prison.
On the other: opponents, many of them summer residents, who see the turbines as a blight on the gateway to the Thousand Islands and a threat to wildlife, health and property values.
And in the middle: town officials who are trying to come up with a law to regulate wind development, even as questions about conflicts of interest have dogged every move. Two members of the five-person town board, and three members of the five-person planning board, either personally hold wind leases or have relatives with wind leases, meaning the leaseholders or their families stand to profit if the wind farms are built.
“It’s certainly tied the town up in knots,” said town attorney Mark Gebo (pronounced JEE-bo).
It has also energized the Cape’s anti-wind forces, led by the Wind Power Ethics Group.
“I think these folks have to recuse themselves,” said Clifford Schneider, retired from the state fishery in Cape Vincent and a WPEG member. “People should make decisions for this community without having this haze overhead.”
WPEG pressed the point at the ballot box, in court and in complaints to state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.
Last summer, windmill opponents sat down with a representative of Cuomo to lay out their conflict of interest claims. Later in the year, he announced agreements with wind developers on a “code of conduct” that mandates disclosure of deals between developers and town officials and rules to limit their influence on local governments. Cuomo’s office “is aware of complaints regarding the Cape Vincent projects and we are reviewing them,” a spokesman said.
Then, in a hotly contested election in November, 10-year incumbent town supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck was defeated by WPEG’s leader, Urban Hirschey. Hirschey won by 23 votes, aided by absentee ballots cast by seasonal residents who voted from their winter homes.
Cape Vincent is just one of many North Country communities grappling with big wind. More than 1,200 megawatts of wind power are on the drawing board in Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence counties, from Galloo Island to the St. Lawrence River. In addition, the New York Power Authority is seeking proposals for 500 megawatts of offshore wind in the Great Lakes; Lake Ontario is one likely site.
Cape Vincent Councilman Donald Mason, a former dairy farmer who has a wind company lease, said he’s not influenced by it.
“At far as I’m concerned, I’m just doing what I think is best for the town,” Mason said. “It’s tough to have anything in this little town. There’s one way in — one way out. This is the best thing that’s come along that I can see in my lifetime.”
Opponents see the windfall from wind as short-term and shortsighted.
If the Cape Vincent wind farms are built, “the state of New York will be giving away one of its most beautiful areas based on a green agenda,” said Art Pundt, of Flagstaff, Ariz., a seasonal resident whose family has had property in Cape Vincent since 1949.
As the fight drags on, Pundt said, the damage to Cape Vincent grows deeper. “Neighbors don’t talk to neighbors. Businesses are afraid to speak up. Sociologically, wind has torn this town apart.”
Powerful wind
One thing everyone in Cape Vincent can agree on is this: It’s windy.
Hirschey, 71, a retired manufacturing executive, has a waterfront home on the Lake Ontario side of town. He had a small wind turbine until it blew down — twice.
“I can attest there’s a lot of wind here,” he said.
The town is largely farmland, though the number of working farms can be counted on two hands, according to Rienbeck and Mason, who sold his cows six years ago.
It’s about 100 miles from Syracuse to Cape Vincent. The one way into town is north on Route 12E. Cresting a hill just over the town line, Wolfe Island’s windmills loom in the near distance. At night, their red lights blink to warn passing aircraft of their presence.
Tibbetts Point Light House — 69 feet high — guards Lake Ontario’s outlet into the St. Lawrence River.
The village of Cape Vincent hugs the riverfront. Turn right, and Route 12E becomes Broadway, lined with stores, restaurants, a post office and businesses that cater to boaters.
Turn left, and it’s three miles to Tibbetts Point along a road lined alternately with stately mansions and single-family homes, with views of the river and Wolfe Island’s turbines. The town’s year-round population is around 3,400, and grows by 8,300 when seasonal residents return in the warmer months.
The annual French Festival, around Bastille Day in July, celebrates the area’s heritage as the place where veterans of the Napoleonic Wars settled. The town’s historical museum occupies a stone building that served as a barracks for soldiers during the War of 1812.
Cape Vincent’s war over wind began around 2005. The U.S. affiliate of the Spanish energy company Acciona SA proposed the 79-megawatt St. Lawrence Wind Farm. Acciona originally planned to erect 130 turbines, but reduced that number to 53, said Peter Zedick, project development manager.
Around the same time, BP Wind Energy, a U.S. affiliate of British Petroleum, proposed a 140-megawatt project called Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, adjacent to the Acciona site but further inland. The number of turbines started at 140, but it is likely to be fewer since the turbines are expected to be bigger and a second phase is on hold, project developer James Madden said.
The developers signed up property owners to lease their land for the turbines and transmission lines. Zedick declined to say how many lease agreements Acciona has, or their value. Madden said BP has about $15 million in local contracts with 65 to 70 landowners.
Among town officials holding wind contracts are current Cape Vincent Town Board members Donald Mason and Marty Mason (no relation); former town board member Joseph Wood; Planning Board Chairman Richard Edsall; and Code Enforcement Officer Alan Wood. Town officials who are related to wind contract holders include Planning Board member Karen Bourcy and Andrew Binsley.
With leases in hand, the developers went to the town planning board for permission to build.
Residents worry about noise, birds, landscape
In New York, the siting of windmills is a local matter, subject to zoning laws and site plan review. The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires local governments to identify and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the activity they are permitting.
The Cape Vincent Planning Board appointed itself lead agency for the SEQR studies.
Acciona and BP submitted lengthy environmental impact statements, enumerating all the ways the proposed windmills would affect birds, bats, roads, soil, noise and historic and cultural resources. They supplied photo simulations showing what the windmills would look like from various vantage points around the town.
The developers acknowledge their projects will have a cumulative impact on the region.
“Should all projects currently proposed or under consideration be constructed, the area in an approximately 13-mile radius of the town of Cape Vincent would include over 350 utility scale wind generating turbines each likely exceeding 390 feet in height,” said the St. Lawrence Wind study.
“While not continuously visible,” it continued, “wind-generating turbines would be dominant and widespread from local roadways, homes and various places of interest. Turbines would also be visible on the horizon from vantage points on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River along approximately 50 miles of waterway, from Clayton west and south to Southwick State Park, Jefferson County.”
At public hearings, Cape Vincent residents aired concerns about turbine noise, the fate of migrating birds, the health effects of “shadow flicker” caused by the sun shining through rotating windmill blades and, not least, the radical transformation of the town’s landscape.
Councilman welcomes jobs, tax contributions
Supporters point to the economic impact the wind developments will have on the town.
According to the developers, each wind farm will create about 200 temporary construction jobs and five to 10 permanent jobs. The wind farms will invest hundreds of millions of dollars in leases, infrastructure, equipment, materials and labor. Madden said BP’s local tax impact alone would be more than $1 million a year.
“There’s a lot of money to be made from it for the town, county, school, landowners,” said Mason, the town councilman. “We have no industry here at all. We have summer people, thank God we have them, but our town has dropped right down. There’s one grocery store, one gas station, one bank, a couple of restaurants and that’s it.
“If these landowners and farmers can make a few bucks to keep their taxes paid, they won’t lose their land,” he said.
The economic argument doesn’t fly with Rob Aliasso, co-chairman of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent, an alliance of citizens groups from the Lake Ontario shoreline seeking to put the brakes on wind development.
“You can only look at the economic benefits by netting them out against other effects,” Aliasso said. “Let’s say Cape Vincent puts a project in. The development creates 20 full-time jobs and 200 construction jobs. How many jobs will be lost on the other side? How many people would sell their homes? What would happen to the tax base?”
Hirschey, who used to run a business, said the developers had yet to make the economic case for wind power, which is heavily subsidized by the state and federal government. “In this day and age, with an almost unlimited natural gas supply and hydropower available from Quebec, electricity is relatively cheap,” he said. “There are a lot less expensive ways to produce power than wind.”
Aliasso said “green fervor” surrounding wind power — a renewable resource that doesn’t pollute — obscures the negative impacts of industrial wind turbines in areas that are environmentally sensitive and depend on tourism.
“Nothing is entirely good in this world,” he said.
‘Wind law’ in the works
Shortly after his win, Hirschey said he hoped he could be a “healer” in the divided town.
At his first town board meeting Jan. 14, he proposed a moratorium on wind development. It was voted down, 3-2.
A committee of town officials and residents went back to work on a “wind law” to regulate placement of turbines and other issues, the outlines of which were agreed to Feb. 6.
Cape Vincent’s two wind farms are not close to being built. Acciona hopes to start construction on St. Lawrence Wind in 2011, Zedick said. BP’s Madden said 2012 would be “optimistic” considering the political climate in the town and the state.
“I really think that most of the people are trying to do just what they think is right. There’s a wide range of what people think is right,” said Gebo, the town attorney. “Wind has gotten to be emotional. It’s hard to have a logical discussion about it. It’s been a difficult struggle in Cape Vincent, for sure.”
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Cape Wind won't save BILLIONS for New England Electric Customers
February 12, 2010
The Editor
Cape Cod Times
319 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Dear Editor:
Thanks for the article in your February 11, 2010, edition, but electric customers in New England should not believe the claim that the Cape Wind project will save them “Billions” on their electric bills.
Frankly, the numbers in the slick 9-page “consultant” studyi released by the developer of the Cape Wind project claim of $4.6 billion in savings over 25 years just don’t add up for at least four major reasons:
1. Huge Cost of Cape Wind electricity. The true cost of electricity from wind – particularly offshore wind -- is huge. No one who is paying attention expects the price that Cape Wind charges for its electricity to be cheap. In fact, over 25 years, the wholesale cost to New England utilities for electricity from Cape Wind apparently will be well over $5.75 billion and probably much more. The arithmetic is simple: The CRA “study” (table 1, page 6), shows that the developer expects to produce about 1,150,000,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year. If utilities are forced to pay even $0.20 per kWh, the utilities cost over 25 years would be $5.75 billion.ii The cost would be $6.9 billion if utilities have to pay the $0.24 per kWh that NatGrid apparently agreed to pay for electricity from the planned Rhode Island offshore “wind farm.” Does anyone in New England seriously expect that the WHOLESALE price of non-Cape Wind electricity in New England will average $0.20 or $0.24 per kWh over the next 25 years (up from about $0.08 per kWh in 2008.iii) You would have to believe that it would be well above $0.20 to $0.24 per kWh to believe that electric customers would SAVE $4.6 billion if Cape Wind is built.
2. The CRA “study” used old data. For some reason not explained in the “study,” CRA used the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) 2009 energy forecast (AEO2009 revised) rather than its 2010 forecast (AEO 2010) that has been available since last December. The fact is that a lot has changed since EIA’s 2009 report, particularly on US natural gas resources. As a result, the prices now expected by EIA for natural gas, electricity, and oil are dramatically lower than the outdated forecast used by CRA.iv Using current data would lower significantly the CRA-Cape Wind claim for savings.
3. Doubtful Assumptions. The “savings” shown by the CRA report are driven by assumptions, including the assumption that Federal legislation will impose a $30 to $60 per ton charge for carbon emissions. Because of the high uncertainty, an objective analysis would have shown results both with and without this dramatic assumption.
4. Missing Costs. The CRA report is silent on who would bear the cost of the transmission capacity that would be needed to bring the electricity from the Cape Wind project to New England customers. Unless Cape Wind is going to absorb those costs within the price it charges, those costs undoubtedly will be passed along to New England’s electric customers and hidden in their monthly bills. Not mentioned at all – probably because it doesn’t affect electric bills – is the fact that the owners of the Cape Wind project would enjoy huge tax breaks if they build the project, and taxpayers in New England, as well as the rest of the US, will share in the tax burden that would be escaped by Cape Wind owners. These tax breaks are in addition to the income the owners would receive by selling electricity to New England utilities and selling “green energy” credits. For example:
a. Production tax credit (PTC). The Cape Wind project owners would be eligible to receive a federal tax credit, currently $0.021 per kWh for electricity produced during the first 10 years of the project life. Using the production apparently expected by Cape Wind (1,150,000,000 per year) a $0.021 per kWh credit (which is adjustable for inflation), would permit the owners to avoid federal corporate income taxes of $24,150,000 per year or $241,500,000 over 10 years. The recent federal “stimulus” legislationv gives “wind farm” developers the option of selecting an investment tax credit in lieu of the PTC or electing to receive from the US Treasury a cash grant equal to 30% of eligible capital costs! Again, ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab.
b. Accelerated depreciation. “Wind farm” owners are also permitted by the IRS to use the lucrative “5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation” (5-yr; 200%DB) to recover the capital costs from their otherwise taxable income.vi Depreciation deductions would permit the owners to avoid $490 million in federal corporate income taxes – in addition to the Production Tax Credit – again shifting the tax burden to ordinary taxpayers.
c. Additional tax breaks and subsidies. The above does not include other federal or Massachusetts tax breaks and subsidies that could be available to the Cape Wind owners.
The electric customers in New England – as well as the taxpayers – deserve a far more complete and objective analysis of the potential cost impacts on them of the proposed Cape Wind project than is provided by the 9-page “study” attributed to Charles River Associates (CRA) and released by Cape Wind.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede (former Massachusetts resident)
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
i Click to read link
ii Arithmetic: 1,150,000,000 kWh x 25 years x $0.20 per kWh).
iii NE ISO 2008 Market Report. Click to read link, page 3.
iv Click to read link, Table 1.
v The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
vi They could deduct 20% in the first tax year, 32% in the second tax year and the remaining 48% over the ensuing four tax years. If project capital costs turn out to be $1.4 billion,vi the deduction would be $280 million in the first tax year and $498 million in the second tax year and the remaining $672 million over the next four tax years. These deductions from otherwise taxable income would permit additional tax deductions at the corporate rate of 35%; i.e., $98 million in the first tax year, $156.8 million in the second tax year and the remaining $235.2 over the next four tax years. Note that depreciation deductions apply to both equity and debt, so the owners would probably recover all their equity investment in less than 2 years!
The Editor
Cape Cod Times
319 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Dear Editor:
Thanks for the article in your February 11, 2010, edition, but electric customers in New England should not believe the claim that the Cape Wind project will save them “Billions” on their electric bills.
Frankly, the numbers in the slick 9-page “consultant” studyi released by the developer of the Cape Wind project claim of $4.6 billion in savings over 25 years just don’t add up for at least four major reasons:
1. Huge Cost of Cape Wind electricity. The true cost of electricity from wind – particularly offshore wind -- is huge. No one who is paying attention expects the price that Cape Wind charges for its electricity to be cheap. In fact, over 25 years, the wholesale cost to New England utilities for electricity from Cape Wind apparently will be well over $5.75 billion and probably much more. The arithmetic is simple: The CRA “study” (table 1, page 6), shows that the developer expects to produce about 1,150,000,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year. If utilities are forced to pay even $0.20 per kWh, the utilities cost over 25 years would be $5.75 billion.ii The cost would be $6.9 billion if utilities have to pay the $0.24 per kWh that NatGrid apparently agreed to pay for electricity from the planned Rhode Island offshore “wind farm.” Does anyone in New England seriously expect that the WHOLESALE price of non-Cape Wind electricity in New England will average $0.20 or $0.24 per kWh over the next 25 years (up from about $0.08 per kWh in 2008.iii) You would have to believe that it would be well above $0.20 to $0.24 per kWh to believe that electric customers would SAVE $4.6 billion if Cape Wind is built.
2. The CRA “study” used old data. For some reason not explained in the “study,” CRA used the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) 2009 energy forecast (AEO2009 revised) rather than its 2010 forecast (AEO 2010) that has been available since last December. The fact is that a lot has changed since EIA’s 2009 report, particularly on US natural gas resources. As a result, the prices now expected by EIA for natural gas, electricity, and oil are dramatically lower than the outdated forecast used by CRA.iv Using current data would lower significantly the CRA-Cape Wind claim for savings.
3. Doubtful Assumptions. The “savings” shown by the CRA report are driven by assumptions, including the assumption that Federal legislation will impose a $30 to $60 per ton charge for carbon emissions. Because of the high uncertainty, an objective analysis would have shown results both with and without this dramatic assumption.
4. Missing Costs. The CRA report is silent on who would bear the cost of the transmission capacity that would be needed to bring the electricity from the Cape Wind project to New England customers. Unless Cape Wind is going to absorb those costs within the price it charges, those costs undoubtedly will be passed along to New England’s electric customers and hidden in their monthly bills. Not mentioned at all – probably because it doesn’t affect electric bills – is the fact that the owners of the Cape Wind project would enjoy huge tax breaks if they build the project, and taxpayers in New England, as well as the rest of the US, will share in the tax burden that would be escaped by Cape Wind owners. These tax breaks are in addition to the income the owners would receive by selling electricity to New England utilities and selling “green energy” credits. For example:
a. Production tax credit (PTC). The Cape Wind project owners would be eligible to receive a federal tax credit, currently $0.021 per kWh for electricity produced during the first 10 years of the project life. Using the production apparently expected by Cape Wind (1,150,000,000 per year) a $0.021 per kWh credit (which is adjustable for inflation), would permit the owners to avoid federal corporate income taxes of $24,150,000 per year or $241,500,000 over 10 years. The recent federal “stimulus” legislationv gives “wind farm” developers the option of selecting an investment tax credit in lieu of the PTC or electing to receive from the US Treasury a cash grant equal to 30% of eligible capital costs! Again, ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab.
b. Accelerated depreciation. “Wind farm” owners are also permitted by the IRS to use the lucrative “5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation” (5-yr; 200%DB) to recover the capital costs from their otherwise taxable income.vi Depreciation deductions would permit the owners to avoid $490 million in federal corporate income taxes – in addition to the Production Tax Credit – again shifting the tax burden to ordinary taxpayers.
c. Additional tax breaks and subsidies. The above does not include other federal or Massachusetts tax breaks and subsidies that could be available to the Cape Wind owners.
The electric customers in New England – as well as the taxpayers – deserve a far more complete and objective analysis of the potential cost impacts on them of the proposed Cape Wind project than is provided by the 9-page “study” attributed to Charles River Associates (CRA) and released by Cape Wind.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede (former Massachusetts resident)
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
i Click to read link
ii Arithmetic: 1,150,000,000 kWh x 25 years x $0.20 per kWh).
iii NE ISO 2008 Market Report. Click to read link, page 3.
iv Click to read link, Table 1.
v The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
vi They could deduct 20% in the first tax year, 32% in the second tax year and the remaining 48% over the ensuing four tax years. If project capital costs turn out to be $1.4 billion,vi the deduction would be $280 million in the first tax year and $498 million in the second tax year and the remaining $672 million over the next four tax years. These deductions from otherwise taxable income would permit additional tax deductions at the corporate rate of 35%; i.e., $98 million in the first tax year, $156.8 million in the second tax year and the remaining $235.2 over the next four tax years. Note that depreciation deductions apply to both equity and debt, so the owners would probably recover all their equity investment in less than 2 years!
Cold realities of the wind farms that won't work when it snows
It wasn't so much the wrong type of snow, it was the fact it snowed at all.
When the country ground to a halt during weeks of sub-zero temperatures, wind farms across the country came out in sympathy and their blades refused to budge.
The problem seems to be that the cold weather was accompanied by high pressure and a distinct lack of wind and meant at a time when even the most frugal were turning up the thermostat, one of the country's most controversial energy supplies all but dried up.
At its lowest ebb, figures show only 0.2 per cent of a possible five per cent of the UK's energy was being generated by turbines and, on average, they operated at just 16 per cent capacity throughout the cold spell.
With the turbines not turning, the country was forced to rely even more heavily on foreign pipelines and when those plans stalled, the National Grid had to ask its biggest users to ration supplies. A potential
crisis was quickly averted, but with the country set to increase its dependence on wind power, warning bells have now been sounded.
"At times of high demand in cold weather, there is a tendency for there to be no wind," says a spokesman for the Renewable Energy Foundation, an independent charity set up to encourage the development of renewable energy and energy conservation "It's an energy source which provides very little reliable capacity. It's not a problem at the moment because we have supplies of oil and gas from the North Sea, but further down the line, when 20 per cent of all our energy is being produced by renewables and we hit a similar weather pattern, then we will have a problem."
For sceptics, and there are many, the news a harsh winter can bring wind turbines to an involuntary standstill will provide yet another weapon in their armoury, but opponents also know it may be too late.
Despite vocal opposition, the Government recently unveiled a new wave of off-shore wind farms which they hope will create 70,000 so-called green collar jobs. The move came in the wake of new targets under which 6,400 turbines are supposed to provide a quarter of all the UK's energy needs by 2020.
However, the power generated from wind turbines is difficult to store and a back-up resource will always be needed to plug gaps in supplies. Plan B has been to rely on nuclear and coal-fired plants, but with the oldest sites due to be scrapped in five years' time as part of a European Union directive, less secure foreign pipelines, including those in Russia, will have to play an even bigger part in the UK's energy plans. While the inability of wind turbines to withstand a few days of frost may have handed detractors an easy stick with which to beat current plans, if this year's blip does turn in to a future energy crisis there would be little to laugh about.
Ofgem has already raised the possibility of a return to a three- day week within four years and many experts believe power cuts have only been avoided in recent months because the recession meant there was less demand than in good economic times.
"If the super wind farms proposed by the Government has already been in place this winter, they wouldn't have contributed anything of significance," says a spokesman for the Energy Intensive Users
Group. "The cold snap should be a warning that our power generation and gas supplies are under strain and it's getting worse.
"It will be industry which gets its gas switched off first. Just
imagine going through the winter we have had now when energy demand has gone back up to pre-recession levels."
While the UK doesn't have a good history of coping with sudden changes in weather, temperamental wind turbines have also been a source of embarrassment in the US. Minnesota recently bought 11 turbines from sun-blessed Palm Springs in California at a cost of $300,000 each. However, when temperatures plummeted recently, the special hydraulic fluid designed to keep the blades turning in cold weather failed.
Despite the mounting problems, it may take an even bigger crisis to
force another look at where next for wind farms.
"Energy policy never changes in advance of a crisis," says energy and economics specialist Professor Dieter Helm. "Sadly, it only ever changes after a crisis."
When the country ground to a halt during weeks of sub-zero temperatures, wind farms across the country came out in sympathy and their blades refused to budge.
The problem seems to be that the cold weather was accompanied by high pressure and a distinct lack of wind and meant at a time when even the most frugal were turning up the thermostat, one of the country's most controversial energy supplies all but dried up.
At its lowest ebb, figures show only 0.2 per cent of a possible five per cent of the UK's energy was being generated by turbines and, on average, they operated at just 16 per cent capacity throughout the cold spell.
With the turbines not turning, the country was forced to rely even more heavily on foreign pipelines and when those plans stalled, the National Grid had to ask its biggest users to ration supplies. A potential
crisis was quickly averted, but with the country set to increase its dependence on wind power, warning bells have now been sounded.
"At times of high demand in cold weather, there is a tendency for there to be no wind," says a spokesman for the Renewable Energy Foundation, an independent charity set up to encourage the development of renewable energy and energy conservation "It's an energy source which provides very little reliable capacity. It's not a problem at the moment because we have supplies of oil and gas from the North Sea, but further down the line, when 20 per cent of all our energy is being produced by renewables and we hit a similar weather pattern, then we will have a problem."
For sceptics, and there are many, the news a harsh winter can bring wind turbines to an involuntary standstill will provide yet another weapon in their armoury, but opponents also know it may be too late.
Despite vocal opposition, the Government recently unveiled a new wave of off-shore wind farms which they hope will create 70,000 so-called green collar jobs. The move came in the wake of new targets under which 6,400 turbines are supposed to provide a quarter of all the UK's energy needs by 2020.
However, the power generated from wind turbines is difficult to store and a back-up resource will always be needed to plug gaps in supplies. Plan B has been to rely on nuclear and coal-fired plants, but with the oldest sites due to be scrapped in five years' time as part of a European Union directive, less secure foreign pipelines, including those in Russia, will have to play an even bigger part in the UK's energy plans. While the inability of wind turbines to withstand a few days of frost may have handed detractors an easy stick with which to beat current plans, if this year's blip does turn in to a future energy crisis there would be little to laugh about.
Ofgem has already raised the possibility of a return to a three- day week within four years and many experts believe power cuts have only been avoided in recent months because the recession meant there was less demand than in good economic times.
"If the super wind farms proposed by the Government has already been in place this winter, they wouldn't have contributed anything of significance," says a spokesman for the Energy Intensive Users
Group. "The cold snap should be a warning that our power generation and gas supplies are under strain and it's getting worse.
"It will be industry which gets its gas switched off first. Just
imagine going through the winter we have had now when energy demand has gone back up to pre-recession levels."
While the UK doesn't have a good history of coping with sudden changes in weather, temperamental wind turbines have also been a source of embarrassment in the US. Minnesota recently bought 11 turbines from sun-blessed Palm Springs in California at a cost of $300,000 each. However, when temperatures plummeted recently, the special hydraulic fluid designed to keep the blades turning in cold weather failed.
Despite the mounting problems, it may take an even bigger crisis to
force another look at where next for wind farms.
"Energy policy never changes in advance of a crisis," says energy and economics specialist Professor Dieter Helm. "Sadly, it only ever changes after a crisis."
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wind moratorium to continue in Bath
Bath, N.Y.
A ban on any industrial wind-related activity in the town of Bath will continue until May, following the town board’s approval Monday.
Board members voted, 3-0, in favor of extending their current moratorium to allow more study of a wind law and a road-use agreement. Councilmen Dean Kropp and Robin Lattimer did not attend the meeting.
The moratorium, due to expire in February, was set up to allow the town to develop regulations for wind turbine development.
The board has not been approached by developers, but wants regulations in place in case wind development becomes a possibility.
The committee is considering issues such as the height of towers, setbacks and noise levels.
The initial drafts should be completed by the time the three-month extension on the moratorium expires May 14, town Attorney Jeff Squires said.
In other action, the board agreed informally to offer its old, lever-style voting machines to the village.
By law, the town must use new ballot-scanning voting machines also required for county, state and federal elections. Villages and school districts are exempt from the federal requirement and have the option of using the lever machines.
The town also is in the process of re-applying for a state records management grant, according to town Supervisor Fred Muller. The town and the village applied together for the grant, which was denied last year due to confusion in the village clerk’s office.
A ban on any industrial wind-related activity in the town of Bath will continue until May, following the town board’s approval Monday.
Board members voted, 3-0, in favor of extending their current moratorium to allow more study of a wind law and a road-use agreement. Councilmen Dean Kropp and Robin Lattimer did not attend the meeting.
The moratorium, due to expire in February, was set up to allow the town to develop regulations for wind turbine development.
The board has not been approached by developers, but wants regulations in place in case wind development becomes a possibility.
The committee is considering issues such as the height of towers, setbacks and noise levels.
The initial drafts should be completed by the time the three-month extension on the moratorium expires May 14, town Attorney Jeff Squires said.
In other action, the board agreed informally to offer its old, lever-style voting machines to the village.
By law, the town must use new ballot-scanning voting machines also required for county, state and federal elections. Villages and school districts are exempt from the federal requirement and have the option of using the lever machines.
The town also is in the process of re-applying for a state records management grant, according to town Supervisor Fred Muller. The town and the village applied together for the grant, which was denied last year due to confusion in the village clerk’s office.
Challenge to Wind Power Law Comes Before Maine Supreme Court
A new law designed to speed up the development of wind energy projects was challenged for the first time today before Maine's highest court.
A group of Penobscot County residents called Friends of Lincoln Lake took its concerns to Maine's Supreme Court justices this afternoon. The residents are appealing the Maine Wind Energy Act, a measure designed to expedite the permitting process for setting up a wind farm.
"We are proud to be the first to challenge this law," said Lynne Williams, the lawyer representing Friends of Lincoln Lake, who oppose plans to establish the 40-turbine Rollins Wind Project in their corner of eastern Maine.
The Department of Environmental Protection, says Williams, relied on flawed studies when it approved the project. "I think there is argument to be made that the evidence that the state depended upon in this case was not reliable."
The decision, she says, was based on a computer model not specifically geared towards wind farms, which underestimates the noise level generated by turbine blades.
Juliet Browne, representing the project's developers, First Wind, defended the model. "The model is a tool and the benefit of this model is that it has been calibrated based on real data from an operating wind farm with the same turbines that are proposed here."
Meanwhile Margaret Bensinger, acting on behalf of the DEP, says the board also listened to an independent expert named Warren Brown before approving the project. "While at first Mr. Brown wrestled with the fact that the model used wasn't specifically designed for wind power projects, after thorough review he ultimately concluded that model adequately predicted the noise levels at the various locations. The board found this evidence to be convincing."
Arguments over computer models aside, the Friends of Lincoln Lake are also challenging the state's existing noise regulations, which Attorney Lynne Williams -- who is also a Green Party candidate for governor -- says do not help when it comes to tackling the particular problems associated with the sound of wind turbine blades.
It is not, she says, merely a question of decibel level. "And while we don't have noise regulations that apply to low frequency sound, which is the 'whoosh, whoosh, whoosh,' and amplitude modulation, which is the thumping that you feel when you sit too close to the speaker at a rock concert, we believe these come under the mandate of the department to take into account the health and safety of Mainers."
"The science on the effect of windpower on humans in the locality is changing rapidly, I would suggest. We're all learning in this process," said Chief Justice Leigh Sauffley, who expressed concern that wind farm operators take heed of any new findings about wind farm noise once the project is up and running.
Margaret Bensinger, representing the DEP, sought to allay Saufley's concerns. "One of the conditions of the permit is the post construction monitoring, and it's explicit in permit that the department can require modification, or even shutting down, of turbines that cause a problem."
"The Legislature's expedited process was designed under industrial and self-serving interests, and totally left out citizen impact," says Gary Steinberg of the Friends of Lincoln Lake, who were on hand for oral arguments in Portland. "And unfortunately, we've had to take actions, raise a lot of money, organize the best we could as citizens, and I'm tickled to death we're at the Supreme Court level and that we're being listened to by the Supreme Court justices."
And as those justices ponder the evidence presented to them, activists like Steinberg are hoping that a court ruling in their favor will lead to an overhaul of state noise regulations, and put the brakes on wind power development in Maine.
(Click to listen to the radio report)
A group of Penobscot County residents called Friends of Lincoln Lake took its concerns to Maine's Supreme Court justices this afternoon. The residents are appealing the Maine Wind Energy Act, a measure designed to expedite the permitting process for setting up a wind farm.
"We are proud to be the first to challenge this law," said Lynne Williams, the lawyer representing Friends of Lincoln Lake, who oppose plans to establish the 40-turbine Rollins Wind Project in their corner of eastern Maine.
The Department of Environmental Protection, says Williams, relied on flawed studies when it approved the project. "I think there is argument to be made that the evidence that the state depended upon in this case was not reliable."
The decision, she says, was based on a computer model not specifically geared towards wind farms, which underestimates the noise level generated by turbine blades.
Juliet Browne, representing the project's developers, First Wind, defended the model. "The model is a tool and the benefit of this model is that it has been calibrated based on real data from an operating wind farm with the same turbines that are proposed here."
Meanwhile Margaret Bensinger, acting on behalf of the DEP, says the board also listened to an independent expert named Warren Brown before approving the project. "While at first Mr. Brown wrestled with the fact that the model used wasn't specifically designed for wind power projects, after thorough review he ultimately concluded that model adequately predicted the noise levels at the various locations. The board found this evidence to be convincing."
Arguments over computer models aside, the Friends of Lincoln Lake are also challenging the state's existing noise regulations, which Attorney Lynne Williams -- who is also a Green Party candidate for governor -- says do not help when it comes to tackling the particular problems associated with the sound of wind turbine blades.
It is not, she says, merely a question of decibel level. "And while we don't have noise regulations that apply to low frequency sound, which is the 'whoosh, whoosh, whoosh,' and amplitude modulation, which is the thumping that you feel when you sit too close to the speaker at a rock concert, we believe these come under the mandate of the department to take into account the health and safety of Mainers."
"The science on the effect of windpower on humans in the locality is changing rapidly, I would suggest. We're all learning in this process," said Chief Justice Leigh Sauffley, who expressed concern that wind farm operators take heed of any new findings about wind farm noise once the project is up and running.
Margaret Bensinger, representing the DEP, sought to allay Saufley's concerns. "One of the conditions of the permit is the post construction monitoring, and it's explicit in permit that the department can require modification, or even shutting down, of turbines that cause a problem."
"The Legislature's expedited process was designed under industrial and self-serving interests, and totally left out citizen impact," says Gary Steinberg of the Friends of Lincoln Lake, who were on hand for oral arguments in Portland. "And unfortunately, we've had to take actions, raise a lot of money, organize the best we could as citizens, and I'm tickled to death we're at the Supreme Court level and that we're being listened to by the Supreme Court justices."
And as those justices ponder the evidence presented to them, activists like Steinberg are hoping that a court ruling in their favor will lead to an overhaul of state noise regulations, and put the brakes on wind power development in Maine.
(Click to listen to the radio report)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Wind farms banned as MoD listening post demands hush to detect nuclear blasts
THE Ministry of Defence has put a blanket ban on turbines being built within 31 miles of a nuclear test monitoring station, The Scotsman has learned.
• The landscape around Hawick looks set to remain free of new wind farms under a limit set by the Eskdalemuir seismological recording station
The decision by the MoD could scupper plans for major wind farms in the Borders, as well as making it impossible for individuals to put turbines up at their homes and farms.
The Eskdalemuir seismological recording station, between Moffat and Hawick in the Borders, is used to monitor underground nuclear testing across the world.
It is the only facility of its kind in the UK, and it fulfils the government's obligation to monitor countries' compliance with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
The MoD says research suggests that if too many wind turbines are built in the vicinity, the vibrations can interfere with the recording equipment.
It says the safe maximum has been reached, and it will now object to any applications to build wind farms within a 31-mile radius of the station. Any turbines outside this area do not affect the station's work.
It is the latest clash between the MoD and wind power industry. The MoD already commonly objects to turbines on the grounds they can interfere with radar.
There are plans for wind farms totalling about 100 turbines in the area covered by the ban. Some of those plans are accommodated within the MoD's limit on developments and will therefore be allowed to go ahead, but other proposals will be met with an objection. Existing proposals will be treated on a first come, first served basis.
An objection from the MoD on these grounds will lead to an automatic refusal of planning permission, according to experts.
An application for a turbine at a farmhouse in Hawick, about 15 miles from the recording station, is among those to which the MoD has already objected, and it has since been withdrawn.
An employee of a firm selling wind turbines for small-scale use in the Borders, such as for farms or homes, said there was no point even putting in planning applications in that area.
The man, who did not want to be named, has had about 15 inquiries from people interested in installing turbines near the station. "There's no point going into planning because they won't get permission," he said.
"It's the end of the line. In that area, I might as well not bother going to see people about wind turbines because I would know I'm going to charge people for a site survey which is going to be a complete waste of money for them."
He said some of his customers had been "blazing" about the MoD's objection.
A spokeswoman for the MoD confirmed it would "register concern" over any new wind farm applications for that area. She said efforts were being made to find a solution to the problem.
"We have been looking at whether a damping system can be integrated into the wind turbines, which will dampen the noise.
"It's taking time and it's not something that can happen overnight and we have to ensure that the Eskdalemuir station is not compromised."
Mark Roley, who campaigns against wind farms in the Borders, was happy with the situation.
"Obviously, we are not keen on having wind turbines in scenic areas so if this was an impediment to that then we would welcome it," he said.
The Scottish Government has ambitious targets for 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity to be provided by renewables by 2020.
A spokesman said: "The Scottish Government is working to resolve this issue and is continuing discussions with the MoD, the British Wind Energy Association and the Department of Energy and Climate Change."
• The landscape around Hawick looks set to remain free of new wind farms under a limit set by the Eskdalemuir seismological recording station
The decision by the MoD could scupper plans for major wind farms in the Borders, as well as making it impossible for individuals to put turbines up at their homes and farms.
The Eskdalemuir seismological recording station, between Moffat and Hawick in the Borders, is used to monitor underground nuclear testing across the world.
It is the only facility of its kind in the UK, and it fulfils the government's obligation to monitor countries' compliance with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
The MoD says research suggests that if too many wind turbines are built in the vicinity, the vibrations can interfere with the recording equipment.
It says the safe maximum has been reached, and it will now object to any applications to build wind farms within a 31-mile radius of the station. Any turbines outside this area do not affect the station's work.
It is the latest clash between the MoD and wind power industry. The MoD already commonly objects to turbines on the grounds they can interfere with radar.
There are plans for wind farms totalling about 100 turbines in the area covered by the ban. Some of those plans are accommodated within the MoD's limit on developments and will therefore be allowed to go ahead, but other proposals will be met with an objection. Existing proposals will be treated on a first come, first served basis.
An objection from the MoD on these grounds will lead to an automatic refusal of planning permission, according to experts.
An application for a turbine at a farmhouse in Hawick, about 15 miles from the recording station, is among those to which the MoD has already objected, and it has since been withdrawn.
An employee of a firm selling wind turbines for small-scale use in the Borders, such as for farms or homes, said there was no point even putting in planning applications in that area.
The man, who did not want to be named, has had about 15 inquiries from people interested in installing turbines near the station. "There's no point going into planning because they won't get permission," he said.
"It's the end of the line. In that area, I might as well not bother going to see people about wind turbines because I would know I'm going to charge people for a site survey which is going to be a complete waste of money for them."
He said some of his customers had been "blazing" about the MoD's objection.
A spokeswoman for the MoD confirmed it would "register concern" over any new wind farm applications for that area. She said efforts were being made to find a solution to the problem.
"We have been looking at whether a damping system can be integrated into the wind turbines, which will dampen the noise.
"It's taking time and it's not something that can happen overnight and we have to ensure that the Eskdalemuir station is not compromised."
Mark Roley, who campaigns against wind farms in the Borders, was happy with the situation.
"Obviously, we are not keen on having wind turbines in scenic areas so if this was an impediment to that then we would welcome it," he said.
The Scottish Government has ambitious targets for 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity to be provided by renewables by 2020.
A spokesman said: "The Scottish Government is working to resolve this issue and is continuing discussions with the MoD, the British Wind Energy Association and the Department of Energy and Climate Change."
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE WIND FARM?
Nearly half of this massive blade is missing75 wind turbines damaged; witness saw explosive blue light before Campo-area wind farm went dark
“I saw a huge flash of blue out on the side of the hill where the windmills were. It started in the middle and spread out in all directions. It lit up the whole hillside the white-out of a snowstorm."--Ken Daubach
By Miriam Raftery
February 10, 2010 (Campo) – Battered by a winter storm on December 7, 25 wind turbines at the Kumeyaay Wind project on the Campo Indian Reservation shut down---and haven’t come back on line two months later.
At a January 28 public scoping meeting, Boulevard Planning Group Chair Donna Tisdale asked the California Public Utilities Commission and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct a formal public health and safety investigation.
Donna Tisdale“All 75 blades from all 25 turbines were removed and only some of the FAA required lights are working,” Tisdale wrote. “There is speculation that the high winds flowing across the composite blades created an electrostatic discharge that then arced between turbines damaging the blades and the electrical system.”
Ken Daubach, a former firefighter, was driving home from work as a prison guard the night the damage occurred. “I was following a snow plough, very slow, doing maybe 5 to 7 miles per hour, heading westbound on I-8,” he told East County Magazine. “I saw a huge flash of blue out on the side of the hill where the windmills were. It started in the middle and spread out in all directions…It lit up the whole hillside in a white-out of a snowstorm…Then it was all black.“
Daubach and Tisdale express concern that such massive failure could pose danger to residents should it reoccur. The failure occurred when there was snow on the ground. But Daubach notes, “Had it been dry, I think we’d probably have had a fire.”
In written comments provided to ECM, Daubach stated that SDG&E had a power outage in the area the day of the storm. He wonders whether a power surge following an outage might have caused the blue flash that he saw. He said Emmerton confirmed that “while rerouting power, they had inadvertently been taken off-the-grid that day, too. He admitted that they have no idea what is wrong.”
Although an earlier news report speculated that the damage was caused by lightning, Daubach asid, “I didn’t hear any thunder.” According to the Union-Tribune, David Barnes, chief executive of Bluarc Management in Dallas, operator of the wind farm, has since acknowledged that no turbines were struck by lightning. “We’re mobilizing equipment and spare parts to the site,” Barnes told the Union-Tribune in a January 13 article, adding that workers are inspecting and repairing all 75 blades. He attributed high winds to the cracking, but has offered no public explanation of the flash seen by Daubach.
Daubach said he contacted Barnes in late January, and that it took considerable digging to locate contact information for the site operator. He says he also talked to a site manager, Neal Emmerton, and explained what he saw.
According to Daubach, he has also twice spoken with an engineer who works at the wind farm, whom he met into at a nearby gas station. “He said he was regenerating something inside at 10:30 that night—but his story changed; his original statement was that he was under the windmills at 10:30. Last time, he said he was just glad nobody got hurt. This was the worst possible failure, catastrophic failure…So what happened?” In a written statement, Daubach noted that a controller for the wind farm said the manufacturer was “not being cooperative and that SDG&E had shut down the turbines numerous times due to putting in steel poles” and that “due to the insurance company and investors,” the company needed to “get the turbines up and running quickly.”
Barnes did not return calls from ECM. Campo Indians tribal chair Monique LaChappa also has not returned a phone message left yesterday. ECM will publish their comments if we receive responses.
The wind turbines are designed to stop spinning at wind speeds above 50 mph. Daubach estimated gusts of around 45 mph. “I can tell you it was moving my truck.” Asked how often winds that strong are felt in the area, he replied, “Too often. At least once a month. “
But Andy Degroot, who lives about a mile and a half from the wind farm, told ECM that he has a wind indicator—and it measured 75 mph wind speeds the night of the storm. “That’s the highest we’ve recorded, and we’ve had that thing probably five years,” he said. He photographed the wind speed measurement on his cell phone.
Degroot confirmed that he did not hear any thunder on December 7th, either.
Nearly half of this massive blade is missingDegroot told ECM that he went up to the wind farm the day after the blades stopped turning to check the damage.
“I walked right up there and got underneath them. A lot of the blades were split. Chunks were torn out of them,” he said. “It was pretty severe damage,” he said, adding that he did not see any burn marks on blades. He took photos of the damage, which he has shared with ECM. “Then I got kicked out,” he recalled, adding that he did not see any no trespassing signs.
His photos showed severe damage, including one blade with one-third to one-half of its approximately 90-foot-length blade missing.
Oil leak? Degroot photographed spillage benaeth these blades and on tower in photo below.Photos also reveal what appears to be substantial oil leakage from machinery down the length of the massive tower. Pointing to the photo of an area where the substance was leaking from, he observed, “That’s the size of a two-car garage, approximately. They’re touting them as cheap, clean energy. They’re not that clean.”
Degroot said he did not observe any blades or portions of blades that had flown far enough afield to have damaged persons or property outside the wind farm, or on Interstate 8.
The night of the storm, something also happened to lights at the facility. “I’m looking at all 25 windmills right now,” he said in a phone interview. “We have one that’s closest to us that has a white strobe on it. It used to be red at night and now it stays white. When it’s hazy outside and it blinks, it’s a huge flash in the sky. After a while, it gets pretty annoying.” He said he’s talked to an employee who told him they are aware of the problem, but haven’t gotten around to fixing it.”
Tisdale revealed, “One wind farm employee told me that he cannot get permission to repair that light.
Wind turbine dwarfs mountains in backgroundDegroot is worried that the catastrophe could reoccur. “I’m sure it could happen again because these are huge blades,” he said. “They’re like ninety-some feet long. I don’t know what they changed on this new group that’s going to be different than the old style.”
Others share that concern. The consequences of a wildfire started in this windy backcountry region are all-too-well known, as the Cedar, Witch and Harris fires have proven. Those fires charred hundreds of thousands of acres and cost many lives.
The Harris fire started in nearby Potrero, where 100-mph winds swiftly fanned flames that forced evacuations as far east as Chula Vista and killed several people. The Witch Fire, also in 2007, began in mountainous Ramona and forced evacuation all the way to the coast in Solana Beach. Together, those fires and others ignited during the same Santa Ana windy period caused half a million people to evacuate—more than during Hurricane Katrina. The 2003 Cedar Fire, at the time the worst in California history, killed 17 people.
Harris Fire Tisdale cites concern over electrical arcing from turbines that extends beyond Campo. “What danger does this type of static discharge represent, especially if turbines are placed on public lands in recreation areas, and adjacent to private properties? “ she asked in her request for an investigation.
She added, “How will the increased threat of fire and other damage from more turbines impact our insurance? Rates will like rise, and insurance will be denied to some homeowners,” Tisdale predicted, adding, “It is already hard to get insurance in this high fire danger area.”
Friends group loses Rollins Mountain appeal
LINCOLN, Maine — The Lincoln Board of Appeals was right to refuse to hear the Friends of Lincoln Lakes’ appeal of a Lincoln Planning Board permit issued for a proposed $130 million wind farm on Rollins Mountain, according to a judge’s ruling.
Through its own errors, the Friends group lacked standing to oppose the planning board’s Dec. 1, 2008, decision approving the First Wind of Massachusetts project, Superior Court Justice William R. Anderson ruled in his 26-page decision released Monday.
Anderson rapped the group and its attorney, Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor, for making vague or irrelevant arguments and forcing the appeals board to play “a difficult game of connect the dots” by failing to establish the group’s legal identity in Town Council and planning board meetings that preceded the Dec. 1 vote.
“For reasons that are not clear, FOLL was unwilling to provide the appeals board with minimal evidence to memorialize its ‘party status,’” Anderson wrote.
Among the errors: The group’s incorporation papers named no group members. The group and Williams thwarted the appeals board’s attempts to legally certify group members’ identities during the board’s Jan. 8, 2009, meeting, Anderson wrote.
He called the appeals board’s dismissal “an entirely avoidable result.”
Williams said she hadn’t yet seen Anderson’s decision and couldn’t comment on it Monday. Friends group spokesman Gary Steinberg did not immediately return telephone messages.
Anderson’s decision limits the group’s options, Williams said.
“If this appeal is turned down, if we do not go and appeal it to state supreme court, then we would be done. We would not be able to go back to the planning board,” she said.
Group members have said the issue of identification was silly bureaucratese, as group members had appealed the First Wind plan almost from its introduction. First Wind wants to build 40 turbines, each generating 1½ megawatts, on ridgelines in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn.
At the appeals board hearing, group members declined to provide paperwork identifying themselves — the “minimal evidence necessary” — because the form requested bank data they considered confidential, they said. Some group members joked, “I’m here, but I am not here,” after the meeting.
But proper legal identification helps determine responsibility for group actions. With their identity left legally vague, group members “had no capacity to sue or be sued,” the town’s attorney, Timothy C. Woodcock, told Anderson during testimony July 29 in Penobscot County Superior Court.
The group could have avoided problems by naming a single member as the applicant in its appeal to the appeals board, but the group member they named was not listed in minutes as having attended all necessary council and planning board meetings, Anderson wrote.
Appeals board Chairman Alan Grant and Town Manager Lisa Goodwin said they were not surprised by the ruling.
“The arguments they were trying to make were better suited for the council or the planning board. Those are political forums. The will of the people is better suited in both those forums,” Grant said. “We were interested only in the rule of law.”
“My concern is that the appeals board is looking at things the way they are supposed to,” Goodwin said, “and this ruling says that they are.”
Williams said she expected to discuss whether to appeal Anderson’s decision to a higher court with group members on Wednesday, when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court hears the group’s other appeal of the First Wind project in Portland. That appeal concerns the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s permit approving the Rollins Mountain project.
“The whole thing is complicated. We are fighting this fight on many different tracks,” Williams said.
Through its own errors, the Friends group lacked standing to oppose the planning board’s Dec. 1, 2008, decision approving the First Wind of Massachusetts project, Superior Court Justice William R. Anderson ruled in his 26-page decision released Monday.
Anderson rapped the group and its attorney, Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor, for making vague or irrelevant arguments and forcing the appeals board to play “a difficult game of connect the dots” by failing to establish the group’s legal identity in Town Council and planning board meetings that preceded the Dec. 1 vote.
“For reasons that are not clear, FOLL was unwilling to provide the appeals board with minimal evidence to memorialize its ‘party status,’” Anderson wrote.
Among the errors: The group’s incorporation papers named no group members. The group and Williams thwarted the appeals board’s attempts to legally certify group members’ identities during the board’s Jan. 8, 2009, meeting, Anderson wrote.
He called the appeals board’s dismissal “an entirely avoidable result.”
Williams said she hadn’t yet seen Anderson’s decision and couldn’t comment on it Monday. Friends group spokesman Gary Steinberg did not immediately return telephone messages.
Anderson’s decision limits the group’s options, Williams said.
“If this appeal is turned down, if we do not go and appeal it to state supreme court, then we would be done. We would not be able to go back to the planning board,” she said.
Group members have said the issue of identification was silly bureaucratese, as group members had appealed the First Wind plan almost from its introduction. First Wind wants to build 40 turbines, each generating 1½ megawatts, on ridgelines in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn.
At the appeals board hearing, group members declined to provide paperwork identifying themselves — the “minimal evidence necessary” — because the form requested bank data they considered confidential, they said. Some group members joked, “I’m here, but I am not here,” after the meeting.
But proper legal identification helps determine responsibility for group actions. With their identity left legally vague, group members “had no capacity to sue or be sued,” the town’s attorney, Timothy C. Woodcock, told Anderson during testimony July 29 in Penobscot County Superior Court.
The group could have avoided problems by naming a single member as the applicant in its appeal to the appeals board, but the group member they named was not listed in minutes as having attended all necessary council and planning board meetings, Anderson wrote.
Appeals board Chairman Alan Grant and Town Manager Lisa Goodwin said they were not surprised by the ruling.
“The arguments they were trying to make were better suited for the council or the planning board. Those are political forums. The will of the people is better suited in both those forums,” Grant said. “We were interested only in the rule of law.”
“My concern is that the appeals board is looking at things the way they are supposed to,” Goodwin said, “and this ruling says that they are.”
Williams said she expected to discuss whether to appeal Anderson’s decision to a higher court with group members on Wednesday, when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court hears the group’s other appeal of the First Wind project in Portland. That appeal concerns the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s permit approving the Rollins Mountain project.
“The whole thing is complicated. We are fighting this fight on many different tracks,” Williams said.
Wind farm opponents lose appeal
A group of Lincoln residents has lost its appeal of a Lincoln Planning Board permit that allowed a proposed $130 million wind farm on Rollins Mountain.
In his 26-page decision issued yesterday, Superior Court Justice William R. Anderson said the Lincoln Board of Appeals was justified when it chose not to hear the appeal filed by the Friends of Lincoln Lakes because the group lacked legal standing to oppose the planning board's 2008 approval of the wind farm, according to the Bangor Daily News. Massachusetts-based First Wind is planning a 40-turbine wind farm on ridgelines in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn.
Anderson chastised the group and its lawyer, attorney Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor, for making vague or irrelevant arguments and failing to establish the group's legal identity in town council and planning board meetings that preceded the Dec. 1, 2008 vote, according to the paper.The group's members argued the identification issue was unfounded because the group had opposed the First Wind project almost from the beginning, according to the newspaper.
Williams told the Bangor Daily News she planned to discuss whether to appeal Anderson's decision to a higher court with group members on Wednesday, when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Portland hears the group's appeal of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's approval of the project.
Currently, First Wind also operates the 42-megawatt Mars Hill and the 57-megawatt Stetson Mountain wind farms. Construction of the 26-megawatt Stetson II project will be completed this spring, while the DEP approved the proposed 51-megawatt Oakfield project on Jan. 21.
In his 26-page decision issued yesterday, Superior Court Justice William R. Anderson said the Lincoln Board of Appeals was justified when it chose not to hear the appeal filed by the Friends of Lincoln Lakes because the group lacked legal standing to oppose the planning board's 2008 approval of the wind farm, according to the Bangor Daily News. Massachusetts-based First Wind is planning a 40-turbine wind farm on ridgelines in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn.
Anderson chastised the group and its lawyer, attorney Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor, for making vague or irrelevant arguments and failing to establish the group's legal identity in town council and planning board meetings that preceded the Dec. 1, 2008 vote, according to the paper.The group's members argued the identification issue was unfounded because the group had opposed the First Wind project almost from the beginning, according to the newspaper.
Williams told the Bangor Daily News she planned to discuss whether to appeal Anderson's decision to a higher court with group members on Wednesday, when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Portland hears the group's appeal of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's approval of the project.
Currently, First Wind also operates the 42-megawatt Mars Hill and the 57-megawatt Stetson Mountain wind farms. Construction of the 26-megawatt Stetson II project will be completed this spring, while the DEP approved the proposed 51-megawatt Oakfield project on Jan. 21.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Jackson residents approve wind turbine limits
JACKSON, Maine — Residents this weekend approved a controversial wind turbine ordinance that would impose strict regulations on industrial wind power developments.
Among other things, the ordinance — written by the planning board and the wind energy subcommittee — stipulates that any 400-foot-tall turbines erected must be at least a mile from any houses.
Although the 111-75 vote Saturday morning at a special town meeting has cheered many who oppose large-scale wind facilities in Maine, it also has dismayed some in this rural town of about 500 people who feel the ordinance is too restrictive and shortsighted.
“I was disappointed,” said Duane Lahaye of Jackson, a past member of the planning board who uses several small windmills at his home. “We have to think as an entire nation. We can’t just think as people who don’t want it ‘in my backyard.’ For the better good of everybody, these windmills would have been great.”
The new ordinance replaces a moratorium on wind energy projects that has been in place since January 2009 and was enacted in response to proposals to erect a series of wind towers along Mount Harris and Ricker Ridge in Jackson, Dixmont and Thorndike. Dixmont voters last November approved an ordinance requiring a 1-mile setback between wind turbines and homes.
Brad Blake of Cape Elizabeth is a spokesman for the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power, a recently formed umbrella group of residents fighting wind projects around the state.
“We think it’s absolutely fabulous, because in the town of Jackson, this came as a result of the actual citizens forcing the issue,” he said of Saturday’s vote. “As more and more people get to know about industrial wind power, a lot of citizens in their own communities are starting to say that this is something they need to consider very carefully. Communities like Dixmont and Jackson are saying this is how we’re going to do it if you come to our town.”
But the wind issue in Jackson has been divisive, Lahaye said.
“It has driven a rent through this town that is not going to heal for a long time,” he said.
The timeline on the ordinance has been tight, said Selectman Cindy Ludden.
In November, the planning board delivered a draft ordinance to selectmen, and one month later a third of the town’s registered voters signed a petition to ask selectmen to hold a special town meeting to vote on the proposed ordinance. In mid-December, officials heard from town attorney William Kelly that there were more than 30 “areas of concern” in the ordinance, Ludden said, but it had to go to a townwide vote despite that.
“It was the biggest meeting the town has ever seen. I think everybody knew what they wanted to vote when they came in,” she said. “The consensus was people were concerned about their neighbors.”
According to Ludden, Jackson households have been bombarded with information about the wind ordinance, and recently received two mailings from the selectmen, three from the anti-industrial wind group Fair Wind, two from a private homeowner and even a DVD.
Efforts Monday afternoon to reach someone from Fair Wind or a member of the town’s subcommittee on wind energy were unsuccessful.
“People are talked-out. People are papered-out,” Ludden said. “The big winner here in town was the Brooks post office. They must have gone above and beyond their quarterly quota.”
At this point, she said that she hopes Jackson will receive permit applications for smaller projects.
Blake said that the Jackson ordinance may help restrict the growth of industrial wind facilities across the state.
“We encourage more communities to put more ordinances in place so that the local citizens have more control,” he said.
Among other things, the ordinance — written by the planning board and the wind energy subcommittee — stipulates that any 400-foot-tall turbines erected must be at least a mile from any houses.
Although the 111-75 vote Saturday morning at a special town meeting has cheered many who oppose large-scale wind facilities in Maine, it also has dismayed some in this rural town of about 500 people who feel the ordinance is too restrictive and shortsighted.
“I was disappointed,” said Duane Lahaye of Jackson, a past member of the planning board who uses several small windmills at his home. “We have to think as an entire nation. We can’t just think as people who don’t want it ‘in my backyard.’ For the better good of everybody, these windmills would have been great.”
The new ordinance replaces a moratorium on wind energy projects that has been in place since January 2009 and was enacted in response to proposals to erect a series of wind towers along Mount Harris and Ricker Ridge in Jackson, Dixmont and Thorndike. Dixmont voters last November approved an ordinance requiring a 1-mile setback between wind turbines and homes.
Brad Blake of Cape Elizabeth is a spokesman for the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power, a recently formed umbrella group of residents fighting wind projects around the state.
“We think it’s absolutely fabulous, because in the town of Jackson, this came as a result of the actual citizens forcing the issue,” he said of Saturday’s vote. “As more and more people get to know about industrial wind power, a lot of citizens in their own communities are starting to say that this is something they need to consider very carefully. Communities like Dixmont and Jackson are saying this is how we’re going to do it if you come to our town.”
But the wind issue in Jackson has been divisive, Lahaye said.
“It has driven a rent through this town that is not going to heal for a long time,” he said.
The timeline on the ordinance has been tight, said Selectman Cindy Ludden.
In November, the planning board delivered a draft ordinance to selectmen, and one month later a third of the town’s registered voters signed a petition to ask selectmen to hold a special town meeting to vote on the proposed ordinance. In mid-December, officials heard from town attorney William Kelly that there were more than 30 “areas of concern” in the ordinance, Ludden said, but it had to go to a townwide vote despite that.
“It was the biggest meeting the town has ever seen. I think everybody knew what they wanted to vote when they came in,” she said. “The consensus was people were concerned about their neighbors.”
According to Ludden, Jackson households have been bombarded with information about the wind ordinance, and recently received two mailings from the selectmen, three from the anti-industrial wind group Fair Wind, two from a private homeowner and even a DVD.
Efforts Monday afternoon to reach someone from Fair Wind or a member of the town’s subcommittee on wind energy were unsuccessful.
“People are talked-out. People are papered-out,” Ludden said. “The big winner here in town was the Brooks post office. They must have gone above and beyond their quarterly quota.”
At this point, she said that she hopes Jackson will receive permit applications for smaller projects.
Blake said that the Jackson ordinance may help restrict the growth of industrial wind facilities across the state.
“We encourage more communities to put more ordinances in place so that the local citizens have more control,” he said.
First Wind readies Milford II and new IPO registration
08 February 2010
US wind developer First Wind is currently putting together a bank financing for the second phase of its Milford wind project. The $250 million project would be financed in part with a construction loan, to be repaid with the proceeds of a US treasury cash grant and a prepayment from its offtaker. The structure resembles the $376 million deal that RBS put together for the first phase of Milford in April 2009, and RBS is thought to be working on the debt for phase II.
According to the developer's public filings, the Milford II project would have a capacity of 102MW, use 68 GE 1.5MW turbines, and like the first ...
US wind developer First Wind is currently putting together a bank financing for the second phase of its Milford wind project. The $250 million project would be financed in part with a construction loan, to be repaid with the proceeds of a US treasury cash grant and a prepayment from its offtaker. The structure resembles the $376 million deal that RBS put together for the first phase of Milford in April 2009, and RBS is thought to be working on the debt for phase II.
According to the developer's public filings, the Milford II project would have a capacity of 102MW, use 68 GE 1.5MW turbines, and like the first ...
Monday, February 08, 2010
On PILOTs and wind farms, our motto should be 'be prepared'
The proposed Galloo Island wind farm and its associated Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement has been one of the most controversial topics in the press for several weeks. On Tuesday, the Jefferson County Board of Legislators voted in favor of the agreement. I am not going to write about this particular PILOT, but I think it might be illuminating to look at PILOTs in general and the role they play in regional economic development.
A PILOT is basically an agreement by some entity to pay fees to a government — Jefferson County and certain townships and school districts — in lieu of property or other taxes.
In some cases, the entity is a not-for-profit agency, such as a church or a school, that would not have paid any taxes at all. Because they occupy land that might otherwise be taxed, and they use municipal services such as fire protection or police, the not-for-profit entity agrees to pay the community some money in consideration. There is not a legal requirement to do this, but it is considered good form among financially sound not-for-profits that want to remain on good terms with their communities.
In the case of Galloo Island, or other wind farm developments in the region, the developers are for-profit corporations and would normally be subject to full property and sales taxes. They ask for relief from those taxes, in return for paying a lesser amount of money in lieu of those taxes. This is effectively a tax reduction for the developer.
The argument from the developer's standpoint is that they cannot afford to make the investment if it is fully taxed — or that they will make the investment elsewhere, where they can get a tax deal. From the standpoint of the county and its economic development specialists at the Jefferson County Job Development Corp. (JCJDC), the argument is that we give up some of our tax revenues to help spur the development of our economy and the creation of jobs.
If the full taxes due would be $8 million across the life of the PILOT, but the developer is given a PILOT that only requires payment of $5 million, the county looks at the deal as being worth $5 million — assuming that they were never going to get the full $8 million because the developer would never make the investment without the PILOT agreement. It is $5 million or nothing.
The developer sees the PILOT as being worth $3 million — the amount it knocks off the full tax bill. In theory, both parties get a valuable deal, something negotiators call "win-win."
Of course, as with any negotiation, there is infinite room for third-party second-guessing and kibitzing. If you have ever bought a used car from a dealership, only to have a friend tell you that he would not have paid that much, you get the idea. Because we do not know exactly what would have happened if a different deal had been proposed, neither side is ever completely sure they got everything they could have, if they had only pushed a little harder.
The situation in a case like wind farms in Jefferson County is exacerbated by something economists call asymmetrical information — the developers know more about the deal than do our economic development officials or legislators. The developers know what their real costs are, as well as the next best opportunities they will have if the deal doesn't go through.
The county does not know when or if other developers will appear, or what they will offer or demand if they do appear. That makes the negotiation very high-risk for us, but relatively easier for the wind farm developers. They know exactly when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. We have to take a deep breath and follow our instincts.
Of course, the developers will always say that they need a generous PILOT to make the deal work. Wouldn't you if you were in their shoes?
And our economic developers, charged with the near-impossible job of generating outside capital investment in the region, have every incentive to be generous with prospective investors.
The county legislature routinely asks the JCJDC to be accountable for the tax money it spends searching for new developers and job-creating deals, so legislators should not be surprised when those economic development folks try extra hard to land a new wind farm.
If we want to avoid repeating this circus over and over again, there are a few things we might try:
■ Decide where we want wind farms and on what terms.
This will let individual towns and villages decide where they want windmills, if they want them at all, before the developers show up and everything gets ugly. Each municipality then needs to pass a local ordinance that limits wind farm development to those areas.
If JCJDC wants to help with this, they can do two things: fund a community survey by the Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College to determine prevailing opinions and concerns about wind farms, and develop a draft ordinance that each municipality can use in creating its laws. I am sure the Jefferson County Planning Department or even the Tug Hill Commission could help with those things as well.
■ Approve a proposed standing PILOT agreement for all wind farm developments in the county. County legislators can provide their input to without getting tangled in the specifics of an impending deal. That will avoid having to treat each prospective developer differently. It can also be used to help market the region to wind developers in a rational fashion.
■ Get a lot smarter on the economics and industry dynamics of wind power and wind farming. We need to start comparing notes with other regions that are experiencing or seeking development like ours and we need to start collecting information on the primary actors in the business. That asymmetrical information problem can be licked if we try.
I have to agree with John Droz, whose letter to the Watertown Daily Times last month said that wind developers are here because they can make money. Right now, thanks to tax incentives and public policy, wind power is profitable in New York state. We have exactly what the wind farm investors need — rural land, strong winds and a reasonable proximity to large electricity markets downstate. They have fewer choices than they might want us to believe, and for every deal we lose, another will come to take its place.
If wind farms are coming, or at least prospective wind farm developers, we need to be ready for them and reap the benefits on our terms. To them, it's just money. To us, it's our home.
Greg Gardner is an associate professor of business at SUNY Potsdam. His column on business issues in the north country is published monthly in Money Matters. E-mail him at ggardner@wdt.net.
A PILOT is basically an agreement by some entity to pay fees to a government — Jefferson County and certain townships and school districts — in lieu of property or other taxes.
In some cases, the entity is a not-for-profit agency, such as a church or a school, that would not have paid any taxes at all. Because they occupy land that might otherwise be taxed, and they use municipal services such as fire protection or police, the not-for-profit entity agrees to pay the community some money in consideration. There is not a legal requirement to do this, but it is considered good form among financially sound not-for-profits that want to remain on good terms with their communities.
In the case of Galloo Island, or other wind farm developments in the region, the developers are for-profit corporations and would normally be subject to full property and sales taxes. They ask for relief from those taxes, in return for paying a lesser amount of money in lieu of those taxes. This is effectively a tax reduction for the developer.
The argument from the developer's standpoint is that they cannot afford to make the investment if it is fully taxed — or that they will make the investment elsewhere, where they can get a tax deal. From the standpoint of the county and its economic development specialists at the Jefferson County Job Development Corp. (JCJDC), the argument is that we give up some of our tax revenues to help spur the development of our economy and the creation of jobs.
If the full taxes due would be $8 million across the life of the PILOT, but the developer is given a PILOT that only requires payment of $5 million, the county looks at the deal as being worth $5 million — assuming that they were never going to get the full $8 million because the developer would never make the investment without the PILOT agreement. It is $5 million or nothing.
The developer sees the PILOT as being worth $3 million — the amount it knocks off the full tax bill. In theory, both parties get a valuable deal, something negotiators call "win-win."
Of course, as with any negotiation, there is infinite room for third-party second-guessing and kibitzing. If you have ever bought a used car from a dealership, only to have a friend tell you that he would not have paid that much, you get the idea. Because we do not know exactly what would have happened if a different deal had been proposed, neither side is ever completely sure they got everything they could have, if they had only pushed a little harder.
The situation in a case like wind farms in Jefferson County is exacerbated by something economists call asymmetrical information — the developers know more about the deal than do our economic development officials or legislators. The developers know what their real costs are, as well as the next best opportunities they will have if the deal doesn't go through.
The county does not know when or if other developers will appear, or what they will offer or demand if they do appear. That makes the negotiation very high-risk for us, but relatively easier for the wind farm developers. They know exactly when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. We have to take a deep breath and follow our instincts.
Of course, the developers will always say that they need a generous PILOT to make the deal work. Wouldn't you if you were in their shoes?
And our economic developers, charged with the near-impossible job of generating outside capital investment in the region, have every incentive to be generous with prospective investors.
The county legislature routinely asks the JCJDC to be accountable for the tax money it spends searching for new developers and job-creating deals, so legislators should not be surprised when those economic development folks try extra hard to land a new wind farm.
If we want to avoid repeating this circus over and over again, there are a few things we might try:
■ Decide where we want wind farms and on what terms.
This will let individual towns and villages decide where they want windmills, if they want them at all, before the developers show up and everything gets ugly. Each municipality then needs to pass a local ordinance that limits wind farm development to those areas.
If JCJDC wants to help with this, they can do two things: fund a community survey by the Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College to determine prevailing opinions and concerns about wind farms, and develop a draft ordinance that each municipality can use in creating its laws. I am sure the Jefferson County Planning Department or even the Tug Hill Commission could help with those things as well.
■ Approve a proposed standing PILOT agreement for all wind farm developments in the county. County legislators can provide their input to without getting tangled in the specifics of an impending deal. That will avoid having to treat each prospective developer differently. It can also be used to help market the region to wind developers in a rational fashion.
■ Get a lot smarter on the economics and industry dynamics of wind power and wind farming. We need to start comparing notes with other regions that are experiencing or seeking development like ours and we need to start collecting information on the primary actors in the business. That asymmetrical information problem can be licked if we try.
I have to agree with John Droz, whose letter to the Watertown Daily Times last month said that wind developers are here because they can make money. Right now, thanks to tax incentives and public policy, wind power is profitable in New York state. We have exactly what the wind farm investors need — rural land, strong winds and a reasonable proximity to large electricity markets downstate. They have fewer choices than they might want us to believe, and for every deal we lose, another will come to take its place.
If wind farms are coming, or at least prospective wind farm developers, we need to be ready for them and reap the benefits on our terms. To them, it's just money. To us, it's our home.
Greg Gardner is an associate professor of business at SUNY Potsdam. His column on business issues in the north country is published monthly in Money Matters. E-mail him at ggardner@wdt.net.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Wind PILOT
Approval doesn't answer questions
The irresponsible decision by the Jefferson County Legislature approving a tax abatement plan for the Galloo Island Wind Farm leaves unresolved several issues that will bedevil the county for years to come.
A last-minute offer of another $3.5 million in community benefits by Upstate NY Power Corp. sweetened the deal sufficiently to win the eight votes needed for county approval of a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan for the project. But that does not end the dispute.
The town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor School District have already signed off on the plan. It goes before the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency for final approval this morning with its shortcomings and even new problems raised after Upstate promised to create a $3 million community benefit fund with another $500,000 in scholarship funds over the life of the PILOT.
However, details remain to be ironed out. Who will administer the funds? An existing agency? A new board? Who will be eligible for the money? What criteria will be used to distribute the funds or award scholarships? What guarantees do we have that the money will be paid?
The $3.5 million amounts to $175,000 a year for the next two decades. It is a fraction of the $9 million the county and municipalities could have had in sales taxes over the next two years. Upstate won't have to pay sales taxes under their leaseback agreement with JCIDA.
The deal looks even worse considering the $5 million county residents lose because Upstate's PILOT is five years longer than the standard PILOT other developers receive.
Is this the pattern for future wind PILOTs? The JCIDA failed in the mission assigned it by the Legislature years ago to draft a uniform policy applicable to wind developers looking to take advantage of a county asset. What the Legislature received — and approved — was an exception tailored to the Wall Street-driven interests of the developer. To the county's detriment, the Legislature and JCIDA have opened the door to other developers demanding the same favorable treatment.
County residents still don't know whose property the proposed transmission line will run through. Upstate said it would consider an alternative route to the Coffeen Street substation rather than running the line south through Henderson and Ellisburg to a substation in the town of Mexico. It doesn't solve problems, merely relocates them.
Where will the line come ashore? The alternative route would put likely landfall somewhere in the town of Hounsfield cutting through shoreline and resort properties. Eminent domain looms whether it is seizing farmland in Ellisburg or someone's front yard in Hounsfield.
The long, protracted debate over the PILOT changed little. The Legislature's majority has let down the people of Jefferson County.
The irresponsible decision by the Jefferson County Legislature approving a tax abatement plan for the Galloo Island Wind Farm leaves unresolved several issues that will bedevil the county for years to come.
A last-minute offer of another $3.5 million in community benefits by Upstate NY Power Corp. sweetened the deal sufficiently to win the eight votes needed for county approval of a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan for the project. But that does not end the dispute.
The town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor School District have already signed off on the plan. It goes before the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency for final approval this morning with its shortcomings and even new problems raised after Upstate promised to create a $3 million community benefit fund with another $500,000 in scholarship funds over the life of the PILOT.
However, details remain to be ironed out. Who will administer the funds? An existing agency? A new board? Who will be eligible for the money? What criteria will be used to distribute the funds or award scholarships? What guarantees do we have that the money will be paid?
The $3.5 million amounts to $175,000 a year for the next two decades. It is a fraction of the $9 million the county and municipalities could have had in sales taxes over the next two years. Upstate won't have to pay sales taxes under their leaseback agreement with JCIDA.
The deal looks even worse considering the $5 million county residents lose because Upstate's PILOT is five years longer than the standard PILOT other developers receive.
Is this the pattern for future wind PILOTs? The JCIDA failed in the mission assigned it by the Legislature years ago to draft a uniform policy applicable to wind developers looking to take advantage of a county asset. What the Legislature received — and approved — was an exception tailored to the Wall Street-driven interests of the developer. To the county's detriment, the Legislature and JCIDA have opened the door to other developers demanding the same favorable treatment.
County residents still don't know whose property the proposed transmission line will run through. Upstate said it would consider an alternative route to the Coffeen Street substation rather than running the line south through Henderson and Ellisburg to a substation in the town of Mexico. It doesn't solve problems, merely relocates them.
Where will the line come ashore? The alternative route would put likely landfall somewhere in the town of Hounsfield cutting through shoreline and resort properties. Eminent domain looms whether it is seizing farmland in Ellisburg or someone's front yard in Hounsfield.
The long, protracted debate over the PILOT changed little. The Legislature's majority has let down the people of Jefferson County.
A model project
Galloo PILOT is now the standard
Now that the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the Galloo Island Wind Farm has been approved, the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency has declared a moratorium on accepting tax abatement applications from other wind developers.
That is disingenuous. After setting the template for wind PILOTs with the Galloo deal, the JCIDA board says it will now develop a uniform tax-exempt policy for such projects.
Why was that not done before Jefferson County relinquished its right to have the Galloo developer pay sales, property and mortgage taxes?
The JCIDA board and Jefferson County Legislature have endorsed a sea-change in tax policy for the county. In a rush to judgment, they approved an ad-hoc agreement that exempts the developer, Upstate NY Power Corp., from paying millions of dollars to local taxing jurisdictions.
After approving all this, and deviating from the standard 15-year PILOT to increase it to 20 years, Jefferson County officials want to contemplate how to handle the next wind developer.
But in all fairness, the Galloo PILOT should set the standard for future developers, wind and otherwise. Why should new motels in the county not receive a similar sweetheart deal? Why should any company breaking ground in Jefferson County not expect tax exemptions similar to what Upstate received?
All developers should get a 20-year pilot from Jefferson County, complete with special exemptions afforded the Galloo developer. That should happen without the county bothering to know what the developer's project will cost and what the earnings will be.
After all, that has happened with the Galloo project. Referring to Upstate, JCIDA attorney W. James Heary articulated county policy: "We don't necessarily need to go into the nitty-gritty of their plan."
So far as future wind development is concerned, the Galloo model now serves: approve the site for wind turbines, work out the details for the transmission line later.
What is fair for one is fair for all.
Now that the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the Galloo Island Wind Farm has been approved, the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency has declared a moratorium on accepting tax abatement applications from other wind developers.
That is disingenuous. After setting the template for wind PILOTs with the Galloo deal, the JCIDA board says it will now develop a uniform tax-exempt policy for such projects.
Why was that not done before Jefferson County relinquished its right to have the Galloo developer pay sales, property and mortgage taxes?
The JCIDA board and Jefferson County Legislature have endorsed a sea-change in tax policy for the county. In a rush to judgment, they approved an ad-hoc agreement that exempts the developer, Upstate NY Power Corp., from paying millions of dollars to local taxing jurisdictions.
After approving all this, and deviating from the standard 15-year PILOT to increase it to 20 years, Jefferson County officials want to contemplate how to handle the next wind developer.
But in all fairness, the Galloo PILOT should set the standard for future developers, wind and otherwise. Why should new motels in the county not receive a similar sweetheart deal? Why should any company breaking ground in Jefferson County not expect tax exemptions similar to what Upstate received?
All developers should get a 20-year pilot from Jefferson County, complete with special exemptions afforded the Galloo developer. That should happen without the county bothering to know what the developer's project will cost and what the earnings will be.
After all, that has happened with the Galloo project. Referring to Upstate, JCIDA attorney W. James Heary articulated county policy: "We don't necessarily need to go into the nitty-gritty of their plan."
So far as future wind development is concerned, the Galloo model now serves: approve the site for wind turbines, work out the details for the transmission line later.
What is fair for one is fair for all.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Opinions shift on Rochester-area wind farms
Wind-energy developers, who have flocked to the breezy hills south of Rochester, now are finding parts of the region a less-than-hospitable one.
A cross-border project has been blocked by local officials in Steuben and Yates counties, prompting aggressive lawsuits by the developer involved.
Another wind-energy company just walked away from a planned project in Steuben County.
And most recently, a Wyoming County citizens group has challenged a town board action that paved the way for a new wind project there.
Some say the shine has worn off an industry that in many communities had been welcomed both for its green image and its ability to pump money into the local economy.
“I’m detecting a shift in the climate of opinion,” said Gary Abraham, a Cattaraugus County lawyer who has represented citizen groups in litigation related to wind projects.
The head of a statewide green-energy advocacy group said the public overwhelmingly supports wind energy, but despite that, discord and litigation in host communities has become an unfortunate fact of life.
“Certainly it sends the message that it’s not going to be easy to get something done in New York. That being said, there are still a number of projects going forward,” said Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.
Indeed, the region remains a center of wind-energy development. Wyoming County has four wind farms with 236 turbines, more than any other county in the state. There is a working wind farm in Cohocton, Steuben County, as well.
Those five projects have the capacity to generate up to 470 megawatts, which represents the electricity demand of about 200,000 households.
Those 470 megawatts are a little more than a third of all the wind-generation capacity in the state.
Nearly two dozen other wind-farm proposals in the Finger Lakes and western New York regions remain on the books of the agency that oversees New York’s electric grid, though developers have yet to make formal applications to town boards for many of them.
Of late, though, there has been a spate of controversy over the farms.
A citizens group in Orangeville, Wyoming County, filed suit last month against the Town Board there, asserting it had adopted an inadequate local wind-turbine siting law to make way for a 59-turbine wind project. That case has been assigned to a Supreme Court justice in Buffalo.
•After supporting Ecogen Wind LLC’s 17-turbine proposal for years, the Town Board in Italy, Yates County, acknowledged growing citizen opposition by voting in October to kill the development. Observers said Italy’s board may have been the first in New York state to vote down a wind project. A suit by Ecogen asking a judge to override the Town Board and allow the project to proceed is pending before a state Supreme Court justice in Rochester.
•Ecogen similarly sued the board in neighboring Prattsburgh, Steuben County, where the company has hoped to erect 16 more turbines. Pro-wind board members briefly settled the case in Ecogen’s favor before leaving office in December, but after a series of courtroom skirmishes, the newly seated Town Board canceled the settlement and declared a moratorium on wind-energy development in the town. Ecogen’s suit still is pending.
Another wind project proposed for Prattsburgh that had been in planning stages for years was formally canceled at the end of 2009. John Lamontagne, spokesman for developer First Wind, said the project was deemed expendable in light of the shaky economy.
The Massachusetts company, which was given $75 million in federal stimulus aid in partial compensation for the 50-turbine farm it built in Cohocton, will pursue other projects in Erie County, New England, Utah and Hawaii, Lamontagne said.
Abraham, who represents the citizens group suing the Orangeville board, said he believes public opposition to wind developments is growing.
Residents most often cite concerns about noise and the setback provisions that dictate how close turbines can be to homes and adjoining properties.
He said, though, that he thinks elected officials often pay less attention to those concerns than they do to a project’s financial benefit to friends and family members.
“They’re decided based on the importance the town (board) assigns to the money issue. That’s really the deciding factor. It’s not the environment,” Abraham said.
Murphy disputed the idea that people in host communities are turning against wind farms. “It’s the old adage about the silent majority. It doesn’t take more than a few people to stand up at a town board meeting and make a lot of noise and give people the impression there’s no support for it,” she said.
Murphy cited a 2008 public opinion poll in Lewis County — home to Maple Ridge, which at a 322-megawatt capacity is the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi River — that found 71 percent of residents thought the wind farm had had a positive impact. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they would support more turbines.
“There’s always a lot of apprehension when there’s something new and something people aren’t used to seeing, but once they (turbines) are there we’ve found the level of support continues to grow over the years,” she said.
A cross-border project has been blocked by local officials in Steuben and Yates counties, prompting aggressive lawsuits by the developer involved.
Another wind-energy company just walked away from a planned project in Steuben County.
And most recently, a Wyoming County citizens group has challenged a town board action that paved the way for a new wind project there.
Some say the shine has worn off an industry that in many communities had been welcomed both for its green image and its ability to pump money into the local economy.
“I’m detecting a shift in the climate of opinion,” said Gary Abraham, a Cattaraugus County lawyer who has represented citizen groups in litigation related to wind projects.
The head of a statewide green-energy advocacy group said the public overwhelmingly supports wind energy, but despite that, discord and litigation in host communities has become an unfortunate fact of life.
“Certainly it sends the message that it’s not going to be easy to get something done in New York. That being said, there are still a number of projects going forward,” said Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.
Indeed, the region remains a center of wind-energy development. Wyoming County has four wind farms with 236 turbines, more than any other county in the state. There is a working wind farm in Cohocton, Steuben County, as well.
Those five projects have the capacity to generate up to 470 megawatts, which represents the electricity demand of about 200,000 households.
Those 470 megawatts are a little more than a third of all the wind-generation capacity in the state.
Nearly two dozen other wind-farm proposals in the Finger Lakes and western New York regions remain on the books of the agency that oversees New York’s electric grid, though developers have yet to make formal applications to town boards for many of them.
Of late, though, there has been a spate of controversy over the farms.
A citizens group in Orangeville, Wyoming County, filed suit last month against the Town Board there, asserting it had adopted an inadequate local wind-turbine siting law to make way for a 59-turbine wind project. That case has been assigned to a Supreme Court justice in Buffalo.
•After supporting Ecogen Wind LLC’s 17-turbine proposal for years, the Town Board in Italy, Yates County, acknowledged growing citizen opposition by voting in October to kill the development. Observers said Italy’s board may have been the first in New York state to vote down a wind project. A suit by Ecogen asking a judge to override the Town Board and allow the project to proceed is pending before a state Supreme Court justice in Rochester.
•Ecogen similarly sued the board in neighboring Prattsburgh, Steuben County, where the company has hoped to erect 16 more turbines. Pro-wind board members briefly settled the case in Ecogen’s favor before leaving office in December, but after a series of courtroom skirmishes, the newly seated Town Board canceled the settlement and declared a moratorium on wind-energy development in the town. Ecogen’s suit still is pending.
Another wind project proposed for Prattsburgh that had been in planning stages for years was formally canceled at the end of 2009. John Lamontagne, spokesman for developer First Wind, said the project was deemed expendable in light of the shaky economy.
The Massachusetts company, which was given $75 million in federal stimulus aid in partial compensation for the 50-turbine farm it built in Cohocton, will pursue other projects in Erie County, New England, Utah and Hawaii, Lamontagne said.
Abraham, who represents the citizens group suing the Orangeville board, said he believes public opposition to wind developments is growing.
Residents most often cite concerns about noise and the setback provisions that dictate how close turbines can be to homes and adjoining properties.
He said, though, that he thinks elected officials often pay less attention to those concerns than they do to a project’s financial benefit to friends and family members.
“They’re decided based on the importance the town (board) assigns to the money issue. That’s really the deciding factor. It’s not the environment,” Abraham said.
Murphy disputed the idea that people in host communities are turning against wind farms. “It’s the old adage about the silent majority. It doesn’t take more than a few people to stand up at a town board meeting and make a lot of noise and give people the impression there’s no support for it,” she said.
Murphy cited a 2008 public opinion poll in Lewis County — home to Maple Ridge, which at a 322-megawatt capacity is the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi River — that found 71 percent of residents thought the wind farm had had a positive impact. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they would support more turbines.
“There’s always a lot of apprehension when there’s something new and something people aren’t used to seeing, but once they (turbines) are there we’ve found the level of support continues to grow over the years,” she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)