NEW YORK Oct 28 (Reuters) - The pricing of wind farm operator First Wind Holdings Inc's initial public offering has been delayed, an underwriter said on Thursday.
The IPO was expected to price on Wednesday after the close of U.S. markets. Whether to move ahead with the IPO pricing is now being determined on a "day to day" basis, the underwriter said. No further information was available.
First Wind on Wednesday cut the price range of its IPO by 24 percent. It plans to list on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "WIND" WIND.O. [ID:nSGE69Q0KD] (Reporting by Clare Baldwin, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wind site plan criteria OK'd
CAPE VINCENT — The town Planning Board unanimously adopted the site plan criteria submitted by the St. Lawrence Wind Farm's developer, Acciona Wind Energy USA, Wednesday night in front of some 100 members of the public, a sheriff's deputy and a state trooper.
However, nobody in the audience actually heard the motion because anti-wind protesters were chanting "Andrew Cuomo, stop this board now" some 5 feet away from the board the whole time.
Councilman Brooks J. Bragdon, who was sitting at the table with the Planning Board, said he also could not hear anything and had only realized what happened when Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall told him shortly after the meeting was adjourned.
"They did it right in front of us, behind our backs," said Hester M. Chase, founder of the St. Lawrence River Public Power Association and one of dozens of people who were demanding that the Planning Board take no action before setbacks were established.
(Click to read the entire article)
However, nobody in the audience actually heard the motion because anti-wind protesters were chanting "Andrew Cuomo, stop this board now" some 5 feet away from the board the whole time.
Councilman Brooks J. Bragdon, who was sitting at the table with the Planning Board, said he also could not hear anything and had only realized what happened when Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall told him shortly after the meeting was adjourned.
"They did it right in front of us, behind our backs," said Hester M. Chase, founder of the St. Lawrence River Public Power Association and one of dozens of people who were demanding that the Planning Board take no action before setbacks were established.
(Click to read the entire article)
Wind Power II: The Wind-farm Eruption
Those of us who drive in the Midwest or Southwest are often startled to see a plethora of wind turbines sprouting like overnight mushrooms in an area we remember as farms or grazing lands. But unlike the fragile mushrooms that we kicked over when walking to school on spring mornings, these mushrooms have 700-ton concrete bases, are nearly 30 stories tall, and cost upwards of $3,570,000 each. What caused all this to happen since our last trip to the area? Who is footing the bill? And why?
Will the Real Constructors Stand Up?
To find who is driving the construction of these massive fields of wind turbines, and who’s paying for them, it behooves us to know who is not behind them, such as electricity consumers.
In a Heartland Institute article,* Penny Rodriguez writes about attempts by city officials in Austin, Texas, to push city residents to buy “renewable” energy through Austin Energy, which is controlled by the city. Austin Energy contracts with wind farms and solar projects to supply energy, and Austin Energy tries to convince users to buy “green power.”
City residents have declined to sign up for higher rates under the city’s voluntary GreenChoice program.
Contracting with renewable power providers and offering the service to customers sounded like a good idea to city officials until the price tag came in at up to three times the cost of conventional power. City residents aren’t buying.
Fancy that.
Rodriguez continues, “In one of America’s most liberal cities and one that prides itself on its environmental awareness, the latest allotment of renewable power is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market.” Did the city council see the errors of its ways and mend them accordingly? Hardly. It has now mandated that Austin Energy generate 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and has contracted to purchase $250 million of solar power from an array to be built near Webberville, Texas.
The citizens of Austin are paying for the wind farms — through higher utility rates — but they aren’t becoming stockholders. Just poorer. Perhaps electric consumers are secretly investing in “renewable” energy, but they are certainly not banding together to put up wind farms. It appears that they would just rather not be bothered about where energy comes from, just so long as it is there when they flip the switch.
Also not behind the wind farms are rank-and-file environmentalists. These folks, who travel in Priuses and not private jets, stare with us in disbelief at the mountain ridges where they battled furiously against walking trails — and which now host gawky football field-sized blades surrounded by denuded acres (trees would disrupt wind flow to the turbines), miles of roads big enough to bring in a 400-foot crane, miles of trenching for the underground cables necessary to bring the 25,000-volt outputs to a central transformer, and thence many more miles of high-voltage power lines to deliver the power to a power grid. They’re not smiling much anymore. Nor are Audubon Society members who were promised that the term “Avian Cuisinart,” used as a synonym with wind turbines, was just right-wing hyperbole, until someone thought to count the dead hawks, eagles, and other birds and bats without allowing time enough for ground scavengers to make off with the evidence. As this group learns the real scoop on wind energy, they are becoming very angry.
Some elitist environmentalists and the heads of environmental organizations do try to whip up grass-roots fervor for wind power, but they don’t put their money where their mouths are. A wind farm with 25 1.5 MW turbines costs upward of $100,000,000. Although the leaders of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or the ridiculously misnamed Union of Concerned Scientists are evermore touting “green, renewable energy,” a listing of the major players doesn’t provide any evidence that these groups are putting their money up for wind-farm construction. While our environmentalist neighbors pay lip service to “clean energy” and “free fuel,” they are seldom if ever involved in wind-farm projects.
The environmental movement is becoming increasingly fractionated by the wind energy controversy. The uber radicals at the top of the various “green” movements — and high in the Obama administration — are for wind energy precisely because it doesn’t work. (Think about it. None of the projects/techniques/schemes of providing energy supported by the government have any chance to produce industrial-grade power in significant quantities. All of those that have a chance — such as coal-to-liquid fuel conversion and community-sized, inherently safe reactors — are stifled by the environmental bureaucracy for various reasons, primarily global warming and nuclear waste. Both rationales are almost exclusively based on counterfactual claims, poor hypotheses, and hysteria rather than real danger. A reasonable person would have to say that it is too coincidental that radicals always land on the side of the argument for reducing the energy assets of the United States. I think it is important that we all realize this and assess all government programs in light of it.)
Radical environmentalists know as well as we do that nuclear power is the safest, most reliable, and cleanest source of electricity. They know a single nuclear plant delivers the same power over a year as does a 300-square-mile wind farm with 2,200 30-story wind turbines, the difference being that the nuclear plant delivers energy when needed, not just when the wind is blowing. If you want to de-industrialize the Western world, you champion energy sources that will lead us back to the days of human and animal power, and those are wind and solar power.
For those environmentalists who want the smallest environmental impact by humans on the planet, without the goal of de-industrializing our economy and culture, the battle is on with their leaders.
In the case of utility companies, they and grid operators, who must provide “dispatchable” electricity, are more than just a little disenchanted with wind power, except in the case of politically motivated or subsidy-chasing individuals. As we have noted in the cover story article “An Ill Wind Blowing?” (page 10), grid operators have no trouble with wind turbines — as long as their output is zero. This is true because electricity must be used at the moment it is generated, and these “frequency chasers” (so named because they must keep the grid frequency at 60.0 Hz) balance electricity generation with fluctuating power demand. When the power supply is also fluctuating, as it does when winds increase or decrease in speed, balancing loads on the power grid is much more difficult. When the wind component of a power grid reaches five percent, serious instabilities begin to occur. (Of the highly touted 20-percent wind generation in Denmark, only a few percent is used by Danish users, who pay the highest electric rates of any industrialized country. The vast bulk of Danish wind energy is sold at a loss to the much larger German-controlled and Norwegian grids that can accommodate the volatility of Danish wind generation.)
So while some utility executives are leftists and support “renewable energy” as an article of faith, with others pandering to vocal green factions and politically liberal regulatory agencies, most, we suspect, would love to be free of the political and economic distractions to concentrate on the important work that must be done in providing us electricity — a life-giving and life-enhancing commodity.
Even professional lobbyists and lobbying organizations on behalf of wind power don’t fund wind power, though they do convince politicians to spend plenty of taxpayer money (our money) on wind farms. The largest wind lobby, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), is a strong supporter of centralized government control. If you want one-sided propaganda about the benefits of wind energy, and how to get in cahoots with the manufacturers, this organization is your one-stop shopping mall. It represents itself as a scientifically based organization, but always avoids the real question regarding wind energy: Can electricity be delivered when it is needed?
The AWEA is, for example, in the forefront of pressuring the Senate to pass a “National Renewable Electricity Standard” during the coming lame-duck session of Congress. This would mandate a national requirement for all electricity producers to obtain a certain percentage of their energy generation from “renewable” sources, with wind being the primary alternative — especially given the dreadful performance of solar plants, which average only 16 percent of their stated capacity (as opposed to 20-35 percent for wind). This would be a huge subsidy for wind proponents as the full power of the government would require electricity users to buy “green” power no matter what its cost.
When politicians offer a subsidy on a commodity or service, several actions occur almost instantaneously: Entrepreneurs will begin tooling up to create the subsidized item, the subsidized industry will hire new workers, and then it will employ the best lobbyists it can find. The product being created doesn’t affect the pattern. If the product is curb-feelers, then you can bet the curb-feeler industry will be hiring, form an association of curb-feeler manufacturers, and hire lobbyists to convince Congress that curb-feelers are necessary for our children’s safety, will stimulate our economy, and, moreover, without them our national security will be threatened. Substitute wind power for curb feelers, and you’ve got the message. But do we see AWEA comrades coming up with big bucks for $100 million wind farms? I don’t think so.
Finally, there’s the mainstream media and liberal politicians. Though these individuals and corporate cronies are promoters of wind power and are happy to cause money to be spent on wind farms, they’re not known for investing their own dollars.
The Driving Force
There are many wind-power worshippers, but we haven’t located the individuals or groups with the deep pockets and clout to set in motion all of the wind-turbine construction that we’ve seen disfiguring the U.S. landscape.
You have probably never heard of the largest wind-energy producer in the United States: NextEra Energy, formerly the FPL group — which you have likely never heard of either. You will have heard of other big investors, however: BP, Shell, GE, and Goldman-Sachs, for example.
Why are these large corporations and investment firms the main financiers of wind energy, not the utility companies that already have electricity-generating infrastructure and have been providing us with power for decades? The common denominator here is lots and lots of money — and lots and lots of tax liabilities.
These companies are not so much interested in creating power, but in siphoning government subsidies and taking advantage of “renewable” energy tax breaks. Let us use an example by Glenn Schleede, who was Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan and is a well-known critic of industrial wind energy, in a memorandum to Governor Bob McDonnell asking him to “consider objectively the true costs and benefits of electricity from wind” to the citizens of Virginia. He first cites the “Five-Year Double Declining Balance Accelerated Depreciation” (often referred to as “5-year 200% DB”) that is allowed for calculating the share of “wind farm” capital cost that can be deducted from taxes by “wind farm” owners and their “tax partners.”
As the table shows, in six years the tax liability on the owner of a $100 million “wind farm” and his “tax partner” has been reduced by $41 million, a schedule not allowed for traditional generating facilities that have longer and slower depreciation periods, typically 20 years.
Clearly such a write-off is an investment for companies such as Dominion Resources, Duke Energy, Iberdrola, and other players with large profits and tax liabilities.
When a wind farm is online and generating, it receives a $0.021 “Federal Production Tax Credit” for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated for its first 10 years of operation. A 100-million-dollar project would have a rated capacity of about 40 megawatts (MW) and, with a capacity factor of 30 percent, would generate 105.4 million kWh per year, providing a subsidy of $2.2 million per year or $22 million dollars over 10 years.
But since our Congress thought it cruel for wind-farm owners to be required to wait for their money, or perhaps the wind farmers weren’t generating as much power as had been anticipated, our wind farmers and their tax partners are offered the option of an Investment Tax Credit (ITC) of 30 percent of capital costs, in our case $30 million. But wait. What if the owners didn’t need the tax credit? Thankfully the “stimulus” legislation made wind-farm developers (and their tax partners) eligible to receive an equivalent cash grant from the U.S. Treasury in lieu of the ITC.
Then, too, some states offer their own ITC. For Arizona it’s 10 percent, so off comes another $10 million.
There’s more. In fact, we’re just getting started. Not only are taxpayers gouged, but the ratepayers are forced to take a hit also. Here’s how this scam works. Legislators, the self-anointed energy experts and protectors of the environment, decree that electric utilities must obtain such-and-such percentage of their energy from “renewable” sources. This is called a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS. The utilities, being required to supply “green” energy, must find a source for it. Enter from stage left the aspiring wind farmer and his tax partner with their sales pitch: “We know you’ll be needing some ‘green’ electricity, so we’re here to offer you our help. Now if you’ll just sign this 20-year contract promising you’ll use our electricity first, and that you’ll pay a small premium for this electricity because of our greenness, then we’ll give you these Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to show to the state so they won’t fine or imprison you for not meeting their RPS.”
Now how does this work? “Our” government mandates the utilities to buy expensive, unreliable energy from wind farms, and the utilities then pass these higher costs through to the ratepayers. We then blame the utilities for raising our rates. Tricky, no?
It’s not unrealistic for a utility to pay an extra three cents per kWh above the market rate for electricity. (Nuclear electricity costs $0.0203 per kWh, including all the maintenance, insurance, and decommissioning costs.) Using the same MW and capacity factor as in federal calculations, the wind-farm owners now add to their take a contract worth $3,942,000 per year or $78.8 million over the 20-year contract period — not for electricity, but for the subsidy caused by the “need” for “green power,” caused by the mandate brought about by politicians, most of whom don’t know a kilowatt from a kumquat.
Not bad. Tax savings for the wind farmer and his “tax partner” of $41 million plus an ITC from the federal government of $30 million, another ITC from the state for $10 million, and a contract for $78.8 million — all of this without generating a single kilowatt-hour of electrical energy. Again, there’s more, such as zero sales tax on equipment, no property taxes, and low rates for equipment assessments, not to mention a variety of subsidies, grants, and other unpublicized deals to attract support for a commodity (wind-generated electricity) that otherwise would not exist.
It is virtually impossible for anyone not intimately involved in a wind-farm project to have knowledge of all the subsidies and benefits, but we can see how this actually shakes out in a real-world example, in this case NextEra Energy (formerly FPL group).
Among other assets, NextEra owns Florida Power and Light with total revenues of $15.6 billion and a net income of $1.62 billion. At the corporate tax rate of 35 percent, their federal tax liability would be $567 million in 2009 alone.
BusinessWeek magazine reported in April 2009 that the FPL Group (now NextEra Energy) had an annual tax rate of 1.3 percent on more than $7 billion in earnings over the last four years. This amounted to a total of $88 million in taxes. Analysts in BusinessWeek explained this low rate was possible given tax breaks for having invested in alternative energy. The article added, “To ensure those tax rules reach into the future, FPL employs a cadre of well-placed Washington lobbyists. In 2008, the company paid well over $500,000 to five top-drawer firms to make its tax case to Congress, the White House and the U.S. Treasury.” Makes one wonder how much over $500,000 they spent and which legislators and other officials were benefactors of this largesse.
While it’s a fact that wind-powered ships discovered the New World and opened up exciting frontiers, and wind power was used to pump water to keep Holland from sinking into the sea and to water cattle on U.S. prairies, no matter what the advocates of wind power say, and regardless of the subsidies paid, wind is not a substitute for fossil fuel, hydroelectric, or nuclear generating plants. As Glenn Schleede summarized in his memorandum to Governor McDonnell:
• Electricity from wind is very high in true cost and very low in true value.
• The wind industry and other wind energy advocates greatly overstate its benefits and understate its adverse environmental, economic, energy, scenic and property value impacts.
• Claims of job and economic benefits from “wind farms” are greatly exaggerated.
• “Wind farms” are being built primarily for lucrative tax benefits and subsidies for their owners — not because of their environmental or energy benefits.
It is not like we don’t have a map of our future if we continue down this road of subsidizing wind and solar energy. In Europe, particularly Denmark, Germany, and Spain where the wind-generation subsidies have been as lavish or more so than ours, there has been a strong reaction — revolt is probably a better word — against the transfer of taxpayer and ratepayer wealth to the purveyors of “renewable” energy. In those countries electric rates have risen dramatically, with Denmark having a rate three times the average in America. As reported by Andrew Gilligan in the September 12, 2010 New York Times:
Unfortunately, Danish electricity bills have been almost as dramatically affected as the Danish landscape. Thanks in part to the windfarm subsidy, Danes pay some of Europe’s highest energy tariffs — on average, more than twice those in Britain. Under public pressure, Denmark’s ruling Left Party is curbing the handouts to the wind industry.
Americans must educate their legislators and the public to the pitfalls of wind subsidies before we find ourselves with not only high energy costs, but with decreased productivity from squandering our capital on wasteful piddle-power projects.
Will the Real Constructors Stand Up?
To find who is driving the construction of these massive fields of wind turbines, and who’s paying for them, it behooves us to know who is not behind them, such as electricity consumers.
In a Heartland Institute article,* Penny Rodriguez writes about attempts by city officials in Austin, Texas, to push city residents to buy “renewable” energy through Austin Energy, which is controlled by the city. Austin Energy contracts with wind farms and solar projects to supply energy, and Austin Energy tries to convince users to buy “green power.”
City residents have declined to sign up for higher rates under the city’s voluntary GreenChoice program.
Contracting with renewable power providers and offering the service to customers sounded like a good idea to city officials until the price tag came in at up to three times the cost of conventional power. City residents aren’t buying.
Fancy that.
Rodriguez continues, “In one of America’s most liberal cities and one that prides itself on its environmental awareness, the latest allotment of renewable power is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market.” Did the city council see the errors of its ways and mend them accordingly? Hardly. It has now mandated that Austin Energy generate 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and has contracted to purchase $250 million of solar power from an array to be built near Webberville, Texas.
The citizens of Austin are paying for the wind farms — through higher utility rates — but they aren’t becoming stockholders. Just poorer. Perhaps electric consumers are secretly investing in “renewable” energy, but they are certainly not banding together to put up wind farms. It appears that they would just rather not be bothered about where energy comes from, just so long as it is there when they flip the switch.
Also not behind the wind farms are rank-and-file environmentalists. These folks, who travel in Priuses and not private jets, stare with us in disbelief at the mountain ridges where they battled furiously against walking trails — and which now host gawky football field-sized blades surrounded by denuded acres (trees would disrupt wind flow to the turbines), miles of roads big enough to bring in a 400-foot crane, miles of trenching for the underground cables necessary to bring the 25,000-volt outputs to a central transformer, and thence many more miles of high-voltage power lines to deliver the power to a power grid. They’re not smiling much anymore. Nor are Audubon Society members who were promised that the term “Avian Cuisinart,” used as a synonym with wind turbines, was just right-wing hyperbole, until someone thought to count the dead hawks, eagles, and other birds and bats without allowing time enough for ground scavengers to make off with the evidence. As this group learns the real scoop on wind energy, they are becoming very angry.
Some elitist environmentalists and the heads of environmental organizations do try to whip up grass-roots fervor for wind power, but they don’t put their money where their mouths are. A wind farm with 25 1.5 MW turbines costs upward of $100,000,000. Although the leaders of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or the ridiculously misnamed Union of Concerned Scientists are evermore touting “green, renewable energy,” a listing of the major players doesn’t provide any evidence that these groups are putting their money up for wind-farm construction. While our environmentalist neighbors pay lip service to “clean energy” and “free fuel,” they are seldom if ever involved in wind-farm projects.
The environmental movement is becoming increasingly fractionated by the wind energy controversy. The uber radicals at the top of the various “green” movements — and high in the Obama administration — are for wind energy precisely because it doesn’t work. (Think about it. None of the projects/techniques/schemes of providing energy supported by the government have any chance to produce industrial-grade power in significant quantities. All of those that have a chance — such as coal-to-liquid fuel conversion and community-sized, inherently safe reactors — are stifled by the environmental bureaucracy for various reasons, primarily global warming and nuclear waste. Both rationales are almost exclusively based on counterfactual claims, poor hypotheses, and hysteria rather than real danger. A reasonable person would have to say that it is too coincidental that radicals always land on the side of the argument for reducing the energy assets of the United States. I think it is important that we all realize this and assess all government programs in light of it.)
Radical environmentalists know as well as we do that nuclear power is the safest, most reliable, and cleanest source of electricity. They know a single nuclear plant delivers the same power over a year as does a 300-square-mile wind farm with 2,200 30-story wind turbines, the difference being that the nuclear plant delivers energy when needed, not just when the wind is blowing. If you want to de-industrialize the Western world, you champion energy sources that will lead us back to the days of human and animal power, and those are wind and solar power.
For those environmentalists who want the smallest environmental impact by humans on the planet, without the goal of de-industrializing our economy and culture, the battle is on with their leaders.
In the case of utility companies, they and grid operators, who must provide “dispatchable” electricity, are more than just a little disenchanted with wind power, except in the case of politically motivated or subsidy-chasing individuals. As we have noted in the cover story article “An Ill Wind Blowing?” (page 10), grid operators have no trouble with wind turbines — as long as their output is zero. This is true because electricity must be used at the moment it is generated, and these “frequency chasers” (so named because they must keep the grid frequency at 60.0 Hz) balance electricity generation with fluctuating power demand. When the power supply is also fluctuating, as it does when winds increase or decrease in speed, balancing loads on the power grid is much more difficult. When the wind component of a power grid reaches five percent, serious instabilities begin to occur. (Of the highly touted 20-percent wind generation in Denmark, only a few percent is used by Danish users, who pay the highest electric rates of any industrialized country. The vast bulk of Danish wind energy is sold at a loss to the much larger German-controlled and Norwegian grids that can accommodate the volatility of Danish wind generation.)
So while some utility executives are leftists and support “renewable energy” as an article of faith, with others pandering to vocal green factions and politically liberal regulatory agencies, most, we suspect, would love to be free of the political and economic distractions to concentrate on the important work that must be done in providing us electricity — a life-giving and life-enhancing commodity.
Even professional lobbyists and lobbying organizations on behalf of wind power don’t fund wind power, though they do convince politicians to spend plenty of taxpayer money (our money) on wind farms. The largest wind lobby, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), is a strong supporter of centralized government control. If you want one-sided propaganda about the benefits of wind energy, and how to get in cahoots with the manufacturers, this organization is your one-stop shopping mall. It represents itself as a scientifically based organization, but always avoids the real question regarding wind energy: Can electricity be delivered when it is needed?
The AWEA is, for example, in the forefront of pressuring the Senate to pass a “National Renewable Electricity Standard” during the coming lame-duck session of Congress. This would mandate a national requirement for all electricity producers to obtain a certain percentage of their energy generation from “renewable” sources, with wind being the primary alternative — especially given the dreadful performance of solar plants, which average only 16 percent of their stated capacity (as opposed to 20-35 percent for wind). This would be a huge subsidy for wind proponents as the full power of the government would require electricity users to buy “green” power no matter what its cost.
When politicians offer a subsidy on a commodity or service, several actions occur almost instantaneously: Entrepreneurs will begin tooling up to create the subsidized item, the subsidized industry will hire new workers, and then it will employ the best lobbyists it can find. The product being created doesn’t affect the pattern. If the product is curb-feelers, then you can bet the curb-feeler industry will be hiring, form an association of curb-feeler manufacturers, and hire lobbyists to convince Congress that curb-feelers are necessary for our children’s safety, will stimulate our economy, and, moreover, without them our national security will be threatened. Substitute wind power for curb feelers, and you’ve got the message. But do we see AWEA comrades coming up with big bucks for $100 million wind farms? I don’t think so.
Finally, there’s the mainstream media and liberal politicians. Though these individuals and corporate cronies are promoters of wind power and are happy to cause money to be spent on wind farms, they’re not known for investing their own dollars.
The Driving Force
There are many wind-power worshippers, but we haven’t located the individuals or groups with the deep pockets and clout to set in motion all of the wind-turbine construction that we’ve seen disfiguring the U.S. landscape.
You have probably never heard of the largest wind-energy producer in the United States: NextEra Energy, formerly the FPL group — which you have likely never heard of either. You will have heard of other big investors, however: BP, Shell, GE, and Goldman-Sachs, for example.
Why are these large corporations and investment firms the main financiers of wind energy, not the utility companies that already have electricity-generating infrastructure and have been providing us with power for decades? The common denominator here is lots and lots of money — and lots and lots of tax liabilities.
These companies are not so much interested in creating power, but in siphoning government subsidies and taking advantage of “renewable” energy tax breaks. Let us use an example by Glenn Schleede, who was Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan and is a well-known critic of industrial wind energy, in a memorandum to Governor Bob McDonnell asking him to “consider objectively the true costs and benefits of electricity from wind” to the citizens of Virginia. He first cites the “Five-Year Double Declining Balance Accelerated Depreciation” (often referred to as “5-year 200% DB”) that is allowed for calculating the share of “wind farm” capital cost that can be deducted from taxes by “wind farm” owners and their “tax partners.”
As the table shows, in six years the tax liability on the owner of a $100 million “wind farm” and his “tax partner” has been reduced by $41 million, a schedule not allowed for traditional generating facilities that have longer and slower depreciation periods, typically 20 years.
Clearly such a write-off is an investment for companies such as Dominion Resources, Duke Energy, Iberdrola, and other players with large profits and tax liabilities.
When a wind farm is online and generating, it receives a $0.021 “Federal Production Tax Credit” for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated for its first 10 years of operation. A 100-million-dollar project would have a rated capacity of about 40 megawatts (MW) and, with a capacity factor of 30 percent, would generate 105.4 million kWh per year, providing a subsidy of $2.2 million per year or $22 million dollars over 10 years.
But since our Congress thought it cruel for wind-farm owners to be required to wait for their money, or perhaps the wind farmers weren’t generating as much power as had been anticipated, our wind farmers and their tax partners are offered the option of an Investment Tax Credit (ITC) of 30 percent of capital costs, in our case $30 million. But wait. What if the owners didn’t need the tax credit? Thankfully the “stimulus” legislation made wind-farm developers (and their tax partners) eligible to receive an equivalent cash grant from the U.S. Treasury in lieu of the ITC.
Then, too, some states offer their own ITC. For Arizona it’s 10 percent, so off comes another $10 million.
There’s more. In fact, we’re just getting started. Not only are taxpayers gouged, but the ratepayers are forced to take a hit also. Here’s how this scam works. Legislators, the self-anointed energy experts and protectors of the environment, decree that electric utilities must obtain such-and-such percentage of their energy from “renewable” sources. This is called a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS. The utilities, being required to supply “green” energy, must find a source for it. Enter from stage left the aspiring wind farmer and his tax partner with their sales pitch: “We know you’ll be needing some ‘green’ electricity, so we’re here to offer you our help. Now if you’ll just sign this 20-year contract promising you’ll use our electricity first, and that you’ll pay a small premium for this electricity because of our greenness, then we’ll give you these Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to show to the state so they won’t fine or imprison you for not meeting their RPS.”
Now how does this work? “Our” government mandates the utilities to buy expensive, unreliable energy from wind farms, and the utilities then pass these higher costs through to the ratepayers. We then blame the utilities for raising our rates. Tricky, no?
It’s not unrealistic for a utility to pay an extra three cents per kWh above the market rate for electricity. (Nuclear electricity costs $0.0203 per kWh, including all the maintenance, insurance, and decommissioning costs.) Using the same MW and capacity factor as in federal calculations, the wind-farm owners now add to their take a contract worth $3,942,000 per year or $78.8 million over the 20-year contract period — not for electricity, but for the subsidy caused by the “need” for “green power,” caused by the mandate brought about by politicians, most of whom don’t know a kilowatt from a kumquat.
Not bad. Tax savings for the wind farmer and his “tax partner” of $41 million plus an ITC from the federal government of $30 million, another ITC from the state for $10 million, and a contract for $78.8 million — all of this without generating a single kilowatt-hour of electrical energy. Again, there’s more, such as zero sales tax on equipment, no property taxes, and low rates for equipment assessments, not to mention a variety of subsidies, grants, and other unpublicized deals to attract support for a commodity (wind-generated electricity) that otherwise would not exist.
It is virtually impossible for anyone not intimately involved in a wind-farm project to have knowledge of all the subsidies and benefits, but we can see how this actually shakes out in a real-world example, in this case NextEra Energy (formerly FPL group).
Among other assets, NextEra owns Florida Power and Light with total revenues of $15.6 billion and a net income of $1.62 billion. At the corporate tax rate of 35 percent, their federal tax liability would be $567 million in 2009 alone.
BusinessWeek magazine reported in April 2009 that the FPL Group (now NextEra Energy) had an annual tax rate of 1.3 percent on more than $7 billion in earnings over the last four years. This amounted to a total of $88 million in taxes. Analysts in BusinessWeek explained this low rate was possible given tax breaks for having invested in alternative energy. The article added, “To ensure those tax rules reach into the future, FPL employs a cadre of well-placed Washington lobbyists. In 2008, the company paid well over $500,000 to five top-drawer firms to make its tax case to Congress, the White House and the U.S. Treasury.” Makes one wonder how much over $500,000 they spent and which legislators and other officials were benefactors of this largesse.
While it’s a fact that wind-powered ships discovered the New World and opened up exciting frontiers, and wind power was used to pump water to keep Holland from sinking into the sea and to water cattle on U.S. prairies, no matter what the advocates of wind power say, and regardless of the subsidies paid, wind is not a substitute for fossil fuel, hydroelectric, or nuclear generating plants. As Glenn Schleede summarized in his memorandum to Governor McDonnell:
• Electricity from wind is very high in true cost and very low in true value.
• The wind industry and other wind energy advocates greatly overstate its benefits and understate its adverse environmental, economic, energy, scenic and property value impacts.
• Claims of job and economic benefits from “wind farms” are greatly exaggerated.
• “Wind farms” are being built primarily for lucrative tax benefits and subsidies for their owners — not because of their environmental or energy benefits.
It is not like we don’t have a map of our future if we continue down this road of subsidizing wind and solar energy. In Europe, particularly Denmark, Germany, and Spain where the wind-generation subsidies have been as lavish or more so than ours, there has been a strong reaction — revolt is probably a better word — against the transfer of taxpayer and ratepayer wealth to the purveyors of “renewable” energy. In those countries electric rates have risen dramatically, with Denmark having a rate three times the average in America. As reported by Andrew Gilligan in the September 12, 2010 New York Times:
Unfortunately, Danish electricity bills have been almost as dramatically affected as the Danish landscape. Thanks in part to the windfarm subsidy, Danes pay some of Europe’s highest energy tariffs — on average, more than twice those in Britain. Under public pressure, Denmark’s ruling Left Party is curbing the handouts to the wind industry.
Americans must educate their legislators and the public to the pitfalls of wind subsidies before we find ourselves with not only high energy costs, but with decreased productivity from squandering our capital on wasteful piddle-power projects.
First Wind Holdings cuts proposed price range for upcoming IPO
First Wind Holdings, a D.E. Shaw/Madison Dearborn-backed developer and owner of U.S. wind farms, lowered the proposed price range for its upcoming IPO on Wednesday. The Newton, MA-based company now plans to raise $228 million by offering 12 million shares at a price range of $18-$20. The company had previously filed to offer the same number of shares at a range of $24-$26. At the mid-point of the revised range, First Wind will raise -24% fewer proceeds than previously anticipated. First Wind, which was founded in 2002 and booked $75 million in sales last year, plans to list on the NASDAQ under the symbol WIND. Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley and Goldman, Sachs & Co. are the lead underwriters on the deal, which is expected to price this week.
View IPO Profile: WIND
Related Links: Upcoming IPOs
View IPO Profile: WIND
Related Links: Upcoming IPOs
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
A new slant on wind farms
Jerusalem, N.Y. — John Grabski, representing the Jerusalem Preservation Association, brought a seldom explored topic to the subject of wind farms at the Oct. 20 Jerusalem Town Council meeting - economic devaluation.
Public discussions on wind farms usually include noise, flicker, dead birds and discontented cows. Grabski pointed to those briefly, but his main point was to suggest measures to protect against personal property value loss.
Instead of looking at the big picture of how much money wind turbines could bring to the town and landowners, he pointed out in a detailed approach how money could be lost long term.
“According to expert organizations such as professional Certified Real Estate Appraisers, industrial wind development adversely impacts land values within the immediate wind-zone and a peripheral area of approximately two miles,” according to Grabski.
He based his data on research conducted by the Certified Real Estate Appraisers in various states for property within two miles of wind turbines. He then applied this formula to the 346 homes and land affected by wind development, as defined by the Town of Jerusalem as a possible site. He then narrowed it down to 180 parcels located in the immediate vicinity or High Impact Area.
According to the findings, the property value of the 180 parcels is $18,674,000 which generates $356,000 in school and property taxes annually.
Based on CREA studies, property value declines from 20 to 43 percent can be expected in parcels within two miles of turbine sites. Assuming an average of this estimate, the taxable loss would be $5,602,200 for the 180 homes.
Over the term of a 20 year wind project, the tax revenue loss could be $2,780,571 to $5,561,014, according to calculations, based on the formula.
Grabski said a bondposated by the wind developer would help with lost tax revenue, and added, “People would start to sell and others would ask for lower assessments. It’s happening all over the country.”
“If what developers say is true, and there is no desire on the part of landowners to exit the development area, and that newcomers will continue to seek and purchase property in the wind zone, then there should be no negative impact on property values. If this is true, wind developers should be both willing and able to provide a property value guaranty to landowners with no economic risk on their part. Conversely, if property values indeed decline, then neither the wind company nor the town at large should profit at the expense of the home and land owners,” said Grabski in his address to the board.
The Jerusalem Preservation Association recommends putting a Property Value Bond requirement into the Wind Ordinance to protect both the citizens of Jerusalem from personal loss and the Town from citizens seeking remedy or remuneration for damage or economic loss from wind farm development.
The organization also presented the board with three pages of other recommendations for the wind turbine law dealing with setbacks, noise, health and other issues.
The Jerusalem Preservation Association was formed in the summer of 2009, when some residents learned areas near their properties were being proposed as possible wind farm sites. The group is also discussing the risks of Marcellus Shale drilling.
The Jerusalem Town Board has been exploring the possibility of wind turbines in the town for a few years. A committee was formed and several public meetings have been held, but there has been no action.
Councilman Neil Simmons, who was active in the public meetings, thanked Grabski for bringing to light a different approach that the town hadn’t looked at before.
Councilman Ray Stewart asked people in the audience of about 40, how many were there in regard to this topic. About 30 raised their hands. Grabski said the association could have filled the parking lot, “But the topic is too important to make a circus of it.”
Public discussions on wind farms usually include noise, flicker, dead birds and discontented cows. Grabski pointed to those briefly, but his main point was to suggest measures to protect against personal property value loss.
Instead of looking at the big picture of how much money wind turbines could bring to the town and landowners, he pointed out in a detailed approach how money could be lost long term.
“According to expert organizations such as professional Certified Real Estate Appraisers, industrial wind development adversely impacts land values within the immediate wind-zone and a peripheral area of approximately two miles,” according to Grabski.
He based his data on research conducted by the Certified Real Estate Appraisers in various states for property within two miles of wind turbines. He then applied this formula to the 346 homes and land affected by wind development, as defined by the Town of Jerusalem as a possible site. He then narrowed it down to 180 parcels located in the immediate vicinity or High Impact Area.
According to the findings, the property value of the 180 parcels is $18,674,000 which generates $356,000 in school and property taxes annually.
Based on CREA studies, property value declines from 20 to 43 percent can be expected in parcels within two miles of turbine sites. Assuming an average of this estimate, the taxable loss would be $5,602,200 for the 180 homes.
Over the term of a 20 year wind project, the tax revenue loss could be $2,780,571 to $5,561,014, according to calculations, based on the formula.
Grabski said a bondposated by the wind developer would help with lost tax revenue, and added, “People would start to sell and others would ask for lower assessments. It’s happening all over the country.”
“If what developers say is true, and there is no desire on the part of landowners to exit the development area, and that newcomers will continue to seek and purchase property in the wind zone, then there should be no negative impact on property values. If this is true, wind developers should be both willing and able to provide a property value guaranty to landowners with no economic risk on their part. Conversely, if property values indeed decline, then neither the wind company nor the town at large should profit at the expense of the home and land owners,” said Grabski in his address to the board.
The Jerusalem Preservation Association recommends putting a Property Value Bond requirement into the Wind Ordinance to protect both the citizens of Jerusalem from personal loss and the Town from citizens seeking remedy or remuneration for damage or economic loss from wind farm development.
The organization also presented the board with three pages of other recommendations for the wind turbine law dealing with setbacks, noise, health and other issues.
The Jerusalem Preservation Association was formed in the summer of 2009, when some residents learned areas near their properties were being proposed as possible wind farm sites. The group is also discussing the risks of Marcellus Shale drilling.
The Jerusalem Town Board has been exploring the possibility of wind turbines in the town for a few years. A committee was formed and several public meetings have been held, but there has been no action.
Councilman Neil Simmons, who was active in the public meetings, thanked Grabski for bringing to light a different approach that the town hadn’t looked at before.
Councilman Ray Stewart asked people in the audience of about 40, how many were there in regard to this topic. About 30 raised their hands. Grabski said the association could have filled the parking lot, “But the topic is too important to make a circus of it.”
Is Wind the Next Ethanol?
Repeating past mistakes seems to be a recurring theme in federal policy, and nowhere more so than on energy issues. Much of the Obama administration’s “clean energy economy” and “energy independence” agenda is a virtual repeat of the follies of the 1970s. Back then, failed attempts by Washington to pick winners and losers among alternative energy sources and energy-using technologies led to taxes, regulations, and subsidies that exacerbated the very concerns they were supposed to address.
Indeed, one of the Reagan administration’s greater—though lesser-remembered—economic successes was the repeal of much of this government meddling beginning in 1981. Reagan’s turn away from energy central planning and toward free markets brought down energy costs and helped launch a long period of economic growth.
This decades-old lesson may be lost on younger politicians, bureaucrats, and activists who may be unaware that their energy policy ideas are proven failures from the age of disco. But the same cannot be said of efforts to enact a federal renewable electricity standard (RES), which would be a near-exact repeat of a blunder that was launched just a few short years ago—the renewable fuels mandate. The requirement that ethanol be added to the nation’s gasoline supply has quickly proven to be an economic and environmental failure. Congressional proposals mandating wind and other renewable sources of electricity show all the signs of becoming a similar flop, but with far more serious implications.
Indeed, one of the Reagan administration’s greater—though lesser-remembered—economic successes was the repeal of much of this government meddling beginning in 1981. Reagan’s turn away from energy central planning and toward free markets brought down energy costs and helped launch a long period of economic growth.
This decades-old lesson may be lost on younger politicians, bureaucrats, and activists who may be unaware that their energy policy ideas are proven failures from the age of disco. But the same cannot be said of efforts to enact a federal renewable electricity standard (RES), which would be a near-exact repeat of a blunder that was launched just a few short years ago—the renewable fuels mandate. The requirement that ethanol be added to the nation’s gasoline supply has quickly proven to be an economic and environmental failure. Congressional proposals mandating wind and other renewable sources of electricity show all the signs of becoming a similar flop, but with far more serious implications.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
First Wind IPO Amendment October 25, 2010
Click to read the latest amendment to the S1 IPO application.
First Wind IPO will go ahead this week
First Wind Holdings has this week filed a registration statement with the US Securities and Complaints Commission (SEC) in preparation for an initial public offering (IPO) on Nasdaq that is expected to be realised this week.
‘I’m afraid we can’t confirm, other than to say we’ve recently filed documents with the SEC. We will make a determination this week,’ said John Lamontagne, director of corporate communications at First Wind.
First Wind would look to make up to $300m from the listing of 12 million shares at between $24 and $26 each, reports indicate.
But the filing may be in jeopardy due to the company’s outstanding debt, which amounted to $582.2m in September. Having never reached profitability, the company’s losses stood at $233m at the end of the latest financial quarter.
According to documents filed with the SEC, First Wind’s assets increased to more than $6.8m at the end of fiscal year 2009 from $2.3m at the end of the previous year.
The company was awarded a $117m loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy in July for its Oahu-based Kahuku Wind project, but the company’s current overhanging debt raises questions as to whether all the funding will be provided.
‘I’m afraid we can’t confirm, other than to say we’ve recently filed documents with the SEC. We will make a determination this week,’ said John Lamontagne, director of corporate communications at First Wind.
First Wind would look to make up to $300m from the listing of 12 million shares at between $24 and $26 each, reports indicate.
But the filing may be in jeopardy due to the company’s outstanding debt, which amounted to $582.2m in September. Having never reached profitability, the company’s losses stood at $233m at the end of the latest financial quarter.
According to documents filed with the SEC, First Wind’s assets increased to more than $6.8m at the end of fiscal year 2009 from $2.3m at the end of the previous year.
The company was awarded a $117m loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy in July for its Oahu-based Kahuku Wind project, but the company’s current overhanging debt raises questions as to whether all the funding will be provided.
Cape Planning Board should reject site plan
It would be a great courtesy, at the very least, to the community of Cape Vincent and beyond if the Planning Board chairman would clarify some comments from the Oct. 13 meeting at the special meeting on Wednesday at 7 p.m. at the recreation hall in Cape Vincent.
The meeting is to prepare to accept the Site Plan Review Application from Acciona for their wind project. Once the permit is submitted the Planing Board must be finished with site plan review within 124 days.
The Planning Board said on Oct. 13 that:
There will be two public hearings to site 51 turbines and miles of access roads and transmission lines.
The only people allowed to speak will be people living within 1/2 mile of the project.
A person from Tibbetts Point Lighthouse area would not be allowed to comment.
Setbacks can be based on 11/2 times the height of the turbine.
Noise complaint policy will be the only method of protecting the community from unexpected noise.
A committee will be formed (no naysayers allowed) to decide on setbacks and a noise complaint policy.
The process will be guaranteed done in six months.
Cape Vincent has no agreement of any kind on setbacks, no agreed-on ambient background sound levels and no discussion of noise complaint policy in place of a scientifically established ambient sound level. The Planning Board has refused to read the Economic Wind Report commissioned by the supervisor dealing with property values. It is reckless and irresponsible to enter Site Plan Review, a legally timed process, without first coming to some consensus on setbacks and ambient sound levels.
Cape Vincent needs to have an ambient sound study done by Cavenaugh and Tocci as voted for by the Planning Board and unconflicted members of the town board. A committee of all different sides needs to use that study to come up with setbacks based on science. The committee's recommendations should go to a public vote.
It is not democratically nor morally correct to go into Site Plan Review at this time. I hope that you will use the meeting on the 27th to clarify what the Site Plan Review process is, why public comment will be censored, what the responsibilities and character of the proposed committee are, what sort of setbacks the board is already considering.
I also trust you will not accept the application from Acciona.
Hester Chase
Cape Vincent
The meeting is to prepare to accept the Site Plan Review Application from Acciona for their wind project. Once the permit is submitted the Planing Board must be finished with site plan review within 124 days.
The Planning Board said on Oct. 13 that:
There will be two public hearings to site 51 turbines and miles of access roads and transmission lines.
The only people allowed to speak will be people living within 1/2 mile of the project.
A person from Tibbetts Point Lighthouse area would not be allowed to comment.
Setbacks can be based on 11/2 times the height of the turbine.
Noise complaint policy will be the only method of protecting the community from unexpected noise.
A committee will be formed (no naysayers allowed) to decide on setbacks and a noise complaint policy.
The process will be guaranteed done in six months.
Cape Vincent has no agreement of any kind on setbacks, no agreed-on ambient background sound levels and no discussion of noise complaint policy in place of a scientifically established ambient sound level. The Planning Board has refused to read the Economic Wind Report commissioned by the supervisor dealing with property values. It is reckless and irresponsible to enter Site Plan Review, a legally timed process, without first coming to some consensus on setbacks and ambient sound levels.
Cape Vincent needs to have an ambient sound study done by Cavenaugh and Tocci as voted for by the Planning Board and unconflicted members of the town board. A committee of all different sides needs to use that study to come up with setbacks based on science. The committee's recommendations should go to a public vote.
It is not democratically nor morally correct to go into Site Plan Review at this time. I hope that you will use the meeting on the 27th to clarify what the Site Plan Review process is, why public comment will be censored, what the responsibilities and character of the proposed committee are, what sort of setbacks the board is already considering.
I also trust you will not accept the application from Acciona.
Hester Chase
Cape Vincent
Monday, October 25, 2010
Kessel:a controversial keynote speaker
New York Power Authority President Richard Kessel’s scheduled appearance this evening as keynote speaker at a dinner in Rochester has raised the hackles of people who oppose the project Kessel will here to promote - offshore wind turbines in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
The Center for Environmental Information, which invited Kessel to speak at its annual “Community Salute to the Environment” dinner, has received some complaints, executive director George Thomas said on Friday. That may be a first for the environmental group, which doesn’t make a habit of inviting lightning-rod speakers to its dinners. This time, though, it wasn’t a surprise, Thomas said: CEI officials knew full well Kessel was persona non grata to offshore wind opponents.
“That was a consideration when we decided we want to ask him to come, but this is such an important topic that we wanted to give him a chance to describe NYPA’s perspective on it,” Thomas said.
One of the folks who registered a stern complaint with Thomas, Greece shoreline resident Suzanne Albright, said she was displeased that CEI was giving Kessel a platform.
“I believe that Mr. Kessel will take advantage of any opportunity to portray himself in a positive light here in Monroe County,” she said. “Why would he not do that? He’s trying to sell us a bill of goods. Anybody who invites him to come and talk - especially an agency that’s there to protect the environment - he’s going to take advantage of that and hope that that portays him as someone who’s environmentally friendly.”
Indeed, Kessel surely will portray offshore wind as an environmentally friendly way to generate renewal, non-polluting energy. He likely will push the economic benefits of hosting what backers see as a major new industry.
Opponents, naturally, don’t agree with any of this, and can tick off any number of ways they believe offshore turbines can damage the environment and are a financial loser.
At least one opponent asked for equal time at tonight’s dinner, but Thomas said no. “They’re welcome to come and ask questions, but we weren’t going to set up a debate. We’re just asking him to make a presentation on his perspective on it.”
Albright said she asked other opponents if they wanted to join her on a picket line outside the George Eastman House, where the dinner’s being held. As of Friday, she’d had no takers.
The Center for Environmental Information, which invited Kessel to speak at its annual “Community Salute to the Environment” dinner, has received some complaints, executive director George Thomas said on Friday. That may be a first for the environmental group, which doesn’t make a habit of inviting lightning-rod speakers to its dinners. This time, though, it wasn’t a surprise, Thomas said: CEI officials knew full well Kessel was persona non grata to offshore wind opponents.
“That was a consideration when we decided we want to ask him to come, but this is such an important topic that we wanted to give him a chance to describe NYPA’s perspective on it,” Thomas said.
One of the folks who registered a stern complaint with Thomas, Greece shoreline resident Suzanne Albright, said she was displeased that CEI was giving Kessel a platform.
“I believe that Mr. Kessel will take advantage of any opportunity to portray himself in a positive light here in Monroe County,” she said. “Why would he not do that? He’s trying to sell us a bill of goods. Anybody who invites him to come and talk - especially an agency that’s there to protect the environment - he’s going to take advantage of that and hope that that portays him as someone who’s environmentally friendly.”
Indeed, Kessel surely will portray offshore wind as an environmentally friendly way to generate renewal, non-polluting energy. He likely will push the economic benefits of hosting what backers see as a major new industry.
Opponents, naturally, don’t agree with any of this, and can tick off any number of ways they believe offshore turbines can damage the environment and are a financial loser.
At least one opponent asked for equal time at tonight’s dinner, but Thomas said no. “They’re welcome to come and ask questions, but we weren’t going to set up a debate. We’re just asking him to make a presentation on his perspective on it.”
Albright said she asked other opponents if they wanted to join her on a picket line outside the George Eastman House, where the dinner’s being held. As of Friday, she’d had no takers.
Wind Energy: The Truth Blows
Wind energy is the environmentalists’ great energy hope, but two inconvenient truths seem to come between fantasy and reality.
1. Study after study shows that wherever wind development was put in place, natural gas demand went up and the environmental benefits were the opposite of what the advocates expected.
“Cycling” coal plants to accommodate wind generation makes the plants operate inefficiently, which drives up emissions. Moreover, when they are not operated consistently at their designed temperatures, the variability causes problems with the way they interact with their associated emission control technologies, frequently causing erratic emission behavior that can last for several hours before control is regained. Ironically, using wind to a degree that forces utilities to temporarily reduce their coal generation results in greater SO2, NOX and CO2 than would have occurred if less wind energy was generated and coal generation was not impacted.”
2. There is a huge disparity between installed capacity and actual output into the system. In many cases the actual output in the system is less than 20% and in some cases even far less.
There are other unsavory facts that are included in these graphics such as the area required by a wind farm compared to, e.g., nuclear power plant. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas occupies 100,000 acres for a bit less than 800 MW of installed capacity; the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona occupies 4,050 acres (4 percent of the Texas wind farm) but has a 500 percent larger power capacity (almost 4,000 MW.)
Even more obscene are the government subsidies that go into wind power. For an energy source that barely exceeds one percent of energy output, wind subsidies are $23 per megawatt hour, about 60 times of the $0.44 per megawatt hour that go to the mainstay of US electrical power output, coal and 100 times the $0.25 per megawatt hour that go to natural gas, the two sources that account for over 70 percent of US power supply. Way to go for social engineering.
1. Study after study shows that wherever wind development was put in place, natural gas demand went up and the environmental benefits were the opposite of what the advocates expected.
“Cycling” coal plants to accommodate wind generation makes the plants operate inefficiently, which drives up emissions. Moreover, when they are not operated consistently at their designed temperatures, the variability causes problems with the way they interact with their associated emission control technologies, frequently causing erratic emission behavior that can last for several hours before control is regained. Ironically, using wind to a degree that forces utilities to temporarily reduce their coal generation results in greater SO2, NOX and CO2 than would have occurred if less wind energy was generated and coal generation was not impacted.”
2. There is a huge disparity between installed capacity and actual output into the system. In many cases the actual output in the system is less than 20% and in some cases even far less.
There are other unsavory facts that are included in these graphics such as the area required by a wind farm compared to, e.g., nuclear power plant. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas occupies 100,000 acres for a bit less than 800 MW of installed capacity; the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona occupies 4,050 acres (4 percent of the Texas wind farm) but has a 500 percent larger power capacity (almost 4,000 MW.)
Even more obscene are the government subsidies that go into wind power. For an energy source that barely exceeds one percent of energy output, wind subsidies are $23 per megawatt hour, about 60 times of the $0.44 per megawatt hour that go to the mainstay of US electrical power output, coal and 100 times the $0.25 per megawatt hour that go to natural gas, the two sources that account for over 70 percent of US power supply. Way to go for social engineering.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Wind cases blowing forward
Separate cases involving a wind turbine project in two Finger Lakes communities are moving ahead.
Monroe County Supreme Court Justice John J. Ark on Wednesday denied the Town of Italy’s request to dismiss an Article 78 petition filed by Ecogen Wind LLC and Ecogen Transmission Corp. of West Seneca, Erie County. Ecogen is seeking review of the town’s denial of a special-use permit, required in order to build its proposed 17-wind turbine project in Yates County.
Judge Ark’s brief order also ordered the town to answer Ecogen’s petition and submit town records to the court within 45 days.
Ecogen has proposed construction of 17 wind turbines in Italy and 16 in the adjacent Town of Prattsburgh, Steuben County, as part of the Ecogen Prattsburgh-Italy Wind Farm.
In September, Harter Secrest & Emery LLP halted its representation of the town following a dispute over unpaid bills. Town Attorney Edward J. Brockman was unavailable for comment Thursday.
Opposition has surfaced in both towns.
“We’re certainly dismayed that the judge has not recognized the power of towns to control their own land use,” said Gary A. Abraham, a Cattaraugus County attorney representing the Finger Lakes Preservation Association, an intervenor respondent.
Abraham said Ecogen’s application “was denied based on regulations the town had adopted. Ecogen twice sued the town and drove the town’s budget into the ground, and continued to threaten to sue the town because the town had banned wind farms.”
In an effort to avoid further litigation, Italy adopted an incentive Wind Zone Law in February 2009. The new zone previously was classified as scenic overlay, visible from both Canandaigua and Keuka lakes.
“That was a major concession, but the town never guaranteed what the outcome would be,” Abraham said. “In the end, the town was convinced noise and other aesthetic impacts were too dramatic, and too much of a burden, and would not be offset by the financial incentives Ecogen offered.”
In a July 2009 letter to the town, Ecogen proffered $1.6 million in cash, equipment, building improvements and other amenities.
Abraham said Ecogen never offered to change the size or number of turbines in its plans, and that no incentives other than cash were offered.
“The town determined the impacts were so dramatic, there would have to be some change … to avoid some of those impacts,” Abraham said. “Rural areas derive much more income from tourism than they do from industry.”
Abraham said the association has never been against the construction of wind farms. The site where Ecogen wants to build is located less than 1,000 feet from homes in the two towns, which Abraham says is too close.
“Wind farm developers have a problem in New York because New York’s rural areas are so densely populated,” Abraham said. “As long as wind farm developers continue to push for siting their projects closer than that, there are going to be complaints.”
Ecogen is represented by the Rochester law firm of Nixon Peabody LLP.
“This project is important to the renewable energy goals of the state because of the highly unique wind resource on that ridge,” said Nixon Peabody partner Robert W. Burgdorf. “Ecogen looks forward to getting to the merits of the lawsuit now that the preliminary motions are resolved.”
Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones, who took office Jan. 1, declined to comment for this report.
Meanwhile, in Prattsburgh
In a separate order, Judge Ark granted the Town of Prattsburgh limited, expedited discovery to be completed by Nov. 24, allowing the town board to review records leading up to the previous town board’s mid-December acceptance of a settlement agreement with Ecogen to grant the company “vested rights” for the project. Judge Ark’s order stays Ecogen’s request to enforce the settlement.
Voters ousted two of the five town board members in the November 2009 election, including Supervisor Harold McConnell, who was defeated by Albert Wordingham. Councilwoman Sharon Quigley lost to Anneke Radin-Snaith while Charles Shick was re-elected, joining the new board members who took office Jan. 1. Shick is named in the suit, along with board members Steven Kula and Stacey Bottoni, whose four-year terms expire at the end of 2011. The newly seated board rescinded the agreement Jan. 7.
“The settlement agreement that was approved by the outgoing board last year was procured by fraud,” said Edward P. Hourihan Jr., an attorney with Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC’s Pittsford office, who represents Prattsburgh. “The conduct of the outgoing board to attempt to push through a fraudulent settlement at the 11th hour is offensive, and Judge Ark’s ruling will allow a much closer look … at the motivation and conduct of the outgoing board members and their attorney.”
Former Town Attorney John Leyden resigned at the end of last year. Hourihan said his discovery centers on possible collusion between Ecogen and town board members who stand to benefit economically, attempts by Ecogen to improperly lobby town board members and potential conflicts of interest on behalf of the former town attorney and former town supervisor.
“The new town supervisor and town board will have an opportunity to revisit all of these issues,” Hourihan said. “The law is plain and clear that a lame duck legislative body may not bind an incoming legislative body, as was done here.
“Equally offensive is the fact that Ecogen wrote the enabling resolution this lame duck colluding board voted on. The judge’s ruling allows us to shine a light on the activities by Ecogen and the outgoing board that resulted in this fabricated settlement.”
Burgdorf said the Town of Prattsburgh negotiated and entered into an agreement with Ecogen that is binding on both parties.
“The new town board doesn’t like what the previous town board did and is looking to change the deal,” he said.
Monroe County Supreme Court Justice John J. Ark on Wednesday denied the Town of Italy’s request to dismiss an Article 78 petition filed by Ecogen Wind LLC and Ecogen Transmission Corp. of West Seneca, Erie County. Ecogen is seeking review of the town’s denial of a special-use permit, required in order to build its proposed 17-wind turbine project in Yates County.
Judge Ark’s brief order also ordered the town to answer Ecogen’s petition and submit town records to the court within 45 days.
Ecogen has proposed construction of 17 wind turbines in Italy and 16 in the adjacent Town of Prattsburgh, Steuben County, as part of the Ecogen Prattsburgh-Italy Wind Farm.
In September, Harter Secrest & Emery LLP halted its representation of the town following a dispute over unpaid bills. Town Attorney Edward J. Brockman was unavailable for comment Thursday.
Opposition has surfaced in both towns.
“We’re certainly dismayed that the judge has not recognized the power of towns to control their own land use,” said Gary A. Abraham, a Cattaraugus County attorney representing the Finger Lakes Preservation Association, an intervenor respondent.
Abraham said Ecogen’s application “was denied based on regulations the town had adopted. Ecogen twice sued the town and drove the town’s budget into the ground, and continued to threaten to sue the town because the town had banned wind farms.”
In an effort to avoid further litigation, Italy adopted an incentive Wind Zone Law in February 2009. The new zone previously was classified as scenic overlay, visible from both Canandaigua and Keuka lakes.
“That was a major concession, but the town never guaranteed what the outcome would be,” Abraham said. “In the end, the town was convinced noise and other aesthetic impacts were too dramatic, and too much of a burden, and would not be offset by the financial incentives Ecogen offered.”
In a July 2009 letter to the town, Ecogen proffered $1.6 million in cash, equipment, building improvements and other amenities.
Abraham said Ecogen never offered to change the size or number of turbines in its plans, and that no incentives other than cash were offered.
“The town determined the impacts were so dramatic, there would have to be some change … to avoid some of those impacts,” Abraham said. “Rural areas derive much more income from tourism than they do from industry.”
Abraham said the association has never been against the construction of wind farms. The site where Ecogen wants to build is located less than 1,000 feet from homes in the two towns, which Abraham says is too close.
“Wind farm developers have a problem in New York because New York’s rural areas are so densely populated,” Abraham said. “As long as wind farm developers continue to push for siting their projects closer than that, there are going to be complaints.”
Ecogen is represented by the Rochester law firm of Nixon Peabody LLP.
“This project is important to the renewable energy goals of the state because of the highly unique wind resource on that ridge,” said Nixon Peabody partner Robert W. Burgdorf. “Ecogen looks forward to getting to the merits of the lawsuit now that the preliminary motions are resolved.”
Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones, who took office Jan. 1, declined to comment for this report.
Meanwhile, in Prattsburgh
In a separate order, Judge Ark granted the Town of Prattsburgh limited, expedited discovery to be completed by Nov. 24, allowing the town board to review records leading up to the previous town board’s mid-December acceptance of a settlement agreement with Ecogen to grant the company “vested rights” for the project. Judge Ark’s order stays Ecogen’s request to enforce the settlement.
Voters ousted two of the five town board members in the November 2009 election, including Supervisor Harold McConnell, who was defeated by Albert Wordingham. Councilwoman Sharon Quigley lost to Anneke Radin-Snaith while Charles Shick was re-elected, joining the new board members who took office Jan. 1. Shick is named in the suit, along with board members Steven Kula and Stacey Bottoni, whose four-year terms expire at the end of 2011. The newly seated board rescinded the agreement Jan. 7.
“The settlement agreement that was approved by the outgoing board last year was procured by fraud,” said Edward P. Hourihan Jr., an attorney with Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC’s Pittsford office, who represents Prattsburgh. “The conduct of the outgoing board to attempt to push through a fraudulent settlement at the 11th hour is offensive, and Judge Ark’s ruling will allow a much closer look … at the motivation and conduct of the outgoing board members and their attorney.”
Former Town Attorney John Leyden resigned at the end of last year. Hourihan said his discovery centers on possible collusion between Ecogen and town board members who stand to benefit economically, attempts by Ecogen to improperly lobby town board members and potential conflicts of interest on behalf of the former town attorney and former town supervisor.
“The new town supervisor and town board will have an opportunity to revisit all of these issues,” Hourihan said. “The law is plain and clear that a lame duck legislative body may not bind an incoming legislative body, as was done here.
“Equally offensive is the fact that Ecogen wrote the enabling resolution this lame duck colluding board voted on. The judge’s ruling allows us to shine a light on the activities by Ecogen and the outgoing board that resulted in this fabricated settlement.”
Burgdorf said the Town of Prattsburgh negotiated and entered into an agreement with Ecogen that is binding on both parties.
“The new town board doesn’t like what the previous town board did and is looking to change the deal,” he said.
Howard Wind Project Might Actually Happen
Town Board Member Hatch Says Everpower Is Working To Get Financing
It looks like the Howard wind project might happen after all. After some question about whether the project was going to move forward, Howard Town Board member William Hatch tells WLEA/WCKR News that wind company Everpower is working on financing, and that they hope to get that done by the end of the month.
Hatch also says that there are no dates yet for when the construction will begin.
It looks like the Howard wind project might happen after all. After some question about whether the project was going to move forward, Howard Town Board member William Hatch tells WLEA/WCKR News that wind company Everpower is working on financing, and that they hope to get that done by the end of the month.
Hatch also says that there are no dates yet for when the construction will begin.
First Wind IPO next week
Wind farm developer First Wind Holdings Inc. is expected to announce an initial public offering of up to $312 million next week, according to IPO tracker Renaissance Capital.
The Boston-based company is expected to price the 12 million shares in the offering in the range of $24 to $26, Renaissance Capital reported.
The company would join the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “WIND.” Lead underwriters are Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley and Goldman, Sachs & Co.
First Wind said in a regulatory filing that it intends to use approximately $78 million of the IPO proceeds to pay off a loan that comes with a 17 percent annual interest rate and matures in March 2013. The company plans to pay off the loan next March. Remaining proceeds would be used for project development and construction costs and general corporate purposes, the company said.
First Wind has waited more than two years for the right time to hold its IPO. The company first filed its IPO intentions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2008.
First Wind’s operating revenue came in at $40.7 million for the first six months of 2010, compared with $20.9 million a year earlier, the company has reported in an SEC filing.
The company’s operating loss also doubled on a year-over-year basis during the first half of the year, to $42.6 million from $21.4 million, the company reported.
First Wind has developed wind projects that are operational in Maine, New York, Hawaii and Utah.
The Boston-based company is expected to price the 12 million shares in the offering in the range of $24 to $26, Renaissance Capital reported.
The company would join the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “WIND.” Lead underwriters are Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley and Goldman, Sachs & Co.
First Wind said in a regulatory filing that it intends to use approximately $78 million of the IPO proceeds to pay off a loan that comes with a 17 percent annual interest rate and matures in March 2013. The company plans to pay off the loan next March. Remaining proceeds would be used for project development and construction costs and general corporate purposes, the company said.
First Wind has waited more than two years for the right time to hold its IPO. The company first filed its IPO intentions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2008.
First Wind’s operating revenue came in at $40.7 million for the first six months of 2010, compared with $20.9 million a year earlier, the company has reported in an SEC filing.
The company’s operating loss also doubled on a year-over-year basis during the first half of the year, to $42.6 million from $21.4 million, the company reported.
First Wind has developed wind projects that are operational in Maine, New York, Hawaii and Utah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)