Denise Bode and senior staff members will hold a free live webcast at 1 pm EST this Friday for AWEA members, wind supporters and the media, with:
•Analysis of how the election results will impact the U.S. wind energy industry
•Examples of how we countered misinformation during the campaign
•Critical lessons from the industry's Third Quarter results
•Legislative priorities going forward
This event is a must for everyone who cares about U.S. wind energy. Live streaming video and audio, video clips, and PowerPoint slides will be shown.
1:00 pm to 1:30 pm EST
Presentations by AWEA CEO Denise Bode and staff
1:30 pm to 2 pm EST
Q&A
To watch live streaming video and audio of this webcast over a web browser on your computer, return to this link a few minutes before 1 pm Eastern this Friday, Nov. 5.
To ask questions, send them by email between now and the event to: energyexpert@awea.org
Webcast participants will also be able to submit questions during the event using an interactive box on your screen.
To listen by telephone only, and as a fallback in case you experience any technical problems with audio and video during the webcast, a telephone backup number will also be provided at this link between now and the event.
Please note: Up to 2,500 participants may watch the webstream live at a time. If you do not immediately get through, please dial in to the phone line, and/or wait a few minutes and try again. The event will be archived for 30 days viewing afterwards, as well.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
“Inconvenient Truths”
—Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, CounterPunch Magazine (10/31/10)
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind—what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these “clean, green, renewable energy” giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs—the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle—function as Mother Nature’s gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function—amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don’t consciously hear, but feel—as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it’s advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic (“flight or fight” response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes—locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical “wind turbine” symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published an NIH-funded, peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing.
Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that “what you can’t hear, can’t hurt you.” It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It’s time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism (“Not In My Back Yard!”)—and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind—what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these “clean, green, renewable energy” giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs—the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle—function as Mother Nature’s gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function—amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don’t consciously hear, but feel—as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it’s advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic (“flight or fight” response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes—locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical “wind turbine” symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published an NIH-funded, peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing.
Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that “what you can’t hear, can’t hurt you.” It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It’s time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism (“Not In My Back Yard!”)—and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Wind Turbine Syndrome by Dr. Pierpont
This important summary piece written by Dr. Nina Pierpont provides a clear explanation of what Wind Turbine Syndrome is and how turbine noise might be negatively impacting those living within the viewshed of the towers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind-what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these "clean, green, renewable energy" giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs-the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle-function as Mother Nature's gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function-amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don't consciously hear, but feel-as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it's advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic ("flight or fight" response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes-locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical "wind turbine" symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing. Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that "what you can't hear, can't hurt you."
It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It's time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism ("Not In My Back Yard!")-and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it," suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Dr. Pierpont, MD, PhD, is a pediatrician and author of "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment" (2009)
Web link: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind-what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these "clean, green, renewable energy" giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs-the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle-function as Mother Nature's gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function-amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don't consciously hear, but feel-as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it's advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic ("flight or fight" response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes-locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical "wind turbine" symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing. Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that "what you can't hear, can't hurt you."
It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It's time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism ("Not In My Back Yard!")-and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it," suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Dr. Pierpont, MD, PhD, is a pediatrician and author of "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment" (2009)
Web link: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/
Towns should have veto rights on PILOTs
The Uniform Tax Exemption Policy (UTEP) for wind projects currently before the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency for public comment and enactment is critical to what towns in Jefferson County may receive financially from any project. The focus is how much of a reduction from full taxation shall be allowed to the developer and how tax revenues would be allocated between the town, school district and county.
In discussion back and forth, the developer is pushing for a starting reduction of 85 percent to just 15 percent of full taxation that could be imposed by the UTEP law. The current version of the UTEP, however, would allow towns the right to veto this initial 15 percent amount and insist on a higher level of taxation based on what the town believes is appropriate in their community's unique situation. I support this right.
As to the allocation of tax revenues, if percentages customized to the wind project at hand could not be agreed to, then the standard allocation would be imposed by the UTEP. In Cape Vincent this is 3.59 percent to the town, 56.86 percent to the school district and 39.55 percent to the county. I take exception to forcing this minimal allocation on the town.
Overall I strongly support the self-determination of the taxing jurisdictions. The duty of the town to decide what is right for constituents should not be removed by the new law. In Cape Vincent the State Environmental Quality Review process dealt with zoning issues and hardly at all with economic impacts. Moreover, even if economic impacts had been properly assessed in the SEQR, then the town board would separately have the duty to decide what level of taxation would be appropriate given any perceived negative impacts from the wind turbines.
As to allocation, the supervisor of a neighboring town has advised that he would insist on some 40 percent of revenues. I would support his position.
I am currently on the town board. However, in writing to respectfully draw the attention of interested parties to these issues, I am doing so as an individual only.
Brooks Bragdon
Cape Vincent
Read source on Watertown Daily Times
In discussion back and forth, the developer is pushing for a starting reduction of 85 percent to just 15 percent of full taxation that could be imposed by the UTEP law. The current version of the UTEP, however, would allow towns the right to veto this initial 15 percent amount and insist on a higher level of taxation based on what the town believes is appropriate in their community's unique situation. I support this right.
As to the allocation of tax revenues, if percentages customized to the wind project at hand could not be agreed to, then the standard allocation would be imposed by the UTEP. In Cape Vincent this is 3.59 percent to the town, 56.86 percent to the school district and 39.55 percent to the county. I take exception to forcing this minimal allocation on the town.
Overall I strongly support the self-determination of the taxing jurisdictions. The duty of the town to decide what is right for constituents should not be removed by the new law. In Cape Vincent the State Environmental Quality Review process dealt with zoning issues and hardly at all with economic impacts. Moreover, even if economic impacts had been properly assessed in the SEQR, then the town board would separately have the duty to decide what level of taxation would be appropriate given any perceived negative impacts from the wind turbines.
As to allocation, the supervisor of a neighboring town has advised that he would insist on some 40 percent of revenues. I would support his position.
I am currently on the town board. However, in writing to respectfully draw the attention of interested parties to these issues, I am doing so as an individual only.
Brooks Bragdon
Cape Vincent
Read source on Watertown Daily Times
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Judge questions Ecogen, 2009 Prattsburgh town accord
Rochester, NY — Recent court action could greatly affect the future of wind farms in the town of Prattsburgh.
State Supreme Court Justice John Ark recently ruled the lame-duck Prattsburgh town board must explain its unusually swift, 3-2 passage of an agreement last December allowing wind developer Ecogen to move ahead immediately without standard town agreements.
Ark’s decision gave the board 45 days to submit statements to him, and delays Ecogen’s motion to begin immediate construction of 16 turbines in the town based on the previous board’s action.
The December agreement was passed short weeks after two pro-Ecogen board members were defeated by wide margins in their bid for re-election in November. Within days of the defeats, Ecogen had threatened to sue the town if a settlement was not reached by the year’s end.
In early December, defeated board members Town Supervisor Harold McConnell and Councilwoman Sharon Quigley teamed with current board member Stacey Bottoni to approve the settlement, reportedly drawn up by Ecogen.
Board members Chuck Shick and Steve Kula protested the action and voted against the settlement.
In January, the new board rescinded the settlement 4-1, with Bottoni voting against the measure. Ecogen promptly sued the town, claiming the December settlement was binding.
But Prattsburgh’s attorney, Ed Hourihan, of Bond, Schoeneck and King, said Ark clearly wants a closer look at the reasons behind the previous board’s actions.
“He wants to ask the members and Ecogen what was behind this 11th hour settlement that was rammed through,” Hourihan said. “There was no debate. It was pushed through by people who had a particular interest in (the project). This decision was made by Ecogen and a couple board members in a back room. That’s not democracy. He just wants to shed some light on a backroom deal.”
The Ecogen project has been the source of long debate in the town, stretching back to 2002 when the developer announced plans to set up turbines in Prattsburgh, and in the neighboring town of Italy, in Yates County.
The projects were touted by Prattsburgh board members and many residents as a way to provide green energy, increase needed town revenues and provide income for landowners.
Other residents strenuously opposed the projects on the grounds the turbines could irreparably harm people in the area, the environment, and the landscape.
But in February 2008, reports of intolerable noise at the nearby First Wind wind farm in Cohocton alarmed residents and the board, which considered a moratorium.
Ecogen threatened to sue, saying the ban would hurt the project. The developer assured the board it would work to reduce problems and restrict sites, and the idea of a moratorium was dropped.
Kula and Shick, and a number of residents continued to lobby strenuously for greater setbacks to reduce the problem of noise. Noise has been key issue for residents, with medical studies reported could bring on short- and long-term illnesses. Ecogen refused to redraw its site plan, saying any changes would delay the project.
In November, candidates supporting a cautious view of the project were elected by overwhelming margins, changing the dynamics of the board and resulting in Ecogen’s third threat of a lawsuit in less than a year.
Hourihan said Ark is concerned because the election was a clear public referendum on the project.
“The people have spoken,” Hourihan said. “Ecogen doesn’t care.”
Wordingham said Ark is continuing his plan for both sides to find a way to agree without a court decision. Ark has warned any decision is likely to lead to costly appeals for both sides.
“He’s left a lot of work for us to do,” Wordingham said. “Don’t worry. It’ll get it done.”
State Supreme Court Justice John Ark recently ruled the lame-duck Prattsburgh town board must explain its unusually swift, 3-2 passage of an agreement last December allowing wind developer Ecogen to move ahead immediately without standard town agreements.
Ark’s decision gave the board 45 days to submit statements to him, and delays Ecogen’s motion to begin immediate construction of 16 turbines in the town based on the previous board’s action.
The December agreement was passed short weeks after two pro-Ecogen board members were defeated by wide margins in their bid for re-election in November. Within days of the defeats, Ecogen had threatened to sue the town if a settlement was not reached by the year’s end.
In early December, defeated board members Town Supervisor Harold McConnell and Councilwoman Sharon Quigley teamed with current board member Stacey Bottoni to approve the settlement, reportedly drawn up by Ecogen.
Board members Chuck Shick and Steve Kula protested the action and voted against the settlement.
In January, the new board rescinded the settlement 4-1, with Bottoni voting against the measure. Ecogen promptly sued the town, claiming the December settlement was binding.
But Prattsburgh’s attorney, Ed Hourihan, of Bond, Schoeneck and King, said Ark clearly wants a closer look at the reasons behind the previous board’s actions.
“He wants to ask the members and Ecogen what was behind this 11th hour settlement that was rammed through,” Hourihan said. “There was no debate. It was pushed through by people who had a particular interest in (the project). This decision was made by Ecogen and a couple board members in a back room. That’s not democracy. He just wants to shed some light on a backroom deal.”
The Ecogen project has been the source of long debate in the town, stretching back to 2002 when the developer announced plans to set up turbines in Prattsburgh, and in the neighboring town of Italy, in Yates County.
The projects were touted by Prattsburgh board members and many residents as a way to provide green energy, increase needed town revenues and provide income for landowners.
Other residents strenuously opposed the projects on the grounds the turbines could irreparably harm people in the area, the environment, and the landscape.
But in February 2008, reports of intolerable noise at the nearby First Wind wind farm in Cohocton alarmed residents and the board, which considered a moratorium.
Ecogen threatened to sue, saying the ban would hurt the project. The developer assured the board it would work to reduce problems and restrict sites, and the idea of a moratorium was dropped.
Kula and Shick, and a number of residents continued to lobby strenuously for greater setbacks to reduce the problem of noise. Noise has been key issue for residents, with medical studies reported could bring on short- and long-term illnesses. Ecogen refused to redraw its site plan, saying any changes would delay the project.
In November, candidates supporting a cautious view of the project were elected by overwhelming margins, changing the dynamics of the board and resulting in Ecogen’s third threat of a lawsuit in less than a year.
Hourihan said Ark is concerned because the election was a clear public referendum on the project.
“The people have spoken,” Hourihan said. “Ecogen doesn’t care.”
Wordingham said Ark is continuing his plan for both sides to find a way to agree without a court decision. Ark has warned any decision is likely to lead to costly appeals for both sides.
“He’s left a lot of work for us to do,” Wordingham said. “Don’t worry. It’ll get it done.”
Friday, October 29, 2010
First Wind IPO sputters suddenly
It doesn’t take an investment banker to know which way the wind blows.
Executives at First Wind Holdings Inc. pulled the plug on their initial public stock offering at the last moment yesterday when investor demand went slack. Shares that were supposed to start trading on the Nasdaq stock market yesterday are on the shelf now.
In an unusual series of events that took place Wednesday, the Boston-based wind farm developer signaled it was prepared to accept less — a lot less — than previously expected to get the IPO off the ground. First Wind said its expected price for the stock offering had been cut from a range of $24 to $26 per share, to $18 to $20.
First Wind made that known Wednesday morning. Bankers were supposed to negotiate a final price at the end of the day so the shares could begin trading yesterday.
Companies often lower their IPO expectations by agreeing to reduce the price or trim the number of shares for sale. But few cut their targets by 24 percent hours before a deal is scheduled to be priced. In the end, it’s clear First Wind’s bankers delivered an offer that was even less appealing than the revised price range suggested.
“While we received significant interest from potential investors during the marketing of our IPO, the terms that the IPO market was seeking at this time were not attractive to the company,’’ First Wind chief executive Paul Gaynor said in a statement yesterday.
All of a sudden, Boston is becoming a hub of stalled initial stock offerings. Liberty Mutual pulled a $1 billion-plus IPO for a unit that sells insurance through agents a month ago. That deal, which would have been the year’s biggest IPO to date, also ran into lukewarm interest and price pressure.
The First Wind stock offering was supposed to be big, too, though not quite on Liberty Mutual’s scale. The company wanted to raise more than $400 million when it first filed paperwork to go public in 2008. Expectations had become more modest — about $300 million — based on price estimates at the start of this week and First Wind still would have raised $216 million if it managed to sell shares for $18 apiece. But it could not.
Stock analysts say investors didn’t like the First Wind offering because the company had piled up a lot of debt and leaked cash. In fact, First Wind owes more than $500 million, loses money on a steady basis, and reports a negative cash flow.
That’s a hard sell in a picky market in which 54 IPOs have been postponed or withdrawn this year. Two other initial stock offerings priced Wednesday evening raised less money than they sought and one company cut its price by 44 percent.
Another important factor: a declining interest on Wall Street for alternative power generation. Relatively low fossil fuel prices and reduced demand are putting financial pressure on wind and other sources of green power. The possible elimination of federal investment tax credits for renewable energy poses another threat at the end of this year.
Alternative energy companies like First Wind, which has built seven utility-scale wind farms in five states, need steady access to lots of capital to grow. For now, the stock market doesn’t seem like the place to look for that money.
Executives at First Wind Holdings Inc. pulled the plug on their initial public stock offering at the last moment yesterday when investor demand went slack. Shares that were supposed to start trading on the Nasdaq stock market yesterday are on the shelf now.
In an unusual series of events that took place Wednesday, the Boston-based wind farm developer signaled it was prepared to accept less — a lot less — than previously expected to get the IPO off the ground. First Wind said its expected price for the stock offering had been cut from a range of $24 to $26 per share, to $18 to $20.
First Wind made that known Wednesday morning. Bankers were supposed to negotiate a final price at the end of the day so the shares could begin trading yesterday.
Companies often lower their IPO expectations by agreeing to reduce the price or trim the number of shares for sale. But few cut their targets by 24 percent hours before a deal is scheduled to be priced. In the end, it’s clear First Wind’s bankers delivered an offer that was even less appealing than the revised price range suggested.
“While we received significant interest from potential investors during the marketing of our IPO, the terms that the IPO market was seeking at this time were not attractive to the company,’’ First Wind chief executive Paul Gaynor said in a statement yesterday.
All of a sudden, Boston is becoming a hub of stalled initial stock offerings. Liberty Mutual pulled a $1 billion-plus IPO for a unit that sells insurance through agents a month ago. That deal, which would have been the year’s biggest IPO to date, also ran into lukewarm interest and price pressure.
The First Wind stock offering was supposed to be big, too, though not quite on Liberty Mutual’s scale. The company wanted to raise more than $400 million when it first filed paperwork to go public in 2008. Expectations had become more modest — about $300 million — based on price estimates at the start of this week and First Wind still would have raised $216 million if it managed to sell shares for $18 apiece. But it could not.
Stock analysts say investors didn’t like the First Wind offering because the company had piled up a lot of debt and leaked cash. In fact, First Wind owes more than $500 million, loses money on a steady basis, and reports a negative cash flow.
That’s a hard sell in a picky market in which 54 IPOs have been postponed or withdrawn this year. Two other initial stock offerings priced Wednesday evening raised less money than they sought and one company cut its price by 44 percent.
Another important factor: a declining interest on Wall Street for alternative power generation. Relatively low fossil fuel prices and reduced demand are putting financial pressure on wind and other sources of green power. The possible elimination of federal investment tax credits for renewable energy poses another threat at the end of this year.
Alternative energy companies like First Wind, which has built seven utility-scale wind farms in five states, need steady access to lots of capital to grow. For now, the stock market doesn’t seem like the place to look for that money.
Bad News For Cohocton's Wind Company
No IPO For First Wind
IPO is a stock market term that stands for “initial public offering.” It’s when a company first sells their stock to the public. And Reuters is reporting that Cohocton’s wind farm company -- First Wind -- has canceled their IPO after cutting their stock’s expected price range by 24% and failing to price after the close of U.S. markets Wednesday.
Cohocton Wind Watch’s Jim Hall maintains that this is a problem for First Wind. "This clearly demonstrates that Wall Street has no confidence in First Wind," Hall told WLEA/WCKR News.
First Wind’s CEO says that while they received significant interests from potential investors during the marketing of their IPO, the terms that the IPO market was seeking was not attractive to the company, and that First Wind is well positioned to grow in it’s core market.
IPO is a stock market term that stands for “initial public offering.” It’s when a company first sells their stock to the public. And Reuters is reporting that Cohocton’s wind farm company -- First Wind -- has canceled their IPO after cutting their stock’s expected price range by 24% and failing to price after the close of U.S. markets Wednesday.
Cohocton Wind Watch’s Jim Hall maintains that this is a problem for First Wind. "This clearly demonstrates that Wall Street has no confidence in First Wind," Hall told WLEA/WCKR News.
First Wind’s CEO says that while they received significant interests from potential investors during the marketing of their IPO, the terms that the IPO market was seeking was not attractive to the company, and that First Wind is well positioned to grow in it’s core market.
First Wind Shelves Plans For IPO
Wind farm developer First Wind Holdings has put its IPO on hold after cutting it’s price range by 24%, Reuters reported. Boston-based First Wind, which is funded by private equity firm Madison Dearborn and hedge fund operator D.E. Shaw, originally aimed to raise $300 million from the offering. The company faced skepticism from investors due to a heavy debt load, Reuters reported.
(Reuters) - Wind farm owner and operator First Wind Holdings Inc canceled its IPO after cutting its expected price range by 24 percent and facing investor skepticism about its balance sheet and wind industry financing.
The company’s struggle to come public is likely a sign of its own particular problems rather than an indication that the U.S. market for new issues has completely fallen off. Two other IPOs moved higher on their first day of dealings.
Shares of medical services provider ExamWorks Group Inc were trading up over 6 percent in their debut on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares of SeaCube Container Leasing Ltd, which leases and sells refrigerated and dry containers and generator sets, are trading up 9 percent, also on the New York Stock Exchange.
“This is a company (First Wind) that certainly has real assets and certainly has been doing some big projects, but is challenged on the debt side,” said Greg Neichin, vice president of San Francisco-based research and advisory firm Cleantech Group LLC.
“If anything, it’s a sign that you should be really thoughtful about project finance and debt loads and trying to maintain a cleaner balance sheet,” Neichin said.
First Wind finances, develops and operates utility-scale wind energy projects in the Northeastern and Western United States and Hawaii. It is the first U.S. wind energy company to attempt an IPO, according to Thomson Reuters data.
The company, which had planned to raise $300 million in its IPO but cut that figure back to $228 million on Wednesday, has been posting losses and had outstanding debt of more than half a billion dollars as of Sept 30. It had hoped to list on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “WIND”.
Some U.S. government financing — of which First Wind has received hundreds of millions of dollars — could be suspended at the end of the year. Analysts have also warned that weak electricity prices could be too low to secure private financing.
New U.S. wind power installations were down 71 percent through the first six months of 2010, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
First Wind Chief Executive Officer Paul Gaynor said in a statement that the terms the company was able to get for the IPO were “not attractive” and the company was canceling its IPO.
Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank were lead underwriters on the First Wind IPO.
(Reuters) - Wind farm owner and operator First Wind Holdings Inc canceled its IPO after cutting its expected price range by 24 percent and facing investor skepticism about its balance sheet and wind industry financing.
The company’s struggle to come public is likely a sign of its own particular problems rather than an indication that the U.S. market for new issues has completely fallen off. Two other IPOs moved higher on their first day of dealings.
Shares of medical services provider ExamWorks Group Inc were trading up over 6 percent in their debut on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares of SeaCube Container Leasing Ltd, which leases and sells refrigerated and dry containers and generator sets, are trading up 9 percent, also on the New York Stock Exchange.
“This is a company (First Wind) that certainly has real assets and certainly has been doing some big projects, but is challenged on the debt side,” said Greg Neichin, vice president of San Francisco-based research and advisory firm Cleantech Group LLC.
“If anything, it’s a sign that you should be really thoughtful about project finance and debt loads and trying to maintain a cleaner balance sheet,” Neichin said.
First Wind finances, develops and operates utility-scale wind energy projects in the Northeastern and Western United States and Hawaii. It is the first U.S. wind energy company to attempt an IPO, according to Thomson Reuters data.
The company, which had planned to raise $300 million in its IPO but cut that figure back to $228 million on Wednesday, has been posting losses and had outstanding debt of more than half a billion dollars as of Sept 30. It had hoped to list on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “WIND”.
Some U.S. government financing — of which First Wind has received hundreds of millions of dollars — could be suspended at the end of the year. Analysts have also warned that weak electricity prices could be too low to secure private financing.
New U.S. wind power installations were down 71 percent through the first six months of 2010, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
First Wind Chief Executive Officer Paul Gaynor said in a statement that the terms the company was able to get for the IPO were “not attractive” and the company was canceling its IPO.
Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank were lead underwriters on the First Wind IPO.
SEC Ownership Report filing for First Wind Holdings Inc. (0001434804)
First Wind Holdings Inc. (0001434804)
SIC: 4911 - Electric Services
State location: MA | State of Inc.: DE | Fiscal Year End: 1231
Business Address
179 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 500
BOSTON MA 02111
617-960-2888
Mailing Address
179 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 500
BOSTON MA 02111
Ownership Reports from: (Click on owner name to see other issuer holdings for the owner, or CIK for owner filings.)
Owner Filings Transaction Date Type of Owner
Adams Kurt 0001503819 2010-10-27 officer: Exec. VP and Chief Dev Officer
Alvarez Michael 0001503806 2010-10-27 officer: President and CFO
EILERS PATRICK C 0001246237 2010-10-27 director
Erickson Lori 0001403503 2010-10-27 officer: Sr. VP, Human Resources
Gaynor Paul 0001503807 2010-10-27 director, officer: CEO and Director
Gish Peter 0001503808 2010-10-27 director
Grant Carol 0001503809 2010-10-27 officer: Sr. VP, External Affairs
Key Stephen 0001356216 2010-10-27 director
MADISON DEARBORN CAPITAL PARTNERS IV LP 0001122443 2010-10-27 10 percent owner
MADISON DEARBORN PARTNERS IV LP 0001249306 2010-10-27 10 percent owner
MOGG JIM W 0001237472 2010-10-27 director
Raino Matthew W 0001502260 2010-10-27 director
Ursitti Andrew 0001503810 2010-10-27 officer: VP and Chief Acct. Officer
Wilson Paul H. Jr. 0001503811 2010-10-27 officer: Exec VP, Gen Counsel and Sec.
Wood Patrick III 0001344507 2010-10-27 director
See Code Descriptions for an explanation of the codes used in this listing
Items 1 - 13 (Note: Second (grayed) row (except for Nature) is for derivative details.)
Date Reporting Owner Form Trans. Modes Shares Price Owned No. Owner CIK Security Name Deemed
Exercise Nature Derivative Underlying Exercised Underlying Expires Underlying
- - Wood Patrick III 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001344507 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - MOGG JIM W 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001237472 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Grant Carol 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503809 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Key Stephen 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001356216 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Erickson Lori 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001403503 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Gish Peter 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503808 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Wilson Paul H. Jr. 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503811 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Ursitti Andrew 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503810 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Adams Kurt 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503819 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Alvarez Michael 3 - --D 2 0001503806 Class B Common Stock, $0.001 par value
[derivative] 0.0000 - - Class A Common Stock
- - Alvarez Michael 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503806 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Gaynor Paul 3 - --D 2 0001503807 Class B Common Stock, $0.001 par value
[derivative] 0.0000 - - Class A Common Stock
- - Gaynor Paul 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503807 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/own-disp
SIC: 4911 - Electric Services
State location: MA | State of Inc.: DE | Fiscal Year End: 1231
Business Address
179 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 500
BOSTON MA 02111
617-960-2888
Mailing Address
179 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 500
BOSTON MA 02111
Ownership Reports from: (Click on owner name to see other issuer holdings for the owner, or CIK for owner filings.)
Owner Filings Transaction Date Type of Owner
Adams Kurt 0001503819 2010-10-27 officer: Exec. VP and Chief Dev Officer
Alvarez Michael 0001503806 2010-10-27 officer: President and CFO
EILERS PATRICK C 0001246237 2010-10-27 director
Erickson Lori 0001403503 2010-10-27 officer: Sr. VP, Human Resources
Gaynor Paul 0001503807 2010-10-27 director, officer: CEO and Director
Gish Peter 0001503808 2010-10-27 director
Grant Carol 0001503809 2010-10-27 officer: Sr. VP, External Affairs
Key Stephen 0001356216 2010-10-27 director
MADISON DEARBORN CAPITAL PARTNERS IV LP 0001122443 2010-10-27 10 percent owner
MADISON DEARBORN PARTNERS IV LP 0001249306 2010-10-27 10 percent owner
MOGG JIM W 0001237472 2010-10-27 director
Raino Matthew W 0001502260 2010-10-27 director
Ursitti Andrew 0001503810 2010-10-27 officer: VP and Chief Acct. Officer
Wilson Paul H. Jr. 0001503811 2010-10-27 officer: Exec VP, Gen Counsel and Sec.
Wood Patrick III 0001344507 2010-10-27 director
See Code Descriptions for an explanation of the codes used in this listing
Items 1 - 13 (Note: Second (grayed) row (except for Nature) is for derivative details.)
Date Reporting Owner Form Trans. Modes Shares Price Owned No. Owner CIK Security Name Deemed
Exercise Nature Derivative Underlying Exercised Underlying Expires Underlying
- - Wood Patrick III 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001344507 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - MOGG JIM W 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001237472 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Grant Carol 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503809 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Key Stephen 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001356216 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Erickson Lori 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001403503 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Gish Peter 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503808 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Wilson Paul H. Jr. 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503811 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Ursitti Andrew 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503810 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Adams Kurt 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503819 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Alvarez Michael 3 - --D 2 0001503806 Class B Common Stock, $0.001 par value
[derivative] 0.0000 - - Class A Common Stock
- - Alvarez Michael 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503806 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
- - Gaynor Paul 3 - --D 2 0001503807 Class B Common Stock, $0.001 par value
[derivative] 0.0000 - - Class A Common Stock
- - Gaynor Paul 3 - --D 0.0000 1 0001503807 Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/own-disp
Thursday, October 28, 2010
First Wind Puts Off Sale
First Wind, the developer and operator of wind energy projects backed by D.E. Shaw & Co., said in an e-mailed statement today it will “not move forward” with its IPO.
The company had reduced the price range for its sale of 12 million Class A shares to $18 to $20 each from $24 to $26.
Wind Farms
“While we received significant interest from potential investors during the marketing of our IPO, the terms that the IPO market was seeking at this time were not attractive to the company,” First Wind’s Gaynor said in the statement sent by spokesman John Lamontagne.
Credit Suisse, New York-based Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank were hired to arrange the IPO.
The company had reduced the price range for its sale of 12 million Class A shares to $18 to $20 each from $24 to $26.
Wind Farms
“While we received significant interest from potential investors during the marketing of our IPO, the terms that the IPO market was seeking at this time were not attractive to the company,” First Wind’s Gaynor said in the statement sent by spokesman John Lamontagne.
Credit Suisse, New York-based Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank were hired to arrange the IPO.
First Wind cuts forecast on proceeds from IPO
Facing a decidedly cool reception from investors, First Wind Holdings Inc., a Boston developer of big wind farms, yesterday elected to sharply reduce the amount of money it expects to raise from its initial public offering, scheduled for today.
First Wind earlier predicted it would get $24 to $26 a share. Now it expects to sell 12 million shares in the range of $18 to $20 each.
A share price in the middle of that range would reduce First Wind’s IPO proceeds by $72 million to $228 million.
First Wind’s newly public shares were expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq market today. But last night the company and its investment bankers had not yet announced a set price for the shares.
First Wind operates seven utility-scale wind farms in Maine, New York, Utah, and Hawaii with a combined capacity to generate 504 megawatts of power. The company hopes to operate or begin construction on farms with another 1,000 megawatts of capacity by the end of next year.
First Wind originally filed documents to go public in 2008, in the midst of the presidential campaign and an enthusiastic national debate about alternative energy development. At the time, the company hoped to raise as much as $425 million.
But First Wind has also produced a lot of red ink. The company, created eight years ago, has lost $233 million and continues to lose money today. It has also piled up $582 million in debt building wind farms and will require more financing to expand in the future.
Those financial facts led to a tepid response from investors, analysts said.
“Given the financial tight rope First Wind is walking and its voracious need for financing to build its projects, we believe the risks outweigh the company’s upside,’’ Stephen Simko, Morningstar Inc. analyst, wrote in a report on the stock offering.
First Wind generated about $88 million in revenue through the first nine months of the year, about 50 percent more than it reported for the same period of 2009. But the company also posted an operating loss of $43 million for the first three quarters, about the same amount it lost over that period last year.
First Wind said it will use the proceeds from its stock sale to reduce debt and help finance ongoing development projects.
The company’s big financial backers, hedge fund operator D.E. Shaw and the private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners, will continue to own a majority interest in First Wind.
First Wind earlier predicted it would get $24 to $26 a share. Now it expects to sell 12 million shares in the range of $18 to $20 each.
A share price in the middle of that range would reduce First Wind’s IPO proceeds by $72 million to $228 million.
First Wind’s newly public shares were expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq market today. But last night the company and its investment bankers had not yet announced a set price for the shares.
First Wind operates seven utility-scale wind farms in Maine, New York, Utah, and Hawaii with a combined capacity to generate 504 megawatts of power. The company hopes to operate or begin construction on farms with another 1,000 megawatts of capacity by the end of next year.
First Wind originally filed documents to go public in 2008, in the midst of the presidential campaign and an enthusiastic national debate about alternative energy development. At the time, the company hoped to raise as much as $425 million.
But First Wind has also produced a lot of red ink. The company, created eight years ago, has lost $233 million and continues to lose money today. It has also piled up $582 million in debt building wind farms and will require more financing to expand in the future.
Those financial facts led to a tepid response from investors, analysts said.
“Given the financial tight rope First Wind is walking and its voracious need for financing to build its projects, we believe the risks outweigh the company’s upside,’’ Stephen Simko, Morningstar Inc. analyst, wrote in a report on the stock offering.
First Wind generated about $88 million in revenue through the first nine months of the year, about 50 percent more than it reported for the same period of 2009. But the company also posted an operating loss of $43 million for the first three quarters, about the same amount it lost over that period last year.
First Wind said it will use the proceeds from its stock sale to reduce debt and help finance ongoing development projects.
The company’s big financial backers, hedge fund operator D.E. Shaw and the private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners, will continue to own a majority interest in First Wind.
First Wind pulls IPO
* First Wind canceling IPO
* First Wind CEO: IPO terms "not attractive"
By Clare Baldwin
NEW YORK, Oct 28 (Reuters) - Wind farm owner and operator First Wind Holdings Inc WIND.O canceled its IPO after cutting its expected price range by 24 percent and failing to price after the close of U.S. markets on Wednesday.
"The terms that the IPO market was seeking at this time were not attractive to the company," First Wind Chief Executive Officer Paul Gaynor said in a statement.
The shares of two other U.S. initial public offerings rose in their stock market debuts on Thursday after weak pricings -- proof that the U.S. market for new issues is challenging.
Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank are leading underwriters on the First Wind IPO. (Reporting by Clare Baldwin, additional reporting by Rodrigo Campos)
* First Wind CEO: IPO terms "not attractive"
By Clare Baldwin
NEW YORK, Oct 28 (Reuters) - Wind farm owner and operator First Wind Holdings Inc WIND.O canceled its IPO after cutting its expected price range by 24 percent and failing to price after the close of U.S. markets on Wednesday.
"The terms that the IPO market was seeking at this time were not attractive to the company," First Wind Chief Executive Officer Paul Gaynor said in a statement.
The shares of two other U.S. initial public offerings rose in their stock market debuts on Thursday after weak pricings -- proof that the U.S. market for new issues is challenging.
Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank are leading underwriters on the First Wind IPO. (Reporting by Clare Baldwin, additional reporting by Rodrigo Campos)
First Wind IPO pricing delayed - underwriter
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)