Friday, December 03, 2010
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Offshore wind power untapped
America has a largely untapped potential for offshore wind power, according to a report released Wednesday that also calls for a more aggressive approach for wind power development off the Atlantic coast.
The report calls for a permitting process that’s friendlier to offshore wind power, establishment of priority zones for offshore wind, more research on offshore wind technologies, and efforts to promote quality jobs, especially in manufacturing, that would result from that industry.
The report was prepared by the National Wildlife Federation and co-sponsored by more than 35 other organizations, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Environment Maine. The Maine AFL-CIO supports its findings.
The report, unveiled in Portland, surfaced barely a week after U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar promised to spur offshore wind projects in the Atlantic Ocean by expediting permits and identifying promising areas for wind power. He promised a “smart permitting process” that could result in leases issued within two years, instead of seven years or more.
The University of Maine has received more than $20 million in federal funding for its work on offshore wind power. Its Advanced Structures and Composites Center plans to have the first small-scale offshore wind farm, with five 5-megawatt turbines, operating between 2014 and 2016 and a farm with 200 turbines up and running by 2020.
The wind farms would be 10 to 50 miles offshore, out of sight from land. Four large-scale, land-based wind farms, including New England’s largest, also operate in Maine and more are under construction or proposed.
Of the 212 gigawatts of wind power potential off the Atlantic coast, wind projects harnessing 6 gigawatts have been proposed or are advancing through the permitting process, according to the report. Those proposed projects would generate the equivalent of up to a half-dozen coal-fired plants, enough to supply the needs of about 1.5 million homes annually.
“Not a single offshore wind turbine is spinning off the Atlantic coast of the United States,” the report says.
While Atlantic wind resources are largely untapped, European countries have more than 900 turbines producing enough power for at least 450,000 homes. Even offshore wind-power goals of European countries and China dwarf those of the United States.
Groups including the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power point out that the megawatt output claimed for offshore turbines is only about 40 percent of the stated capacity, reflecting the amount of time the wind blows hard enough. That makes wind power too costly, they say, and not worth taxpayer subsidies.
“Those subsidy dollars could be better spent on conservation and efficiency,” said Steve Thurston, co-chairman of the anti-wind task force.
Offshore wind offsets the need for fossil fuels such as coal and oil, whose consumption leads to environmental damage, including global warming, and a range of public health risks including thousands of premature deaths, says the report. The development of an offshore wind industry would create thousands of jobs.
In Maine alone, the Ocean Energy Task Force says development of 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind would create 16,700 new or retained jobs per year for 20 years. The report also cites studies showing a potential for roughly 10,000 jobs in Virginia and nearly 2,000 jobs in South Carolina resulting from offshore wind.
The report lists proposed projects, or projects that have moved to advanced steps such as leasing or power contracts, in 13 East Coast states. Besides Maine, they include New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
The report calls for a permitting process that’s friendlier to offshore wind power, establishment of priority zones for offshore wind, more research on offshore wind technologies, and efforts to promote quality jobs, especially in manufacturing, that would result from that industry.
The report was prepared by the National Wildlife Federation and co-sponsored by more than 35 other organizations, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Environment Maine. The Maine AFL-CIO supports its findings.
The report, unveiled in Portland, surfaced barely a week after U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar promised to spur offshore wind projects in the Atlantic Ocean by expediting permits and identifying promising areas for wind power. He promised a “smart permitting process” that could result in leases issued within two years, instead of seven years or more.
The University of Maine has received more than $20 million in federal funding for its work on offshore wind power. Its Advanced Structures and Composites Center plans to have the first small-scale offshore wind farm, with five 5-megawatt turbines, operating between 2014 and 2016 and a farm with 200 turbines up and running by 2020.
The wind farms would be 10 to 50 miles offshore, out of sight from land. Four large-scale, land-based wind farms, including New England’s largest, also operate in Maine and more are under construction or proposed.
Of the 212 gigawatts of wind power potential off the Atlantic coast, wind projects harnessing 6 gigawatts have been proposed or are advancing through the permitting process, according to the report. Those proposed projects would generate the equivalent of up to a half-dozen coal-fired plants, enough to supply the needs of about 1.5 million homes annually.
“Not a single offshore wind turbine is spinning off the Atlantic coast of the United States,” the report says.
While Atlantic wind resources are largely untapped, European countries have more than 900 turbines producing enough power for at least 450,000 homes. Even offshore wind-power goals of European countries and China dwarf those of the United States.
Groups including the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power point out that the megawatt output claimed for offshore turbines is only about 40 percent of the stated capacity, reflecting the amount of time the wind blows hard enough. That makes wind power too costly, they say, and not worth taxpayer subsidies.
“Those subsidy dollars could be better spent on conservation and efficiency,” said Steve Thurston, co-chairman of the anti-wind task force.
Offshore wind offsets the need for fossil fuels such as coal and oil, whose consumption leads to environmental damage, including global warming, and a range of public health risks including thousands of premature deaths, says the report. The development of an offshore wind industry would create thousands of jobs.
In Maine alone, the Ocean Energy Task Force says development of 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind would create 16,700 new or retained jobs per year for 20 years. The report also cites studies showing a potential for roughly 10,000 jobs in Virginia and nearly 2,000 jobs in South Carolina resulting from offshore wind.
The report lists proposed projects, or projects that have moved to advanced steps such as leasing or power contracts, in 13 East Coast states. Besides Maine, they include New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Obama administration colluded with 'windmill welfare queens' to rebut European 'green job' studies
"Windmill welfare queens" -- the corporations who stand to benefit from carbon regulation, and who already benefit from massive subsidies -- are telling Americans that they can "have their cake and eat it too" when it comes to emissions controls and so-called "green jobs." A FOIA request now reveals that as the Obama administration scrambled to respond last year to strong evidence that "green jobs" are a massive an economic drain, costing 570,000 Euros apiece, Department of Energy officials relied heavily on Big Wind and its monied backers.
Writes Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.
Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.” The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
...[T]he Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program.
Soon, Denmark produced a study (“Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark“) through the think-tank CEPOS. This paper also revealed tremendous costs, and that Obama’s claim about Denmark’s “renewables” experience was also steeped in mythology.
...Back in the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association — the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants — also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper. Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment — written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado...drafted in often personal terms.
It's well worth reading the whole thing to understand the relationship between the Left in government and the rent-seeking corporations who make their money not by producing anything, but by putting their hands in the next guy's pocket.
Writes Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.
Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.” The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
...[T]he Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program.
Soon, Denmark produced a study (“Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark“) through the think-tank CEPOS. This paper also revealed tremendous costs, and that Obama’s claim about Denmark’s “renewables” experience was also steeped in mythology.
...Back in the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association — the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants — also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper. Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment — written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado...drafted in often personal terms.
It's well worth reading the whole thing to understand the relationship between the Left in government and the rent-seeking corporations who make their money not by producing anything, but by putting their hands in the next guy's pocket.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Prattsburgh sets special Ecogen info session
Prattsburgh, NY — A special meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday by the Prattsburgh town board to supply information on a current lawsuit between the town and developer Ecogen.
The two sides are at odds over a proposal by Ecogen to set up 16 turbines in the town.
Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said the town’s attorney in the lawsuit, Ed Hourihan, will attend the meeting to discuss the cost and the status of the lawsuit.
The matter is before the state Supreme Court Justice John Ark, who told the parties in September he was ready to rule, but urged them to reach an out-of-court settlement.
Ark also asked former Prattsburgh officials to explain their involvement with Ecogen last December.
Last week, Wordingham told the town board a face-to-face meeting was being arranged between a representative of Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern Energy, Prattsburgh, and Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones.
The Town of Italy also is battling Ecogen in court over a proposed 18-turbine wind farm there.
The two sides are at odds over a proposal by Ecogen to set up 16 turbines in the town.
Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said the town’s attorney in the lawsuit, Ed Hourihan, will attend the meeting to discuss the cost and the status of the lawsuit.
The matter is before the state Supreme Court Justice John Ark, who told the parties in September he was ready to rule, but urged them to reach an out-of-court settlement.
Ark also asked former Prattsburgh officials to explain their involvement with Ecogen last December.
Last week, Wordingham told the town board a face-to-face meeting was being arranged between a representative of Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern Energy, Prattsburgh, and Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones.
The Town of Italy also is battling Ecogen in court over a proposed 18-turbine wind farm there.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
First Wind Withdraws Registration Statement
First Wind Holdings Inc. today announced that pursuant to Rule 12d2-2(c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 5840(j) of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), it intends to withdraw its Class A common stock, par value $0.001 per share, from registration under section 12(b) of the Exchange Act, and in connection therewith intends to file an application on Form 25 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Nasdaq, these actions will also terminate First Wind’s previously approved listing on Nasdaq. First Wind is terminating its listing and withdrawing registration of its common stock because of unfavorable market conditions that would adversely affect the offering of the common stock.
Pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Nasdaq, these actions will also terminate First Wind’s previously approved listing on Nasdaq. First Wind is terminating its listing and withdrawing registration of its common stock because of unfavorable market conditions that would adversely affect the offering of the common stock.
Wind industry fears FERC slip-up on proposed grid rules
The American Wind Energy Association said late Friday that there could be a “mistake” in proposed new grid connection rules from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The issue regarded reforms that FERC said on Friday would make it easier for renewable energy projects to connect to America’s electricity transmission networks (see this BrighterEnergy.org story).
But the wind industry trade association said it believed the proposed rule allows conventional power generators to remain “largely exempt” from integration costs they impose on the system from any unexpected or emergency shutdowns, while renewable energy generators would have to pay “more than their share”.
The AWEA said it was not clear whether the federal commissioners intended such a rule, and that FERC’s remarks on outlining the proposals had not indicated this was the aim.
The trade association said on Friday: “We hope this was a mistake. Mistakes like this can be fixed before proposed rules turn into final rules. AWEA will provide FERC an alternative method that treats all generators fairly which we hope will be included in any final rule.”
Forced outages
Under the proposed rules, AWEA said conventional power generators do not have to pay for the back-up resources that grid operators require when conventional power plants shut down unexpectedly. These costs add up to billions each year, the wind industry group explained, but are not met by the generators that cause them.
However, variable energy producers like wind farms and solar power plants would have to pay for these back-up electricity supplies, even when outages are caused by large fossil fuel plants or nuclear generators, the wind industry fears.
AWEA also accused FERC of overstating costs of connecting up and managing renewable energy supplies on the grid in its proposals, calculating the variability of clean energy projects in isolation of other energy sources transmitting power through the grid.
Explaining the problem, the association said: “A comparable policy would be requiring a new house joining the grid to pay for an expensive battery that must be activated every time the residents turn a light or appliance on or off, while all of the existing grid users enjoy the benefit of having their changes in electricity use netted out against the changes of the other users of the grid.”
Noting the FERC’s intention to help reduce the discrimination faced by new renewable energy generators on the grid, the AWEA said it was “gravely concerned” that the proposals as currently drafter would “exacerbate” the discrimination.
FERC’s proposals are currently open for public comment for a two-month period.
The issue regarded reforms that FERC said on Friday would make it easier for renewable energy projects to connect to America’s electricity transmission networks (see this BrighterEnergy.org story).
But the wind industry trade association said it believed the proposed rule allows conventional power generators to remain “largely exempt” from integration costs they impose on the system from any unexpected or emergency shutdowns, while renewable energy generators would have to pay “more than their share”.
The AWEA said it was not clear whether the federal commissioners intended such a rule, and that FERC’s remarks on outlining the proposals had not indicated this was the aim.
The trade association said on Friday: “We hope this was a mistake. Mistakes like this can be fixed before proposed rules turn into final rules. AWEA will provide FERC an alternative method that treats all generators fairly which we hope will be included in any final rule.”
Forced outages
Under the proposed rules, AWEA said conventional power generators do not have to pay for the back-up resources that grid operators require when conventional power plants shut down unexpectedly. These costs add up to billions each year, the wind industry group explained, but are not met by the generators that cause them.
However, variable energy producers like wind farms and solar power plants would have to pay for these back-up electricity supplies, even when outages are caused by large fossil fuel plants or nuclear generators, the wind industry fears.
AWEA also accused FERC of overstating costs of connecting up and managing renewable energy supplies on the grid in its proposals, calculating the variability of clean energy projects in isolation of other energy sources transmitting power through the grid.
Explaining the problem, the association said: “A comparable policy would be requiring a new house joining the grid to pay for an expensive battery that must be activated every time the residents turn a light or appliance on or off, while all of the existing grid users enjoy the benefit of having their changes in electricity use netted out against the changes of the other users of the grid.”
Noting the FERC’s intention to help reduce the discrimination faced by new renewable energy generators on the grid, the AWEA said it was “gravely concerned” that the proposals as currently drafter would “exacerbate” the discrimination.
FERC’s proposals are currently open for public comment for a two-month period.
The Problem with Spain’s Green Jobs Model
On at least eight occasions, President Obama has stated we should follow Spain’s example, massively subsidizing wind, solar, and other expensive types of electricity production. But if that’s really the model on which the president is basing U.S. policy, we may be in for a longer, deeper and more severe recession than previously thought.
Because the president emphasized Spain, we thought it was important to take a closer look at the Spanish experience. We commissioned a study on Spain and the results were astounding. What was meant to be a green energy revolution in Spain turned out to be an economic disaster. The video below explains why.
The Obama Administration is trying to implement the same types of programs that have failed in Spain. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today visited Baltimore, Maryland, to announce a new, streamlined process for issuing offshore wind permits. The announcement comes fresh off the heels of a visit to Louisiana, where he discussed, but did nothing to change, the Obama Administration’s stalled permitting process for offshore oil and gas production.
As the video and study show, Spain’s green jobs model doesn’t work. So why is the Obama Administration trying to emulate it?
Because the president emphasized Spain, we thought it was important to take a closer look at the Spanish experience. We commissioned a study on Spain and the results were astounding. What was meant to be a green energy revolution in Spain turned out to be an economic disaster. The video below explains why.
The Obama Administration is trying to implement the same types of programs that have failed in Spain. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today visited Baltimore, Maryland, to announce a new, streamlined process for issuing offshore wind permits. The announcement comes fresh off the heels of a visit to Louisiana, where he discussed, but did nothing to change, the Obama Administration’s stalled permitting process for offshore oil and gas production.
As the video and study show, Spain’s green jobs model doesn’t work. So why is the Obama Administration trying to emulate it?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Take back your legal rights to protect your community against turbines!
Are you fighting an industrial wind turbine project and finding, to your horror, that you’re getting nowhere with state & federal regulatory agencies?
•State Department of Environmental Conservation (aka Ministry of the Environment)
•State Department of Health
•State Attorney General’s Office
•Army Corps of Engineers
•and so forth
Are you discovering that Big Wind operates in collusion with the state and federal government, and there is no way to legally prevent these corporate knaves from getting their permits to destroy your community?
In sum, have your community rights been usurped by state or provincial law (witness the Green Energy Act in Ontario, Canada, and equivalent legislation in Wisconsin and Maine, and pending legislation in Massachusetts)?
If the answer’s “yes,” you’d better watch this video. It describes the exciting, grassroots work of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). The video is about pesticide use in Santa Cruz, California, but you can just as well plug in “wind turbines” for “pesticides.”
Now, read this. It’s a letter from the CELDF, describing their services. (In this instance, it’s about hydrofracking in the “Marcellus Shale sacrifice zone.”)
Now ask yourself, Why can’t this approach be used against “wind farms”? Would the CELDF give advice, or, better yet, legal representation in your campaign? If they’re already stretched too thin, why can’t another group of attorneys and campaigners be formed to defend communities explicitly against turbines—using the same legal principles invoked by the CELDF?
Please forward to friends throughout the Marcellus Shale sacrifice zone:
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) is pleased to offer free assistance to you to get a local law banning fracking adopted in your municipality. Join Pittsburgh, and take a stand for Community Rights! [The City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, recently banned hydrofracking for natural gas.]
Please send an e-mail to me, including your name, phone number, address, and e-mail in the body, and the name of your municipality and county in the subject line to: BenPrice@celdf.org
We’ll prepare and send you the ordinance and petitions, outline steps and strategies, conduct conference calls with your core group of neighbors, and work with you throughout the process as closely as possible. Only costs: please reimburse mileage if we travel to your community to do presentations, etc. Free legal services to assist in the defense of the ordinance if there is litigation against the municipality, after the ordinance is adopted.
Check out our website: Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
And here’s the CELDF facebook page: CELDF—Facebook
Pennsylvania Community Rights Network facebook page: PCRN—Facebook
Northwestern chapter of PCRN Blog: NWPACRN
Sincerely,
Ben Price
Projects Director
CELDF
717-254-3233
BenPrice@celdf.org
•State Department of Environmental Conservation (aka Ministry of the Environment)
•State Department of Health
•State Attorney General’s Office
•Army Corps of Engineers
•and so forth
Are you discovering that Big Wind operates in collusion with the state and federal government, and there is no way to legally prevent these corporate knaves from getting their permits to destroy your community?
In sum, have your community rights been usurped by state or provincial law (witness the Green Energy Act in Ontario, Canada, and equivalent legislation in Wisconsin and Maine, and pending legislation in Massachusetts)?
If the answer’s “yes,” you’d better watch this video. It describes the exciting, grassroots work of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). The video is about pesticide use in Santa Cruz, California, but you can just as well plug in “wind turbines” for “pesticides.”
Now, read this. It’s a letter from the CELDF, describing their services. (In this instance, it’s about hydrofracking in the “Marcellus Shale sacrifice zone.”)
Now ask yourself, Why can’t this approach be used against “wind farms”? Would the CELDF give advice, or, better yet, legal representation in your campaign? If they’re already stretched too thin, why can’t another group of attorneys and campaigners be formed to defend communities explicitly against turbines—using the same legal principles invoked by the CELDF?
Please forward to friends throughout the Marcellus Shale sacrifice zone:
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) is pleased to offer free assistance to you to get a local law banning fracking adopted in your municipality. Join Pittsburgh, and take a stand for Community Rights! [The City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, recently banned hydrofracking for natural gas.]
Please send an e-mail to me, including your name, phone number, address, and e-mail in the body, and the name of your municipality and county in the subject line to: BenPrice@celdf.org
We’ll prepare and send you the ordinance and petitions, outline steps and strategies, conduct conference calls with your core group of neighbors, and work with you throughout the process as closely as possible. Only costs: please reimburse mileage if we travel to your community to do presentations, etc. Free legal services to assist in the defense of the ordinance if there is litigation against the municipality, after the ordinance is adopted.
Check out our website: Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
And here’s the CELDF facebook page: CELDF—Facebook
Pennsylvania Community Rights Network facebook page: PCRN—Facebook
Northwestern chapter of PCRN Blog: NWPACRN
Sincerely,
Ben Price
Projects Director
CELDF
717-254-3233
BenPrice@celdf.org
Monday, November 22, 2010
Prattsburgh, Italy heads to meet with energy reps
A face-to-face talk is in the works between the towns of Prattsburgh and Italy and an energy company seeking to build an electricity-generating wind farm.
Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said Monday John Calloway, of Pattern Energy, will meet with representatives from the two towns to discuss their differences.
Pattern Energy is the parent company of Ecogen, a wind farm developer planning to set up 16 turbines in Prattsburgh and 18 turbines in the town of Italy. The three sides have been locked in legal disputes for nearly a year, with a state Supreme Court justice recently urging them to find an out-of-court compromise.
Wordingham told the town board he tried to contact Calloway three times after their initial 30-40 minute phone call on Oct. 20. However, Calloway had been out of the country and finally reached Wordingham Monday morning.
“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve, and then we could meet,” Wordingham said. “And he said ‘When we get together, no lawyers.’”
Wordingham said the details of the meeting have not been worked out, although he offered to meet Calloway at one the firm’s existing wind farms.
Calloway also offered to meet with Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones, Wordingham said.
“It’s a good start,” Wordingham said. “I feel good about this.”
The current issue between Prattsburgh and Ecogen stems from a town election last year, during which pro-wind town Supervisor Harold McConnell and town Councilwoman Sharon Quigley were ousted by sizeable margins.
Days after the election, Ecogen filed a lawsuit against the town, insisting all details be cleared up before the end of the year. The lame-duck board swiftly reached a 3-2 agreement with Ecogen in December, which was rescinded by the new town board in January.
Ecogen then filed its second lawsuit, charging the new town board did not have the authority to overturn the December action. The board opted to fight the lawsuit, saying the earlier agreement violated a number of laws, including home rule.
Ecogen also sued Italy, after the town denied the developer the permits to proceed with the turbines. Italy also piled up significant legal debts, prompting their attorneys to step down recently from the case.
Concern about future legal costs for all sides led state Supreme Court Justice John Ark to recommend last September the parties work out a solution before he publicly announces his decision.
Since then, both towns have told Ark they would support alternate sites originally proposed by Ecogen.
Ecogen response, on Oct. 13, maintained the Prattsburgh agreement in December is binding and any compromise would kill the project. But Ecogen said it would look for other ways to increase annual payments to Italy and offered to pay the town’s legal fees.
The developer’s statement to the court was made a week before Calloway and Wordingham talked for the first time.
Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones said he would be glad to meet with Wordingham and Calloway. He added Ecogen’s financial offers are not enticing.
“For one thing, we’ve paid our (legal) bill,” he said. “I’d say they’ve been hard line with us throughout.”
Italy recently passed their 2011 budget, which includes a near-flat increase in the tax levy and a drop in the tax rate. The town also has increased its legal fund account, which will go toward paying their previous attorneys and securing a new one, Jones said.
“We’re in good shape,” Jones said.
Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said Monday John Calloway, of Pattern Energy, will meet with representatives from the two towns to discuss their differences.
Pattern Energy is the parent company of Ecogen, a wind farm developer planning to set up 16 turbines in Prattsburgh and 18 turbines in the town of Italy. The three sides have been locked in legal disputes for nearly a year, with a state Supreme Court justice recently urging them to find an out-of-court compromise.
Wordingham told the town board he tried to contact Calloway three times after their initial 30-40 minute phone call on Oct. 20. However, Calloway had been out of the country and finally reached Wordingham Monday morning.
“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve, and then we could meet,” Wordingham said. “And he said ‘When we get together, no lawyers.’”
Wordingham said the details of the meeting have not been worked out, although he offered to meet Calloway at one the firm’s existing wind farms.
Calloway also offered to meet with Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones, Wordingham said.
“It’s a good start,” Wordingham said. “I feel good about this.”
The current issue between Prattsburgh and Ecogen stems from a town election last year, during which pro-wind town Supervisor Harold McConnell and town Councilwoman Sharon Quigley were ousted by sizeable margins.
Days after the election, Ecogen filed a lawsuit against the town, insisting all details be cleared up before the end of the year. The lame-duck board swiftly reached a 3-2 agreement with Ecogen in December, which was rescinded by the new town board in January.
Ecogen then filed its second lawsuit, charging the new town board did not have the authority to overturn the December action. The board opted to fight the lawsuit, saying the earlier agreement violated a number of laws, including home rule.
Ecogen also sued Italy, after the town denied the developer the permits to proceed with the turbines. Italy also piled up significant legal debts, prompting their attorneys to step down recently from the case.
Concern about future legal costs for all sides led state Supreme Court Justice John Ark to recommend last September the parties work out a solution before he publicly announces his decision.
Since then, both towns have told Ark they would support alternate sites originally proposed by Ecogen.
Ecogen response, on Oct. 13, maintained the Prattsburgh agreement in December is binding and any compromise would kill the project. But Ecogen said it would look for other ways to increase annual payments to Italy and offered to pay the town’s legal fees.
The developer’s statement to the court was made a week before Calloway and Wordingham talked for the first time.
Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones said he would be glad to meet with Wordingham and Calloway. He added Ecogen’s financial offers are not enticing.
“For one thing, we’ve paid our (legal) bill,” he said. “I’d say they’ve been hard line with us throughout.”
Italy recently passed their 2011 budget, which includes a near-flat increase in the tax levy and a drop in the tax rate. The town also has increased its legal fund account, which will go toward paying their previous attorneys and securing a new one, Jones said.
“We’re in good shape,” Jones said.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Problems at wind farms 'unusual,' state official says
More than a week after Iberdrola Renewables opted to shut down assembly of the first wind farm in Herkimer County, construction has resumed, but little is known about how the project veered off course.
What is certain, one state official said, is the recent turn of events at Hardscrabble Wind Farm is hardly the norm.
Iberdrola halted turbine construction earlier this month to complete additional testing after it discovered concrete used in the foundations of some of the turbines did not meet company standards.
Jim Denn, a spokesman for the state Public Service Commission, said it’s rare to find problems with the construction of one turbine, let alone a group of them.
“There are hundreds of wind turbines that exist in New York state that are operating safely and that have been constructed appropriately,” Denn said. “It is certainly unusual if a particular turbine has a problem with the foundation at any point.”
By the time construction ceased, 25 of the 37 turbines slated to dot the Fairfield and Norway landscape were fully constructed.
On Friday, the company formally announced that construction had commenced again on turbines where tests were completed and foundations meet or exceed the company’s standards. Further results still are pending, company officials said.
Rumors regarding the nature of the problem and where fault lies abound among residents, contractors and even some local officials.
Ibderdrola spokesman Paul Copleman would only respond to O-D inquiries through e-mailed responses. He declined to release the names of the project’s contractors and to speak about whether all current contractors would remain working on the project despite the glitch.
The problem, Coplemain said, involved the strength of the concrete foundations, which support the turbines. Data the company gathered during routine tests showed some foundations were weak, he said.
While the company opted to temporarily call it quits on construction, local officials have said they knew the gist of the problems long before construction stopped.
Copleman confirmed that fact last week, saying that Iberdrola first identified the specific problem in early November but only decided to cease construction Nov. 12 to pursue certain tests.
“We have aggressively addressed any concerns as soon as they were identified,” Copleman said. “Until all of the tests are concluded and the engineer reviews the data, we cannot confirm to what extent the issue exists.”
Regulations
The issues almost certainly would have been handled differently if the project was larger, state officials said.
The state Public Service Commission regulates wind energy projects of 80 megawatts or greater. The Hardscrabble project, however, falls just six megawatts shy of being restricted by state guidelines.
For those projects that are bound by state regulations, the state has the authority to step in and conduct an investigation when problems are discovered with wind farms. Those same wind farms meeting the 80 megawatt standard also must follow various state regulation and approval processes, said Denn, the commission spokesman.
For example, earlier this year, the state investigated a turbine collapse at Noble Environmental Power’s Altona Wind Park in Clinton County. The investigation revealed that during a power outage, the turbine spun out of control due to incorrect wiring.
As a result, the state ordered all wind power developers with projects of 80 megawatts or greater to certify that they have emergency systems that will shut down turbines during a power loss.
Asked why the threshold is set at 80 megawatts, Denn said the system simply is what it is.
“It’s 80 megawatts or above because that’s the law,” Denn said. “That’s like asking why do we travel at 55 miles per hour. We do because that’s the law.”
‘More diligent’
So where does regulation lie for projects such as Hardscrabble?
It’s entirely up to local officials, Denn said.
Fairfield Town Supervisor Richard Souza and Norway Town Supervisor Judy Gokey did not return calls last week.
Delaware Engineering, a firm specializing in environmental engineering, was jointly hired by the towns to oversee the projects. Engineer Stephanie Vetter, who is assigned to the project, would not comment on its recent problems and directed questions to town officials.
Norway resident Cheryl Crossett, who will have six turbines on her land when the project is complete, said she’s not worried about the project’s oversight.
Her husband, Scott Crossett, is a Norway Town Board member who recused himself from discussions about the project because it involved his land.
“I don’t have a concern for the wind towers themselves being that they’ve caught the problem and they’re in the process of rectifying it,” Cheryl Crossett said. “Now that they know what’s going on, I’m sure they’re going to be more diligent.”
HARDSCRABBLE PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Project scope: 74 megawatts. Only projects 80 megawatts or larger are overseen by the state Public Service Commission. The only oversight for the Hardscrabble project comes from the towns involved.
Turbine specifications: All turbines are 2.0 megawatt Gamesa turbines. They measure 322 feet to the center hub or 476 feet to the tip of the blade.
Foundation specifications: Each foundation was expected to use about 680 cubic yards of concrete, according to Iberdrola’s project plans.
What is certain, one state official said, is the recent turn of events at Hardscrabble Wind Farm is hardly the norm.
Iberdrola halted turbine construction earlier this month to complete additional testing after it discovered concrete used in the foundations of some of the turbines did not meet company standards.
Jim Denn, a spokesman for the state Public Service Commission, said it’s rare to find problems with the construction of one turbine, let alone a group of them.
“There are hundreds of wind turbines that exist in New York state that are operating safely and that have been constructed appropriately,” Denn said. “It is certainly unusual if a particular turbine has a problem with the foundation at any point.”
By the time construction ceased, 25 of the 37 turbines slated to dot the Fairfield and Norway landscape were fully constructed.
On Friday, the company formally announced that construction had commenced again on turbines where tests were completed and foundations meet or exceed the company’s standards. Further results still are pending, company officials said.
Rumors regarding the nature of the problem and where fault lies abound among residents, contractors and even some local officials.
Ibderdrola spokesman Paul Copleman would only respond to O-D inquiries through e-mailed responses. He declined to release the names of the project’s contractors and to speak about whether all current contractors would remain working on the project despite the glitch.
The problem, Coplemain said, involved the strength of the concrete foundations, which support the turbines. Data the company gathered during routine tests showed some foundations were weak, he said.
While the company opted to temporarily call it quits on construction, local officials have said they knew the gist of the problems long before construction stopped.
Copleman confirmed that fact last week, saying that Iberdrola first identified the specific problem in early November but only decided to cease construction Nov. 12 to pursue certain tests.
“We have aggressively addressed any concerns as soon as they were identified,” Copleman said. “Until all of the tests are concluded and the engineer reviews the data, we cannot confirm to what extent the issue exists.”
Regulations
The issues almost certainly would have been handled differently if the project was larger, state officials said.
The state Public Service Commission regulates wind energy projects of 80 megawatts or greater. The Hardscrabble project, however, falls just six megawatts shy of being restricted by state guidelines.
For those projects that are bound by state regulations, the state has the authority to step in and conduct an investigation when problems are discovered with wind farms. Those same wind farms meeting the 80 megawatt standard also must follow various state regulation and approval processes, said Denn, the commission spokesman.
For example, earlier this year, the state investigated a turbine collapse at Noble Environmental Power’s Altona Wind Park in Clinton County. The investigation revealed that during a power outage, the turbine spun out of control due to incorrect wiring.
As a result, the state ordered all wind power developers with projects of 80 megawatts or greater to certify that they have emergency systems that will shut down turbines during a power loss.
Asked why the threshold is set at 80 megawatts, Denn said the system simply is what it is.
“It’s 80 megawatts or above because that’s the law,” Denn said. “That’s like asking why do we travel at 55 miles per hour. We do because that’s the law.”
‘More diligent’
So where does regulation lie for projects such as Hardscrabble?
It’s entirely up to local officials, Denn said.
Fairfield Town Supervisor Richard Souza and Norway Town Supervisor Judy Gokey did not return calls last week.
Delaware Engineering, a firm specializing in environmental engineering, was jointly hired by the towns to oversee the projects. Engineer Stephanie Vetter, who is assigned to the project, would not comment on its recent problems and directed questions to town officials.
Norway resident Cheryl Crossett, who will have six turbines on her land when the project is complete, said she’s not worried about the project’s oversight.
Her husband, Scott Crossett, is a Norway Town Board member who recused himself from discussions about the project because it involved his land.
“I don’t have a concern for the wind towers themselves being that they’ve caught the problem and they’re in the process of rectifying it,” Cheryl Crossett said. “Now that they know what’s going on, I’m sure they’re going to be more diligent.”
HARDSCRABBLE PROJECT AT A GLANCE
Project scope: 74 megawatts. Only projects 80 megawatts or larger are overseen by the state Public Service Commission. The only oversight for the Hardscrabble project comes from the towns involved.
Turbine specifications: All turbines are 2.0 megawatt Gamesa turbines. They measure 322 feet to the center hub or 476 feet to the tip of the blade.
Foundation specifications: Each foundation was expected to use about 680 cubic yards of concrete, according to Iberdrola’s project plans.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
EWN Special: "Winds of Change"
BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) - The New York Power Authority is looking to get into the wind energy business with a plan that would place hundreds of wind turbines on the waters of Lake Erie.
"Right now we've kind of rough estimated that we are looking for a project between, or projects between 150 and 500 megawatts. So there is a big spread," says Lou Paonessa from NYPA.
That could mean as many as 100 wind turbines rising from the waters of Lake Erie, set out a few miles from shore and standing up to 400 feet tall.
While the plan could take up to three or four years to come to pass, opponents are wasting no time voicing their opposition.
"This is being advanced by private interests under the guise of being green, but I don't think it's going to look very green to have a lake covered in windmills with flashing beacons at night," says John Reinhold, an advocate against the windmills.
Watch the video to see John Borsa's special report, "Winds of Change".
Friday, November 19, 2010
Bingham residents cancel meeting, discuss wind farm anyway
BINGHAM -- Officials canceled a public meeting about a wind development project Wednesday night, but that didn't stop some residents from airing their opinions in the parking lot.
Town officials are still wondering why 600 postcards they say were sent to the post office never made it to residents' mailboxes.
"Not a soul has gotten one," said Selectman Steven Steward. Rather than have just a handful of people attend, selectmen and wind farm development officials from First Wind agreed to postpone the meeting.
In an interview Thursday, Alec Jarvis, with First Wind, provided updated information about the project's potential distance from homes, its possible tax benefits and the company's perceived financial health.
Residents will learn more on Wednesday, Dec. 1, about the proposed project to construct about 10 turbines in Bingham, with a total of up to 50 stretching north through Brighton Plantation, Mayfield Township, Kingsbury Plantation and Blanchard Township.
The meeting on Dec. 1 will be from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Quimby Middle School.
First Wind, which also operates Stetson Wind in Washington County, has been gathering wind data for about nine months from the ridge in northeast Bingham. While details are emerging, a turbine would likely top Johnson Mountain, Jarvis said.
The land for the proposed site is owned by Plum Creek and E.D. Bessey & Son, which buys and sells log wood. Both companies are willing to lease their property.
Jarvis said only one home is less than two miles from the turbines' proposed site.
When asked why the company is looking to the Bingham area, he said the strong wind currents were "first and foremost" in the decision. The region also appears to have suitable locations below 2,700 feet for turbines. Development at higher elevations would harm a more-sensitive environment.
The area is relatively isolated, he added, and already has a network of logging roads, which would limit the number of new roads that would be built.
But some residents remain wary of the proposed change.
Standing in the parking lot outside the blackened windows of the Quimby Middle School gym on Wednesday night, six residents said the potential project would hurt their small community.
"If we start putting windmills on all our hills, it will ruin the quality of what we have. This valley is all we have left," said Evelyn Beane, of Bingham.
She is not opposed to wind power, she said, but turbines should be located off the coast, where wind is strong and the energy produced benefits Maine residents.
Margy Flynn, of Bingham described the proposed project as a "temporary fix" that would not sustain long-term jobs or economic benefits.
First Wind officials have said the project could produce six to 12 long-term, full-time jobs.
The project would essentially hand taxpayer money to the Boston-based company, said Roderick Belanger, of Moscow, referring to federal stimulus funds granted to the company.
"I think it's just a waste of taxpayer money," he said. "There's no benefit to the state of Maine or this community when it's all said and done."
The U.S. government has granted hundreds of millions of dollars to First Wind, according to an Oct. 25 article in Reuters. In July, the company received a $117 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. Since Sept. 2009, it has received $254 million in grants from the U.S. Treasury.
The company's financial future may depend on continued government support, according to a Nov. 14 article in the Maine Sunday Telegram. One apparent hitch in the company's financial future happened in October when it failed to go public and sell stock to investors.
While opponents at the time said it was an example of the company's vulnerability, Jarvis said the company's health is not in jeopardy.
"It would have been an opportunity for an additional source of funding," he said. "It has not affected our development efforts in Bingham."
First Wind is mostly owned by private equity firm Madison Dearborn and hedge fund operator D.E. Shaw and has never been profitable, according to Reuters.
Jarvis said he encourages people to attend all informational meetings and take tours of the company's facilities. He emphasized the benefit of new legislation that mandates payment of $4,000 per turbine to go toward a host community benefit agreement.
The town may also form a tax-increment financing district to capture shifts in property value and then spend the money on economic development projects, he said. If the TIF district is not formed, he agreed taxes would most likely go down, but the resulting increased valuation would cause loss of education subsidy, he said.
In the meantime, the mailing misstep will remain a mystery. First Wind sent the notices from Portland to the town's post office on Nov. 4, to then be given to residents, Jarvis said. The company paid for the postage for the notices, which provided the date and time of Wednesday's meeting.
Cathy Atkins, the town's postmaster, said she doesn't remember ever receiving the postcards. While she's been on vacation recently, "I've had two people working for me, and they're very reliable," she said.
Town officials are still wondering why 600 postcards they say were sent to the post office never made it to residents' mailboxes.
"Not a soul has gotten one," said Selectman Steven Steward. Rather than have just a handful of people attend, selectmen and wind farm development officials from First Wind agreed to postpone the meeting.
In an interview Thursday, Alec Jarvis, with First Wind, provided updated information about the project's potential distance from homes, its possible tax benefits and the company's perceived financial health.
Residents will learn more on Wednesday, Dec. 1, about the proposed project to construct about 10 turbines in Bingham, with a total of up to 50 stretching north through Brighton Plantation, Mayfield Township, Kingsbury Plantation and Blanchard Township.
The meeting on Dec. 1 will be from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Quimby Middle School.
First Wind, which also operates Stetson Wind in Washington County, has been gathering wind data for about nine months from the ridge in northeast Bingham. While details are emerging, a turbine would likely top Johnson Mountain, Jarvis said.
The land for the proposed site is owned by Plum Creek and E.D. Bessey & Son, which buys and sells log wood. Both companies are willing to lease their property.
Jarvis said only one home is less than two miles from the turbines' proposed site.
When asked why the company is looking to the Bingham area, he said the strong wind currents were "first and foremost" in the decision. The region also appears to have suitable locations below 2,700 feet for turbines. Development at higher elevations would harm a more-sensitive environment.
The area is relatively isolated, he added, and already has a network of logging roads, which would limit the number of new roads that would be built.
But some residents remain wary of the proposed change.
Standing in the parking lot outside the blackened windows of the Quimby Middle School gym on Wednesday night, six residents said the potential project would hurt their small community.
"If we start putting windmills on all our hills, it will ruin the quality of what we have. This valley is all we have left," said Evelyn Beane, of Bingham.
She is not opposed to wind power, she said, but turbines should be located off the coast, where wind is strong and the energy produced benefits Maine residents.
Margy Flynn, of Bingham described the proposed project as a "temporary fix" that would not sustain long-term jobs or economic benefits.
First Wind officials have said the project could produce six to 12 long-term, full-time jobs.
The project would essentially hand taxpayer money to the Boston-based company, said Roderick Belanger, of Moscow, referring to federal stimulus funds granted to the company.
"I think it's just a waste of taxpayer money," he said. "There's no benefit to the state of Maine or this community when it's all said and done."
The U.S. government has granted hundreds of millions of dollars to First Wind, according to an Oct. 25 article in Reuters. In July, the company received a $117 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. Since Sept. 2009, it has received $254 million in grants from the U.S. Treasury.
The company's financial future may depend on continued government support, according to a Nov. 14 article in the Maine Sunday Telegram. One apparent hitch in the company's financial future happened in October when it failed to go public and sell stock to investors.
While opponents at the time said it was an example of the company's vulnerability, Jarvis said the company's health is not in jeopardy.
"It would have been an opportunity for an additional source of funding," he said. "It has not affected our development efforts in Bingham."
First Wind is mostly owned by private equity firm Madison Dearborn and hedge fund operator D.E. Shaw and has never been profitable, according to Reuters.
Jarvis said he encourages people to attend all informational meetings and take tours of the company's facilities. He emphasized the benefit of new legislation that mandates payment of $4,000 per turbine to go toward a host community benefit agreement.
The town may also form a tax-increment financing district to capture shifts in property value and then spend the money on economic development projects, he said. If the TIF district is not formed, he agreed taxes would most likely go down, but the resulting increased valuation would cause loss of education subsidy, he said.
In the meantime, the mailing misstep will remain a mystery. First Wind sent the notices from Portland to the town's post office on Nov. 4, to then be given to residents, Jarvis said. The company paid for the postage for the notices, which provided the date and time of Wednesday's meeting.
Cathy Atkins, the town's postmaster, said she doesn't remember ever receiving the postcards. While she's been on vacation recently, "I've had two people working for me, and they're very reliable," she said.
Cape Vincent residents demand Edsall's ouster
CAPE VINCENT — Several town residents frustrated with Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall demanded his resignation at a well-attended Town Council meeting Thursday night.
Hester M. Chase, founder of the St. Lawrence River Public Power Association and one of the nearly 200 people who attended the meeting at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, said Mr. Edsall was not fit to represent the Planning Board because, among other reasons, he has financial contracts with BP Alternative Energy.
Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey and Councilman Brooks J. Bragdon tried to pass a motion to restrict Mr. Edsall from voting on wind issues that come before the Planning Board, but the other three council members voted against it.
Many others at the meeting agreed with Ms. Chase.
Read entire article
Hester M. Chase, founder of the St. Lawrence River Public Power Association and one of the nearly 200 people who attended the meeting at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, said Mr. Edsall was not fit to represent the Planning Board because, among other reasons, he has financial contracts with BP Alternative Energy.
Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey and Councilman Brooks J. Bragdon tried to pass a motion to restrict Mr. Edsall from voting on wind issues that come before the Planning Board, but the other three council members voted against it.
Many others at the meeting agreed with Ms. Chase.
Read entire article
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Petition for Public Hearing - Saddleback Ridge Wind project-Maine
Please click on the following link to sign a petition calling for the DEP to hold a public hearing on noise and scenic impacts for the Saddleback Ridge Wind project. The application was accepted for processing and the deadline for requesting a public hearing is December 6. This is the first application where interested parties have had the ability to submit credible, conflicting technical evidence within the 20 day period required by DEP rules. Rufus Brown has been engaged to draft the necessary documentation, drawing from his experience in the Record Hill Wind, Oakfield, and Spruce Mountain applications. The purpose of the petition is to demonstrate to DEP that there is widespread support for a hearing.
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/40741.html
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/40741.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)