Cape Wind left out of Mass. deals

Though the prices on the recent deals weren't disclosed, a 10-year deal NStar has with TransCanada to buy power from a Maine wind farm is a flat 10.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The three new contracts represent about 1.6 percent of NStar's demand, and the utility is required to secure 3 percent of its electricity demand through long-term contracts with renewable-power producers by mid-2014. The company will be trying to secure more deals to meet that requirement in the coming years, Allen said.

According to court filings, the roughly 29-megawatt Hoosac project, in Monroe, Mass., and Florida, Mass., is set to be running by July 2012, the 32-megawatt Blue Sky East wind farm in Eastbrook, Maine, is scheduled to be operating by May 2012, and the 48-megawatt Groton project in Groton, N.H., is scheduled to be operating by December 2012.

The Blue Sky deal is for 15 years, while other two are both for 10. All are fixed-priced deals, meaning the price per kilowatt-hour won't increase over time. The Hoosac and Groton projects are owned by the Spanish power utility Iberdrola SA. Blue Sky is owned by Boston-based First Wind.

Cape Wind, which hopes to begin generating power by 2013, is by far the state's largest offshore wind and renewable-power project and has been repeatedly touted by officials as a cornerstone of its emerging renewable-energy industry.

Allegany Town Board Rejects Change In Sound Ordinance

Allegany Town Board members voted down a proposed change in the current noise ordinance Thursday.

Pat Eaton, town supervisor, said the board voted 3-2 against changing the sound ordinance, which currently allows for the noise level to be raised 3 decibels above the ambient level of 25 decibels. Town officials had considered changing the sound ordinance to allow for 40 decibels of noise that could be emitted by a proposed wind turbine farm for the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek areas.

Mr. Eaton said he and town board members John Hare and Jim Hitchcock were in favor of keeping the sound ordinance at its current requirements, while board members Ray Jonak and Hans Sendlakowski had voted to change the ordinance allowing for 40 decibels of sound.

Horse Creek wind proposal trimmed

The new Horse Creek Wind Farm application presents a slightly smaller, less productive project than the original application.

The project cuts out 12 turbines and knocks down generating capacity from 130 megawatts to 100 megawatts.

"There are not major changes," Jenny L. Burke, business developer with project developer Iberdrola Renewables, said on Jan. 6 when the project application was submitted to the Clayton Planning Board. "A lot of it is similar to what you have seen from the first time."

The remaining turbines can generate up to 2 megawatts, slightly less than the 2.1 megawatt-turbines originally proposed. But the turbines will be taller than the first proposal, which expected to use turbines with a maximum height of 407 feet. The new application expects to use Gamesa turbines, either model G90 or G97, which have maximum heights of 476 feet and 454 feet, respectively.

Read the entire article

Wind PILOT must protect property values

Jefferson County legislators may soon have to approve a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the St. Lawrence Wind Project in Cape Vincent. In the rush to embrace economic development, tax revenue and the purported advantages of wind power, the county better ensure there is some provision to protect landowners from potential property devaluation.

The wind industry has gone to great lengths to claim wind turbines will not devalue nearby, nonparticipating properties. On the other side of the debate, however, leading professional appraisers and realtors demonstrated losses of 25 percent and more for distances up to two miles from turbines. My intention is not to settle this argument, but to only conclude there is uncertainty and with uncertainty there is risk.

For most north country residents our homes represent our biggest financial investment and asset. If we were informed by our local bank that they were going to change their savings program so there would be no FDIC insurance and that there may also be a possibility for a loss in our savings of 25 percent or more, how would we react? My guess is that most of us would say no way and probably pull savings out for the mere mention of the idea.

What makes sense for our bank savings makes sense for our property value as well. From my understanding, zoning laws and land use planning are intended to prevent "significant" negative impacts on property values and the use and enjoyment of our property. Massive industrial scale wind development definitely has the potential for "significant" negative impacts.

Read the entire article

Cohocton confirms decibel levels for windmills

The Cohocton town board passed a local law Monday setting maximum decibel levels for residential windmills.

Councilman Wayne Hunt said Tuesday the law establishes 50 decibels as the maximum level on the lines of properties with windmills. The decibel level can’t exceed 45 decibels at the closest dwellings.

The law relates only to residential windmills, which can reach a maximum height of 150 feet. The larger industrial turbines can exceed 400 feet.
Studies showed the decibel levels at the residential windmills in the town to be close to 50 decibels already, said Hunt. If the boards had lowered the legal decibel level, it would not have impacted the three residential windmills already constructed.

Read the entire article

Opponents of Vermont wind project stage protest

Opponents of a plan to build a wind farm atop a Vermont mountain ridge are taking their message to the Statehouse.

The state Public Service Board is currently weighing the merits of the Kingdom Community Wind project, which would erect 20 or 21 turbines more than 400 feet tall in Lowell. Voters there approved the project last year, but a group that opposes it is still trying to stop it. Two weeks ago, Gov. Peter Shumlin endorsed the plan, which had been opposed by his predecessor, Gov. Jim Douglas.

On Thursday, the opponents — including students from Sterling College, representatives of Eden Dog Sledding and a group called Energize Vermont — will gather in Montpelier, encouraging Shumlin to visit Lowell so he can see the potential impact of the project.

Analysis: No one satisfied with Ontario energy policy

John Laforet, now an ex-Liberal and the provincial head of a network of 57 anti-wind groups, says the organizations have already recruited hundreds of volunteers for a planned campaign to take down Liberal candidates across Ontario.

“It’s truly a multi-front war for the government and they’re losing on all of them,” said Mr. Laforet with characteristic bravado. “We have the strength to work in coalition with like-minded parties and candidates ... If one party is prepared to stand up and take the political risk and support this, they will be handsomely rewarded.”

Meanwhile, the green-energy plan, designed to phase out coal-fired generating plants encourage a range of renewable electricity sources from garbage-dump gas to water power, is also under fire from builders of small-scale solar-energy projects, after the province put curbs on those in the past couple of weeks too.

Mr. Laforet’s movement may or may not wield the power to change election results. As the rest of the country watches Ontario’s ground-breaking experiment in alternative energy, however, the wind farm and solar episodes highlight the web of controversy slowly enveloping a policy that, in some ways, has been surprisingly successful.

Iowa wind energy industry expected to see slow recovery

After California-based Clipper Windpower chose Cedar Rapids in April 2005 as the location for its wind turbine assembly plant and Acciona Energia of Spain chose West Branch in 2007 for a plant to assemble wind turbines, there were rosy predictions that Iowa was poised to become a world leader in renewable energy. Local and state economic development representatives pursued domestic and global suppliers of blades, generators, towers and other components.

Clipper Windpower ramped up employment at its plant, 4601 Bowling St. SW, hiring about 390 people to assemble the company’s 2.5-megawatt Liberty wind turbines. In January 2009, the Carpinteria, Calif.-based company furloughed 90 of its 830 global employees as orders for wind turbines fell due to tight credit markets and a weakened world economy.

By the end of the third quarter of 2010, Clipper Windpower faced serious operating cash problems due to lower deposits and progress payments from customers under new and existing orders. The company’s consolidated cash position had fallen nearly 40 percent from the end of June, leaving it with $80 million to finish pending turbine orders and pay ongoing operating expenses.

Connecticut-based United Technologies Corp., which owned a 49.9 percent share of Clipper, bought all the remaining shares in December. Analysts believe the buyout will give Clipper Windpower the financial stability it needs for continued growth as well as leverage United Technologies’ blade, turbine, and gearbox design technology.

“United Technologies wants to grow the company,” said Mary Gates, Clipper director of global communications. “We are seeing an improvement in the wind turbine market,” Gates said. “We have delivered turbines to customer sites in the United States and Mexico since June 30.”

Wind power — the complete picture

I have read with great interest the latest communication from the industrial wind turbine company Invenergy. After reading it one would think that there is an economic bonanza going on in Wyoming County. They lead you to believe that since the construction of three wind farms in the towns of Eagle, Wethersfield and Sheldon money and jobs are just raining down on these towns. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Invenergy usually neglects to give the complete picture when they are speaking about finances. Here are some interesting figures that were ignored:

Total tax exemptions received by the wind turbine companies in Wyoming County alone are $15,183,665 as of 2008. This figure was reported in the 2008 NYS IDA report. This is money that we as taxpayers will end up paying as Wyoming County can’t sustain that kind of loss in revenue. This figure doesn’t even take into account all the subsidies that wind turbine companies receive from the federal government and utilities. Subsidies that we all pay for as taxpayers and utility ratepayers.

PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) payments made to these three towns for the period of 2007-09 are $6,009,408. The figures for 2010 have not yet been released to the state Office of the Comptroller by the towns in question. PILOT payments are the money that we have paid already as taxpayers being generously returned to us by the wind turbine companies. That still leaves the wind turbine companies ahead by $9,174,257 when you compare the payments with the tax exemptions they have received. Don’t let these wind turbine companies fool you. Property taxes are still being paid and collected by these three towns. For the period 2007-09, Eagle collected $290,543, Sheldon collected $991,996 (for 2008 and 2009) and Wethersfield collected $548,786 for property taxes.

Let’s not forget about all the jobs created by the wind turbine companies. The Noble Bliss wind farm, 17 jobs created. Cost per job to create $2,764 for a total cost of $46,988.

Sheldon Invenergy wind farm, nine jobs created. Cost per job to create $1,477,778 for a total cost of $13,300,002! Noble Wethersfield wind farm, three jobs created. Cost per job to create $612,228 for a total cost of $1,836,684. This is what the Wyoming County IDA states it cost us as taxpayers to gain only 29 jobs with the wind turbine companies.

All of the figures I have cited in this article have come straight from the New York State Office of the Comptroller. If you have a chance go to their website (http://www.osc.state.ny.us/). You’ll get a real eye opener in regards to how your hard-earned money is being spent.

If things were as great as Invenergy claims why do you see so many for sale signs in Sheldon, Wethersfield and Eagle. Property owners are taking tremendous losses if they are able to sell and get away from the health and noise issues created by industrial wind turbines.

Kathy Jensen

Orangeville

Galloo developer pushes NYPA deal

Galloo Island Wind Farm's developer is lobbying state officials to push the New York Power Authority to give the project a contract for its power.

Attorneys for Upstate NY Power Corp. have talked to local officials and at least the chairmen, if not the members, of the state Assembly and Senate Energy Committees.

"Upstate Power is committed to bringing clean renewable power, economic benefits, and jobs to the area," its representative, Robert W. Burgdorf, an attorney with Nixon Peabody in Rochester, said in an e-mail. "As part of that effort, it routinely briefs legislators who share these important goals."

Assemblyman Kenneth D. Blankenbush, R-Black River, said representatives told him they need to have a power-purchase agreement. The developer has told the Public Service Commission that NYPA is the only outlet in upstate New York for such an agreement.

Read the entire article

“It’s our money!”

After reading Invenergy’s self-serving pontifications in their recent article, “Invenergy and NYSERDA enter renewable energy credit purchase agreement,” it seems we need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture here:

•I (and most citizens) agree we have environmental and energy issues; and
•I (and most citizens) agree that these technical matters should be solved using real science — not propaganda being put forth by corporate salesmen.
Real science is not a collection of theorems, but is a process — the core process being the scientific method. The scientific method consists of a hypothesis (e.g., that wind energy is equivalent to our conventional power sources) being subjected to a: (1) comprehensive, (2) objective, (3) independent, (4) transparent, and (5) empirical-based assessment.

The fact is: This has not been done for wind energy — anyplace!

Said in an another easy-to-understand way:

Since we are in agreement that we have energy and environmental issues, let’s say that some entrepreneurs step forward and present us with a black box they claim holds a partial solution to these issues. Due to “confidentiality” reasons, they can’t tell us what’s in the box, but they assure us that it will work. Would we just say, “Great — who do we make the $100 billion check out to?”

I think not.

We would say something like, “Thanks — that sounds good, but first we need to see the proof that your product will be an effective cost-benefit solution before we mandate your product on citizens.”

Again, this is exactly what has not been done for wind energy. All the Invenergy and NYSERDA propaganda puff-pieces in the world will not change this simple fact. As we’ve been asking for years now, show us the proof!

The fact is: Because industrial wind is not reliable, predictable, or dispatchable — it provides virtually no capacity value (specified amounts of power on demand) and, therefore, needs constant “shadow capacity” from our conventional power sources. Thus, wind has not and cannot replace our conventional power generators (i.e., coal plants), and has not been proven to significantly reduce CO2 emissions anywhere.

The “economics” of wind are just as grim (Click here.). Let’s take a look at just a few of the government programs that enable the boondoggle of wind to exist:

Of the $2.2 billion of stimulus money that went to renewables (mostly wind), 80 percent of that went overseas (see “Renewable energy money still going abroad, despite criticism from Congress“).

Another is the direct cash grant program from the U.S. Treasury, worth 30 percent of the value of these industrial wind projects, which had been due to expire Dec. 31, 2010. However, thanks to politics in Washington, this very generous federal grant program (our money) was extended for another year when it was inserted at the last minute into in the recent federal tax compromise bill.

The project manager of the Lackawanna Steel Winds Project told us three years ago that each turbine cost approximately $5 million. (Could be much more by now, as in December 2010 the U.S. Energy Information Administration determined that the cost of new wind projects increased by 21 percent last year.) Forty-five turbines make Invenergy’s proposed Stony Creek project in Orangeville worth $225 million — with a 30 percent direct cash grant totaling $67,500,000 of our taxpayer dollars. We wouldn’t even be talking about the Stony Creek project anymore if this “free taxpayer money handout program” had not been extended.

This my friends, is corporate welfare! (For even more infuriating details, see “Wind Jammers at the White House: A Larry Summers memo exposes the high cost of energy corporate welfare.”)

Adding insult to injury, as cited in Invenergy’s press release, now NYSERDA is paying Invenergy for the “RECs” (Renewable Energy Credits) using ratepayer dollars that NYSERDA collects from us every month in our electric bills via the “Systems Benefit Charge” (SBC).

And wait — there’s more! On Jan. 25, 2011, NYSERDA announced another $250 million of ratepayer dollars that’s collected in your electric bill each month for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) will be going to renewable developers (i.e., wind) — transferring ever more of our money from U.S./NYS citizens’ pockets to the international developers’ pockets (click here).

What part of “It’s our money!” don’t our political leaders get? Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities back a mere pittance of their own money in return for permission to destroy the very environment they claim they wish to save.

Those who are content to participate in this energy scam, drawing in dollars by bellying-up to the corporate welfare bar, are — unwittingly or not — hurting us all.

Critics deride wind rules

Columbia Law School has put its name on a model ordinance for wind turbine zoning, but local critics of wind power development say it isn't restrictive enough.

The Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School released the draft ordinance Tuesday.

"Certainly in New York state, wind power is the most frequently mentioned new source of renewable energy," said Michael B. Gerrard, the center's director and the Andrew Sabin professor of professional practice. "So a local ordinance seemed to be very appropriate. The overall effort is to help local entities adopt rational, legal structures for structures aiming to address climate change. We're hoping to save time and effort by doing some of the spade work for them."

The ordinance includes rules for commercial wind energy facilities on permits, approvals, oversight and operations. It is designed for municipalities in New York, but could be modified for use in other states. The center will issue a revised version after receiving comments on this draft.

Read the entire article

“Systems for producing 0.0% energy at low wind speed”

Editor’s note: There’s a new website which is both brilliant and hilarious. Even the name tickles: fenbeagleblog by Beagle Blog Cartoons. (The beagle cartoon, here, is from their site, with a little editorializing by us.)

The guy’s a master satirist—whoever he (she) is. Anyone who quotes Lewis Carroll and Dr Seuss liberally, and writes verse in the spirit of both, is worth a roar of approval!

The following was pinched (“borrowed”) from the site. (I would have sought permission from the creator—and heaped praise!—but in the final satire of all, there’s no contact information.)

We’ve bookmarked the site. Many of the “slings and arrows” are aimed at British politicians. Nevertheless, even if you’re unfamiliar with the individuals being lampooned, you will appreciate the gentle (and not so gentle) mockery of an industry whose claim to legitimacy is rapidly approaching 0.0% credibility.

Vermonters for a Clean Environment's Blog

Vermonters for a Clean Environment Shines Sunshine on Wind in Vermont

VCE is beginning a new series where we will be blogging regularly about activities surrounding wind development in Vermont. A lot is happening, and while there has been some press nowhere near enough of the story is being told.

Thousands of Vermonters are now being impacted by the way Vermont is going about developing wind. In upcoming posts we will be shining sunshine on details you have not been reading in the newspaper. Check back regularly.

Watch the video of VCE’s Press Conference on wind energy, Nov. 17, 2010:

VCE Press Conference on Utility Scale Wind Energy, November 17, 2010 from VCE on Vimeo.

Wind farm opponents claim victory in moratorium

Opponents of industrial wind farms are declaring a victory this week after the Ontario government imposed a moratorium on off-shore wind projects.

The government made the surprise announcement on Friday, saying it would not move forward with off-shore wind projects until more scientific research had been done.

The moratorium put on hold applicants as well as those that had received approval to move ahead with off-shore wind farms. Toronto Hydro had proposed posting about 70 wind turbines in Lake Ontario.

But opponents of wind turbine farms in Ontario are suggesting the announcement is proof that Ontario had whisked into the wind energy movement without doing due diligence.

"We see this as a major victory. It is an indication that the government of Ontario did not do the science before moving forward," John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, told CTV News Channel on Sunday. "We plan on using this to redouble our efforts on shore, to get justice for those who have been harmed by industrial wind development and stop the progress there as well."

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of more than 50 community groups that oppose wind farms and claim turbines pose a threat to personal health as well as the environment.

Energy Minister Brad Duguid has said fresh water wind turbines are a relatively new concept and their impact on the environment needed to be studied before the province would move forward. He said, however, that there was decades of research into the effects of on-shore turbines, which have found no evidence of health concerns.

Laforet disputed that statement, saying more than 100 people have reported issued they believe are linked to the 700 turbines currently built in Ontario.

Duguid says part of the reason for the delay is a lack of interest in the off-shore opportunity. Of the 1,500 green energy applications in front of the government, only five are for off-shore wind projects.

Ontario plans to generate 10,700 megawatts of power from renewable sources each year, about 90 per cent of that from wind power.

Both the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democrats have derided the Liberals' Green Energy Act and have questioned the government's motives for the sudden moratorium.