MONTPELIER — The Green Mountain Power utility said Wednesday it's ready to hold a couple financially responsible for the costs of delays in construction of a major wind power project if protesters camped on their land within a blasting safety zone don't get out of the way.
GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said the utility was cleared Wednesday to resume work on the Kingdom Community Wind project on Lowell Mountain after changes had been made to construction procedures to protect stormwater. Construction of the road to the top of the mountain is expected to resume Thursday.
But the effort to build the 21-turbine project was further clouded Wednesday after the owners of a farm that adjoins the Lowell wind project rejected an offer to sell their property to GMP.
Schnure said GMP had offered to pay Don and Shirley Nelson $1.25 million for the 600-acre farm in Lowell, a small town in the northern part of the state. She said the Nelsons rejected the offer and raised their asking price by $1 million.
Meanwhile, the utility threatened to hold the Nelsons responsible for the costs of any delays caused by project opponents camping on their land within the range of debris that could be spread by blasting needed to build the road.
Schnure said that if the protesters were to leave their campsites for 15 minutes several times a day they would be out of the range.
"If they delay us, there are costs involved," she said. "Our customers should not have to pay those costs when it's very simple for them to move. We have told them that if they do not have their people move we will ask the court to hold them responsible for the costs of the delay. That could very quickly run into a million dollars or more."
The Nelsons did not return a telephone call from The Associated Press seeking comment Wednesday.
But a friend of the Nelsons, Annette Smith, an outspoken critic of large-scale wind projects, called GMP's actions, "extortion."
"Why are they threatening some already victimized downtrodden people?" she said. "Now what's happening is Green Mountain Power has put a gun to their heads."
GMP's $156 million wind power project is due to be completed by the end of next year and could meet the annual electrical needs of more than 20,000 households — about 50,000 residents. It has drawn vigorous opposition from some neighbors and environmentalists, whose concerns include its effects on wildlife, noise from the turbines and marring unspoiled mountain vistas.
Last month the Nelsons invited campers opposed to the Lowell wind project to pitch tents 100 feet from their property line and well within the safety zone surrounding where some of the blasting will occur.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Court hears arguments in suit challenging state subsidies for business
ALBANY -- In a case that unites liberal and conservative causes, the state's highest court today will hear arguments over a lawsuit seeking to end the state's direct cash subsidies to corporations as part of Albany's economic development programs.
The case, brought by Lockport financial planner Lee Bordeleau and 40 others in an anti-tax group, challenges the underpinnings of what critics say is a longstanding -- and illegal -- corporate welfare system at the Capitol.
Besides an afternoon appearance before the Court of Appeals, a rally sponsored by the Tea Party Coalition is being held at noon outside the Capitol.
"We want to end these cash grants," said Buffalo lawyer James Ostrowski, who is representing the plaintiffs who, if successful, could turn on its head the state's funding of everything from Fortune 100 companies to small startups.
"All the money we save if we win this lawsuit we want to turn into an immediate tax cut," Ostrowski said.
The group says Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is continuing the corporate subsidy program done by generations of governors. They are zeroing in on his recent deal with IBM, Intel and others in which $500 million will be steered through the state university as part of a nanotechnology package based in the Albany area.
Ostrowski said such subsidies -- whether indirectly made through the state university or direct, such as the $600 million to a chip manufacturing facility near Saratoga Springs -- all violate the state constitution.
The lawsuit specifically targets everything from direct cash appropriations the state has made in recent years to IBM, apple and grape growers, Delphi Harrison, the Hyatt Regency Buffalo, a Rochester soccer stadium and others. Even the now-scuttled cash Albany was trying to use to lure Bass Pro Shops to Buffalo was in the earliest court papers when the case was filed three years ago.
The lawsuit was tossed from State Supreme Court. But a mid-level appeals court last year rejected legal arguments by lawyers for Cuomo -- when he served as attorney general representing the state in the case -- and unanimously said the suit could go forward.
"Giving the funds to private entities by channeling them through authorized public entities will not shield these appropriations from challenge," the Appellate Division's Third Department warned last year.
The state has said the grants are legal and necessary for the "public purpose of promoting economic development." A state lawyer last year said the lawsuit could spawn "months or years of uncertainty and the potential for a multitude of additional disputes" over state spending.
Ostrowski said the case has attracted the interest of conservatives from the Tea Party and liberals from the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The state's constitution -- in Article VII, Section 8 -- states that "the money of the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association, or private undertaking." Critics say besides directly violating the ban in annual budget appropriations, the state has used public benefit corporations, authorities and other off-budget ways to steer money to companies.
That Cuomo's nanotechnology announcement sent money to the state university and not directly to IBM and Intel shows the state is nervous about the lawsuit, Ostrowski said. "They're afraid they're going to lose the lawsuit and they're already restructuring their corporate welfare."
The case, brought by Lockport financial planner Lee Bordeleau and 40 others in an anti-tax group, challenges the underpinnings of what critics say is a longstanding -- and illegal -- corporate welfare system at the Capitol.
Besides an afternoon appearance before the Court of Appeals, a rally sponsored by the Tea Party Coalition is being held at noon outside the Capitol.
"We want to end these cash grants," said Buffalo lawyer James Ostrowski, who is representing the plaintiffs who, if successful, could turn on its head the state's funding of everything from Fortune 100 companies to small startups.
"All the money we save if we win this lawsuit we want to turn into an immediate tax cut," Ostrowski said.
The group says Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is continuing the corporate subsidy program done by generations of governors. They are zeroing in on his recent deal with IBM, Intel and others in which $500 million will be steered through the state university as part of a nanotechnology package based in the Albany area.
Ostrowski said such subsidies -- whether indirectly made through the state university or direct, such as the $600 million to a chip manufacturing facility near Saratoga Springs -- all violate the state constitution.
The lawsuit specifically targets everything from direct cash appropriations the state has made in recent years to IBM, apple and grape growers, Delphi Harrison, the Hyatt Regency Buffalo, a Rochester soccer stadium and others. Even the now-scuttled cash Albany was trying to use to lure Bass Pro Shops to Buffalo was in the earliest court papers when the case was filed three years ago.
The lawsuit was tossed from State Supreme Court. But a mid-level appeals court last year rejected legal arguments by lawyers for Cuomo -- when he served as attorney general representing the state in the case -- and unanimously said the suit could go forward.
"Giving the funds to private entities by channeling them through authorized public entities will not shield these appropriations from challenge," the Appellate Division's Third Department warned last year.
The state has said the grants are legal and necessary for the "public purpose of promoting economic development." A state lawyer last year said the lawsuit could spawn "months or years of uncertainty and the potential for a multitude of additional disputes" over state spending.
Ostrowski said the case has attracted the interest of conservatives from the Tea Party and liberals from the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The state's constitution -- in Article VII, Section 8 -- states that "the money of the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association, or private undertaking." Critics say besides directly violating the ban in annual budget appropriations, the state has used public benefit corporations, authorities and other off-budget ways to steer money to companies.
That Cuomo's nanotechnology announcement sent money to the state university and not directly to IBM and Intel shows the state is nervous about the lawsuit, Ostrowski said. "They're afraid they're going to lose the lawsuit and they're already restructuring their corporate welfare."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Tea Party Rally against corporate welfare Albany Capitol steps - NOON Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Everyone invited to join this rally in Albany. CWW is a petitioner in this action. Show you support.
Note: we won in the Appellate Division five to zero.
The name of the case is Bordeleau v. State of New York.
Oral argument will be held at the Court of Appeals, NY's highest court.
For more information google “pork lawsuit.”
http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=12522&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalClassDismissed+%28Political+Class+Dismissed%29This is the summary from the Court’s web site. Formatting may be a bit off.
To be argued Wednesday, October 12, 2011
No. 190 Bordeleau v State of New York
In this declaratory judgment action, 50 New York taxpayers challenge the constitutionality of state appropriations to the Department of Agriculture and Markets and two public benefit corporations (PBCs) for ultimate distribution to private entities for economic development projects. They argue, in part, that this funding violates article VII, § 8(1) of the State Constitution, which prohibits gifts or loans of state money or credit to private entities. The challenged appropriations and grants included funding through Ag & Markets for promotional activities by the New York Apple Growers Association and the Long Island Wine Council to encourage consumption of New York agricultural products, and funding through PBCs for semiconductor manufacturing facilities in Saratoga, Albany and Dutchess Counties and renovation of a hotel in downtown Buffalo. The plaintiffs sued the State, its Urban Development Corp. (UDC) and Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp., and six private companies, including International Business Machines Corp., West Genesee Hotel Associates, and GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc.
Supreme Court dismissed the suit, ruling there was no violation of the gift or loan provision. It said, “The State is authorized to provide funding to a public benefit corporation, including [UDC]…. The very purpose of the [UDC] is to promote the State’s policy of enhancing job opportunities, urban renewal and economic development…. A review of the [UDC] projects at issue here shows that each speaks to a viable public, economic development purpose….” It said Ag & Markets “is expressly authorized to aid in the promotion and marketing of New York’s wine and grape products” and its appropriations to fund promotional contracts with non-profit agricultural organizations are not barred under Article VII, § 8.
The Appellate Division, Third Department modified by reinstating the claim that the appropriations “indirectly gave state funds to private entities in violation of … article VII, § 8(1) by passing the funds through [Ag & Markets] and the PBCs before disbursement.” It said, “Giving the funds to private entities by channeling them through authorized public entities will not shield these appropriations from challenge, for the State may not do “‘indirectly that which cannot be done directly”‘….” It said the constitutionality of the appropriations does not depend on whether they served a public purpose, but “whether their public benefits constitute sufficient consideration while the private benefits are merely incidental.” The question was not resolved as a matter of law by the defendants’ submissions “showing their public purposes,” it said, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
The defendants argue that “appropriations for the public purpose of promoting economic development” do not violate article VII, § 8. “Recent precedents establish that an appropriation is valid … so long as it has a predominant public purpose and any private benefit is purely incidental,” the State says, claiming the challenged appropriations meet this standard. It also argues the appropriations “were not gifts at all because the recipients agreed to create jobs or provided other valuable consideration to the State in exchange for the funds.”
For appellant State: Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood (518) 474-1394
For appellant IBM: Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal, Manhattan (212) 474-1000
For appellant West Genesee Hotel: Kevin J. Cross, Buffalo (716) 853-5100
For appellant GlobalFoundries: Harold Iselin, Albany (518) 689-1400
For respondents Bordeleau et al: James Ostrowski, Buffalo (716) 435-8918
Note: we won in the Appellate Division five to zero.
The name of the case is Bordeleau v. State of New York.
Oral argument will be held at the Court of Appeals, NY's highest court.
For more information google “pork lawsuit.”
http://politicalclassdismissed.com/?p=12522&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalClassDismissed+%28Political+Class+Dismissed%29This is the summary from the Court’s web site. Formatting may be a bit off.
To be argued Wednesday, October 12, 2011
No. 190 Bordeleau v State of New York
In this declaratory judgment action, 50 New York taxpayers challenge the constitutionality of state appropriations to the Department of Agriculture and Markets and two public benefit corporations (PBCs) for ultimate distribution to private entities for economic development projects. They argue, in part, that this funding violates article VII, § 8(1) of the State Constitution, which prohibits gifts or loans of state money or credit to private entities. The challenged appropriations and grants included funding through Ag & Markets for promotional activities by the New York Apple Growers Association and the Long Island Wine Council to encourage consumption of New York agricultural products, and funding through PBCs for semiconductor manufacturing facilities in Saratoga, Albany and Dutchess Counties and renovation of a hotel in downtown Buffalo. The plaintiffs sued the State, its Urban Development Corp. (UDC) and Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp., and six private companies, including International Business Machines Corp., West Genesee Hotel Associates, and GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc.
Supreme Court dismissed the suit, ruling there was no violation of the gift or loan provision. It said, “The State is authorized to provide funding to a public benefit corporation, including [UDC]…. The very purpose of the [UDC] is to promote the State’s policy of enhancing job opportunities, urban renewal and economic development…. A review of the [UDC] projects at issue here shows that each speaks to a viable public, economic development purpose….” It said Ag & Markets “is expressly authorized to aid in the promotion and marketing of New York’s wine and grape products” and its appropriations to fund promotional contracts with non-profit agricultural organizations are not barred under Article VII, § 8.
The Appellate Division, Third Department modified by reinstating the claim that the appropriations “indirectly gave state funds to private entities in violation of … article VII, § 8(1) by passing the funds through [Ag & Markets] and the PBCs before disbursement.” It said, “Giving the funds to private entities by channeling them through authorized public entities will not shield these appropriations from challenge, for the State may not do “‘indirectly that which cannot be done directly”‘….” It said the constitutionality of the appropriations does not depend on whether they served a public purpose, but “whether their public benefits constitute sufficient consideration while the private benefits are merely incidental.” The question was not resolved as a matter of law by the defendants’ submissions “showing their public purposes,” it said, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.
The defendants argue that “appropriations for the public purpose of promoting economic development” do not violate article VII, § 8. “Recent precedents establish that an appropriation is valid … so long as it has a predominant public purpose and any private benefit is purely incidental,” the State says, claiming the challenged appropriations meet this standard. It also argues the appropriations “were not gifts at all because the recipients agreed to create jobs or provided other valuable consideration to the State in exchange for the funds.”
For appellant State: Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood (518) 474-1394
For appellant IBM: Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal, Manhattan (212) 474-1000
For appellant West Genesee Hotel: Kevin J. Cross, Buffalo (716) 853-5100
For appellant GlobalFoundries: Harold Iselin, Albany (518) 689-1400
For respondents Bordeleau et al: James Ostrowski, Buffalo (716) 435-8918
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Windmills blow into Orangeville
Love them or hate them, wind farms continue to stir up a storm of controversy in Western New York.
The most recent project, Stony Creek Wind Farm in the tiny town of Orangeville, calls for as many as 59 wind turbines to be built in that rural community.
And with more than 200 turbines already turning in Sheldon, Wethersfield and Eagle, it seems like Wyoming County will retain its claim as the wind capital of Western New York.
With New York State's goal of having 30 percent of the state's energy needs supplied by clean, renewable energy sources, the landscape is changing throughout the state. The Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison recently applied for permits to build a massive wind farm off Long Island with a capacity of 350 to 700 megawatts.
Although the Stony Creek project has been approved by the Town Board and is slated to begin in the spring, many residents have raised concerns, including noise levels and the effect of the project on wildlife, and two lawsuits have been filed to try to stop the project.
Town Supervisor Susan Mays said those issues have been addressed by the town from the beginning.
"We have looked at everything they've submitted, and all of their material was included in each of the studies that was done," she said. "The Town Board looked at everything thoroughly, and that's how we came to our conclusion."
"You're always going to have opposition to projects like these," she said.
Eric Miller, director of business development for Invenergy, the company erecting the windmills, said the Stony Creek project "will create more than 100 jobs and provide millions of dollars in new revenue to local businesses and contractors during construction."
"Once operational, it will employ four to six full-time staff," Miller said. "The town will benefit from 7.5 miles of town roads that will be rebuilt by Stony Creek at the completion of construction."
Mays also said payments from the project developer to the town would amount to about $667,000 a year for the first 20 years of the project, which would eliminate town taxes for residents.
"The Stony Creek Wind Farm is far and away the largest economic development project in our town's history," Mays said. "It not only provides significant and direct economic development benefits to the town and its taxpayers, but it will result in hundreds of construction jobs and millions of dollars in revenue to local businesses during these very difficult times. The amount that we will get for the 59 turbines will eliminate town taxes and there is also $750,000 for road reconstruction for the roads used for the project."
The approval for Stony Creek comes after the addition of six windmills on the former Bethlehem Steel site along Lake Erie and the approval by the Allegany Town Board in August for 29 wind turbines above Chipmunk Road. The two projects are among 17 renewable energy projects in the state to receive funding through a program aimed at reducing the state's dependence on fossil fuels.
But windmill fever will not extend into the lake. A plan to put up to 150 wind turbines in Lakes Erie and Ontario was halted after the New York Power Authority determined it would be too expensive.
In Orangeville, not everyone agrees on the Stony Creek wind farm's economic impact on the town.
"The basic question is whether the benefits outweigh the burden," said Gary Abraham, attorney for Clear Skies Over Orangeville, a coalition of town residents that has taken the town to court over the issue.
As for the potential revenue from the project, Abraham said there is no guarantee that will happen.
"It's not a great feat to eliminate town taxes," Abraham said. "It's really kind of a cruel joke. In other towns, they've just spent [the income] on other things. They're not reducing town taxes. There's no guarantee that's not going to happen in Orangeville. And the town's taxes are only 15 percent of a person's property taxes."
Although the lower courts sided with the town in the Clear Skies suit earlier this year, the group is continuing the fight, seeking a hearing from the New York State Court of Appeals.
"In 2009, the town adopted a law regulating wind farms, and we sued the town," Abraham said. "We claim that the law is not supported by any evidence. It adopts a noise standard that is outrageously high based on [state Department of Environmental Conservation] standards. We're hoping the highest court in New York will address this issue."
A second lawsuit is pending, brought by resident Robert White, who is seeking to declare the tower's area variance null and void. He maintains the tower would be within 800 feet of a cabin on his property, violating town setback requirements. His next court date is scheduled for Nov. 9. White declined to be interviewed by The Buffalo News.
Even after a project is completed, the controversy continues. Glenn Cramer, a former Sheldon town councilman, said his town is still divided over the issue.
"I wouldn't use Sheldon as an example of a successful wind farm," he told The News. "It is another example of why industrial wind farms do not belong anywhere near people. The town will be forever divided."
Cramer said that in addition to the noise, the shadow flicker -- the shadow cast when a large windmill blade sweeps in front of the sun -- can be a problem. Some people who live near windmills in other areas have complained that the effect is like a light switch being rapidly turned on and off.
"When someone from Sheldon supports the wind farm, ask him or her what he or she stands to gain financially from it. I think you will see a direct relationship. Some residents have gained from the wind farm, but it has been at the expense of their neighbors."
News Staff Reporter Barbara O'Brien contributed to this report.
The most recent project, Stony Creek Wind Farm in the tiny town of Orangeville, calls for as many as 59 wind turbines to be built in that rural community.
And with more than 200 turbines already turning in Sheldon, Wethersfield and Eagle, it seems like Wyoming County will retain its claim as the wind capital of Western New York.
With New York State's goal of having 30 percent of the state's energy needs supplied by clean, renewable energy sources, the landscape is changing throughout the state. The Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison recently applied for permits to build a massive wind farm off Long Island with a capacity of 350 to 700 megawatts.
Although the Stony Creek project has been approved by the Town Board and is slated to begin in the spring, many residents have raised concerns, including noise levels and the effect of the project on wildlife, and two lawsuits have been filed to try to stop the project.
Town Supervisor Susan Mays said those issues have been addressed by the town from the beginning.
"We have looked at everything they've submitted, and all of their material was included in each of the studies that was done," she said. "The Town Board looked at everything thoroughly, and that's how we came to our conclusion."
"You're always going to have opposition to projects like these," she said.
Eric Miller, director of business development for Invenergy, the company erecting the windmills, said the Stony Creek project "will create more than 100 jobs and provide millions of dollars in new revenue to local businesses and contractors during construction."
"Once operational, it will employ four to six full-time staff," Miller said. "The town will benefit from 7.5 miles of town roads that will be rebuilt by Stony Creek at the completion of construction."
Mays also said payments from the project developer to the town would amount to about $667,000 a year for the first 20 years of the project, which would eliminate town taxes for residents.
"The Stony Creek Wind Farm is far and away the largest economic development project in our town's history," Mays said. "It not only provides significant and direct economic development benefits to the town and its taxpayers, but it will result in hundreds of construction jobs and millions of dollars in revenue to local businesses during these very difficult times. The amount that we will get for the 59 turbines will eliminate town taxes and there is also $750,000 for road reconstruction for the roads used for the project."
The approval for Stony Creek comes after the addition of six windmills on the former Bethlehem Steel site along Lake Erie and the approval by the Allegany Town Board in August for 29 wind turbines above Chipmunk Road. The two projects are among 17 renewable energy projects in the state to receive funding through a program aimed at reducing the state's dependence on fossil fuels.
But windmill fever will not extend into the lake. A plan to put up to 150 wind turbines in Lakes Erie and Ontario was halted after the New York Power Authority determined it would be too expensive.
In Orangeville, not everyone agrees on the Stony Creek wind farm's economic impact on the town.
"The basic question is whether the benefits outweigh the burden," said Gary Abraham, attorney for Clear Skies Over Orangeville, a coalition of town residents that has taken the town to court over the issue.
As for the potential revenue from the project, Abraham said there is no guarantee that will happen.
"It's not a great feat to eliminate town taxes," Abraham said. "It's really kind of a cruel joke. In other towns, they've just spent [the income] on other things. They're not reducing town taxes. There's no guarantee that's not going to happen in Orangeville. And the town's taxes are only 15 percent of a person's property taxes."
Although the lower courts sided with the town in the Clear Skies suit earlier this year, the group is continuing the fight, seeking a hearing from the New York State Court of Appeals.
"In 2009, the town adopted a law regulating wind farms, and we sued the town," Abraham said. "We claim that the law is not supported by any evidence. It adopts a noise standard that is outrageously high based on [state Department of Environmental Conservation] standards. We're hoping the highest court in New York will address this issue."
A second lawsuit is pending, brought by resident Robert White, who is seeking to declare the tower's area variance null and void. He maintains the tower would be within 800 feet of a cabin on his property, violating town setback requirements. His next court date is scheduled for Nov. 9. White declined to be interviewed by The Buffalo News.
Even after a project is completed, the controversy continues. Glenn Cramer, a former Sheldon town councilman, said his town is still divided over the issue.
"I wouldn't use Sheldon as an example of a successful wind farm," he told The News. "It is another example of why industrial wind farms do not belong anywhere near people. The town will be forever divided."
Cramer said that in addition to the noise, the shadow flicker -- the shadow cast when a large windmill blade sweeps in front of the sun -- can be a problem. Some people who live near windmills in other areas have complained that the effect is like a light switch being rapidly turned on and off.
"When someone from Sheldon supports the wind farm, ask him or her what he or she stands to gain financially from it. I think you will see a direct relationship. Some residents have gained from the wind farm, but it has been at the expense of their neighbors."
News Staff Reporter Barbara O'Brien contributed to this report.
Vt. orders work to stop at Lowell wind project due amid possible environmental violations
A stop-work order has been issued for construction on the Lowell Mountain wind power project because of possible environmental violations, a top Vermont official said Friday.
Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz confirmed that the order had been issued for what an inspector determined was inadequate handling of storm runoff during the early stages of work on the project, which is being developed by Green Mountain Power Corp.
Markowitz said that as crews were working on a new road that is to carry equipment and eventually the more than 400-foot-tall wind towers to the mountain ridge line, they needed gravel to prevent newly exposed soil from running off during rains.
"As they're clearing land to build the road they need to put cover on some of the exposed ground so that there isn't runoff," she said. "The place that they expected to get the gravel did not have an adequate amount and so they moved to another location that was not contemplated in the permit."
GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said the utility reported problems with runoff early in the week to the Agency of Natural Resources — problems made worse by heavy rains last weekend. She said a state inspector came to the site, confirmed the problems and issued the stop-work order Wednesday. She said road-clearing work remained halted Friday as the company awaited a final review and permission from the state to resume work.
Schnure said the result would be that the company was beginning work on storm water drainage systems it had planned to wait to install until the road was built. "With the really heavy rains it became evident we needed to work on that now," she said. "We refocused our attention on getting those done before we continue with the clearing."
GMP's $156 million, 21-turbine wind power project is due to be completed by the end of next year and is expected to provide enough power for 24,000 homes.
Some neighbors and environmental groups have vehemently opposed the project, saying it will destroy key wildlife habitat and spoil mountain views in northern Vermont with towers and turbines standing more than 400 feet in the air.
David Mears, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is part of the Agency of Natural Resources, said steps to slow runoff that were needed and missing were the gravel cover for newly exposed soil and stone-lined catch basins along the side of the part of the road that had been built to slow water from running downhill and carrying sediment with it.
"These were fairly serious violations of the storm water permit, particularly the storm water control (problems) and the discharge of sediment," he said.
Luke Snelling of opposition group Energize Vermont pointed to earlier environmental violations, including improper tree cutting and filing of wetlands on adjacent conservation land that caused the project to be delayed for months when they were discovered.
"This is the second time at this site something has been screwed up to the detriment of the environment," Snelling said. "How many more to we have to go before we see this is a bad project in a highly sensitive place?"
Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz confirmed that the order had been issued for what an inspector determined was inadequate handling of storm runoff during the early stages of work on the project, which is being developed by Green Mountain Power Corp.
Markowitz said that as crews were working on a new road that is to carry equipment and eventually the more than 400-foot-tall wind towers to the mountain ridge line, they needed gravel to prevent newly exposed soil from running off during rains.
"As they're clearing land to build the road they need to put cover on some of the exposed ground so that there isn't runoff," she said. "The place that they expected to get the gravel did not have an adequate amount and so they moved to another location that was not contemplated in the permit."
GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said the utility reported problems with runoff early in the week to the Agency of Natural Resources — problems made worse by heavy rains last weekend. She said a state inspector came to the site, confirmed the problems and issued the stop-work order Wednesday. She said road-clearing work remained halted Friday as the company awaited a final review and permission from the state to resume work.
Schnure said the result would be that the company was beginning work on storm water drainage systems it had planned to wait to install until the road was built. "With the really heavy rains it became evident we needed to work on that now," she said. "We refocused our attention on getting those done before we continue with the clearing."
GMP's $156 million, 21-turbine wind power project is due to be completed by the end of next year and is expected to provide enough power for 24,000 homes.
Some neighbors and environmental groups have vehemently opposed the project, saying it will destroy key wildlife habitat and spoil mountain views in northern Vermont with towers and turbines standing more than 400 feet in the air.
David Mears, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is part of the Agency of Natural Resources, said steps to slow runoff that were needed and missing were the gravel cover for newly exposed soil and stone-lined catch basins along the side of the part of the road that had been built to slow water from running downhill and carrying sediment with it.
"These were fairly serious violations of the storm water permit, particularly the storm water control (problems) and the discharge of sediment," he said.
Luke Snelling of opposition group Energize Vermont pointed to earlier environmental violations, including improper tree cutting and filing of wetlands on adjacent conservation land that caused the project to be delayed for months when they were discovered.
"This is the second time at this site something has been screwed up to the detriment of the environment," Snelling said. "How many more to we have to go before we see this is a bad project in a highly sensitive place?"
Experts say first offshore wind turbines in Great Lakes years away
MUSKEGON — Large wind turbines are still years away from being installed in the Great Lakes, the federal government’s offshore wind manager and a former industry insider say.
Yet, U.S. Department of Energy’s Christopher Hart and former Bluewater Wind offshore wind developer Mike O’Brien agreed Friday that Grand Valley State University’s offshore wind assessment and research buoy could significantly impact the potential for wind turbines in the Great Lakes.
Hart and O’Brien attended the dedication of the buoy Friday at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Lake Michigan field station. The floating, 20-by-10-foot structure is equipped with a special laser wind sensor to measure wind speeds at various heights over the lake.
When each was asked by The Chronicle to look into their “crystal balls” to predict when turbines might be installed in the Great Lakes, Hart said six to eight years and O’Brien said as early as three to five years.
Hart said he expects that the first offshore wind projects will be completed in the Northeast portion of the United States, because traditional energy costs there are higher so offshore wind’s cost competitiveness will be realized sooner.
After technology advancements are complete and financial risks of offshore wind energy minimized, Hart said he expects “best” projects to begin being installed in the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico. Among the advancements currently being pursued is improved power transmission capabilities for offshore turbines, being backed by Google, and larger turbines to access better winds farther offshore.
Hart said the goal is to reduce the costs of offshore-wind-produced electricity from 20 cents per kilowatt hour to 7 cents per kilowatt hour. He said he expects about half of the cost reduction to come in technological advancements and the other half from lower capital costs.
By building bigger wind farms with larger turbines and blades and putting them farther offshore, Hart said he expects offshore wind development to make better business sense. It also will allay concern about the turbines’ appearance from the shore.
O’Brien said the wind-assessment buoy’s data, if deemed accurate, and state changes in the permitting process are keys to making offshore wind farms more viable in the Great Lakes. He said if those two items are favorable for developers, wind turbines could be put in the Great Lakes in three to five years.
However, O’Brien said it may be five to seven years if floating turbines are deemed the better option to install farther off land in deeper water.
Yet, U.S. Department of Energy’s Christopher Hart and former Bluewater Wind offshore wind developer Mike O’Brien agreed Friday that Grand Valley State University’s offshore wind assessment and research buoy could significantly impact the potential for wind turbines in the Great Lakes.
Hart and O’Brien attended the dedication of the buoy Friday at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Lake Michigan field station. The floating, 20-by-10-foot structure is equipped with a special laser wind sensor to measure wind speeds at various heights over the lake.
When each was asked by The Chronicle to look into their “crystal balls” to predict when turbines might be installed in the Great Lakes, Hart said six to eight years and O’Brien said as early as three to five years.
Hart said he expects that the first offshore wind projects will be completed in the Northeast portion of the United States, because traditional energy costs there are higher so offshore wind’s cost competitiveness will be realized sooner.
After technology advancements are complete and financial risks of offshore wind energy minimized, Hart said he expects “best” projects to begin being installed in the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico. Among the advancements currently being pursued is improved power transmission capabilities for offshore turbines, being backed by Google, and larger turbines to access better winds farther offshore.
Hart said the goal is to reduce the costs of offshore-wind-produced electricity from 20 cents per kilowatt hour to 7 cents per kilowatt hour. He said he expects about half of the cost reduction to come in technological advancements and the other half from lower capital costs.
By building bigger wind farms with larger turbines and blades and putting them farther offshore, Hart said he expects offshore wind development to make better business sense. It also will allay concern about the turbines’ appearance from the shore.
O’Brien said the wind-assessment buoy’s data, if deemed accurate, and state changes in the permitting process are keys to making offshore wind farms more viable in the Great Lakes. He said if those two items are favorable for developers, wind turbines could be put in the Great Lakes in three to five years.
However, O’Brien said it may be five to seven years if floating turbines are deemed the better option to install farther off land in deeper water.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
BP Invests $800 Million In Kansas Wind Farm
British energy giant BP has announced plans to invest $800 million in a new onshore wind farm, set to be built in Kansas within the next three months.
The company, best known for the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico, made the announcement early this week, according to Business Green. The wind farm will utilize 262 1.6MW turbines provided by GE, and Associated Electric Cooperative has already agreed to a long term deal that will see the company purchase 314MW of energy produced at the farm.
The Kansas wind farm, dubbed the Flat Ridge Two project, will be BP's dozenth wind farm in the United States, all of which have an energy capacity of 314MW. Four more are either in the planning stages or already under construction.
According to BP's website, the energy company has focused on building US wind farms "because the desired physical climate and public policy favor wind technology." The company has also partnered with Clipper Windpower to build the Titan Wind Project in South Dakota, which would be the largest wind farm in the world.
The company, best known for the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico, made the announcement early this week, according to Business Green. The wind farm will utilize 262 1.6MW turbines provided by GE, and Associated Electric Cooperative has already agreed to a long term deal that will see the company purchase 314MW of energy produced at the farm.
The Kansas wind farm, dubbed the Flat Ridge Two project, will be BP's dozenth wind farm in the United States, all of which have an energy capacity of 314MW. Four more are either in the planning stages or already under construction.
According to BP's website, the energy company has focused on building US wind farms "because the desired physical climate and public policy favor wind technology." The company has also partnered with Clipper Windpower to build the Titan Wind Project in South Dakota, which would be the largest wind farm in the world.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Electric Industry testimony on Tax Reform
Those of you who have wondered about the vagaries of accelerated depreciation and its impact on wind energy investments -- at least for investor-owned utilities -- may want to read the first part of the attached statement by Edison Electric Institute (EEI). It's one of the clearest statements I've seen on the subject.
You will want to hold your nose when you get to page 6 and see the false claim that tax breaks for renewables helps reduce energy import dependence and footnote 10 that cites an AWEA claim. I suspect that both these were inserted at the insistence of such EEI members such as NextERA (formerly FPL Group and parent of Florida Power & Light), Duke, and a few others.
You might want to groan a bit (as a taxpayer) if you work through the implications of the accelerated depreciation discussion. Specifically, consider the impact of accelerated depreciation on Exelon's late 2010 purchase of John Deere's wind business for $900+ million, That deal closed during the period (September something 2010 through December 2011) when most capital investments qualify for 100% first year accelerated depreciation deduction.
Therefore, it appears that Exelon could get the deduction for the entire $900 million spent for operating "wind farms," book it as a deferred tax liability and, in effect, benefit from a $900 million interest free loan.
As the statement explains, however, the utility could not include the $900 million in its "rate base" that is used to calculate its allowed return on its capital investments -- so its only the taxpayers (who pick up the burden escaped by Exelon) who take the hit for the depreciation deduction, not Exelon's customers.
Glenn Schleede
________________________________________
You will want to hold your nose when you get to page 6 and see the false claim that tax breaks for renewables helps reduce energy import dependence and footnote 10 that cites an AWEA claim. I suspect that both these were inserted at the insistence of such EEI members such as NextERA (formerly FPL Group and parent of Florida Power & Light), Duke, and a few others.
You might want to groan a bit (as a taxpayer) if you work through the implications of the accelerated depreciation discussion. Specifically, consider the impact of accelerated depreciation on Exelon's late 2010 purchase of John Deere's wind business for $900+ million, That deal closed during the period (September something 2010 through December 2011) when most capital investments qualify for 100% first year accelerated depreciation deduction.
Therefore, it appears that Exelon could get the deduction for the entire $900 million spent for operating "wind farms," book it as a deferred tax liability and, in effect, benefit from a $900 million interest free loan.
As the statement explains, however, the utility could not include the $900 million in its "rate base" that is used to calculate its allowed return on its capital investments -- so its only the taxpayers (who pick up the burden escaped by Exelon) who take the hit for the depreciation deduction, not Exelon's customers.
Glenn Schleede
________________________________________
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Under new Pa. drilling rules, counties can charge impact fees
Unveiling a much-anticipated plan to regulate and harness Pennsylvania’s booming natural gas industry, Gov. Tom Corbett called Monday for even-handed laws that recognize the competition beyond the state’s borders for an industry that he said is boosting the economy and lowering energy bills.
Corbett’s plan would allow counties to impose fees of up to $160,000 per well over 10 years to help pay for the cost to regulate the drilling and fix the damage it causes to the environment. It also would toughen laws that protect the state’s water sources and help the industry find new outlets for its product, such as converting school bus fleets or mass transit systems to natural gas power.
“Affordable, reliable energy allows companies to grow, but how do we get there? We have to make sure that we do this right, from the very beginning,” Corbett told a crowd at a unionized carpenters training hall in Pittsburgh. “If we’re looking at this industry, it’s a little bit beyond a newborn, it’s not even crawling yet though. ... We have to get there by smart, sound, even-handed, level playing-field regulation and legislation.”
(Click to read the entire article)
Corbett’s plan would allow counties to impose fees of up to $160,000 per well over 10 years to help pay for the cost to regulate the drilling and fix the damage it causes to the environment. It also would toughen laws that protect the state’s water sources and help the industry find new outlets for its product, such as converting school bus fleets or mass transit systems to natural gas power.
“Affordable, reliable energy allows companies to grow, but how do we get there? We have to make sure that we do this right, from the very beginning,” Corbett told a crowd at a unionized carpenters training hall in Pittsburgh. “If we’re looking at this industry, it’s a little bit beyond a newborn, it’s not even crawling yet though. ... We have to get there by smart, sound, even-handed, level playing-field regulation and legislation.”
(Click to read the entire article)
Scuttled wind farm project was a billion-dollar boondoogle
It was pretty clear all along that building a wind farm in the waters of Lake Erie or Lake Ontario would be way too expensive.
What we didn’t know until last week was that it wouldn’t just be way too expensive: It would have been a boondoggle of epic proportions.
When the New York Power Authority formally pulled the plug Tuesday on the offshore wind farm project, NYPA officials said it wasn’t “fiscally prudent” because even a 150-megawatt project – on the small side of the agency’s guidelines–would require subsidies of $60 million to $100 million a year. That was two to four times the subsidy a similarly sized land-based wind farm would require to be economically feasible.
“A larger project would just yield a larger subsidy,” said Jill Anderson, the Power Authority executive who delivered the report recommending that the project be scuttled.
But the subsidy wouldn’t have just lasted for a year or two. NYPA would have paid them for 20 years. So on even a small-scale project, it would have cost $1.2 billion to $2 billion in subsidies over 20 years just to make the project work financially.
Anderson was being polite in saying it wasn’t fiscally prudent.
It would have been a huge boondoggle. And a bigger project would have been an even bigger boondoggle.
The Power Authority would have paid the subsidies through the power purchase agreement it would have signed with the company it chose to develop the wind farm. Any developer would need the power purchase agreement to get financing for the project, and the authority would subsidize the wind farm by agreeing to pay prices that were way above the market rate for the electricity generated by the offshore turbines.
Now, to be fair, no renewable energy projects, from solar panels to wind farms, can compete on cost with traditional energy sources, such as power plants that run on coal or natural gas. But those conventional sources also are a big source of pollution and rely on fossil fuels. Paying a premium for new sources of clean energy does make sense in the long term.
The question is how much more.
Power Authority officials said they tried to make the Great Lakes project work. They looked at a smaller, pilot-sized project. They considered building the project in phases. Nothing could make the numbers come close to working.
“Economics are driving this one,” said Eugene L. Nicandri, a Power Authority trustee.
Supporters of the wind farm project said it could have helped make New York—and job-starved upstate in particular—a leader in the offshore wind energy market, with local companies developing the skills and expertise to make many of the 8,000-odd components that go into each turbine.
“NYPA focused on the cost, but not the benefits,” said Chris Wissermann, the managing director at Great Lakes Wind Energy, an Ohiobased company that made one of the five proposals to build the offshore wind farm.
“It’s a lost opportunity for New York,” said Wissermann, whose company had proposed a project of less than 100 megawatts. “These projects, at this point, are really closer to economic development projects than energy projects.”
Of course, we heard the same argument five years ago, when the state was looking at a$1.5 billion project to build a cutting-edge coal-fired power plant that would vastly reduce its harmful emissions at the Huntley Station conventional coal-burning plant in the Town of Tonawanda. The idea then was the project would make New York—and Western New York in particular—a leader in clean coal technology, potentially spawning a whole new industry here.
Then, as with the offshore wind farm today, the clean coal dreams came to naught because it came up short on the most crucial question of them all: power and jobs vs. price and the environment.
“The value of that estimated economic activity has to be weighed against the cost borne by customers,” NYPA’s Anderson said.
Power Authority trustees, wanting to put a positive spin on the demise of the Great Lakes venture, took pains to note that, as the upstate project dies, it is launching a new push for a big wind farm off the Long Island shore, where the demand for electricity is greater. Anderson said the subsidies for that project could be less because the market price for electricity is higher downstate.
But Brian P. Smith, the communications and program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment in Buffalo, said that downstate project will take years—maybe even a decade— to come together. By then, other states will have gained the first foothold in the offshore wind energy industry that he had hoped would get a start here.
“This does nothing to appease the supporters of a clean energy future in New York.” Smith said. “It’s a huge step backward for upstate and a tiny step forward downstate.”
Even then, you still have to wonder if the costs still won’t outweigh the benefits.
What we didn’t know until last week was that it wouldn’t just be way too expensive: It would have been a boondoggle of epic proportions.
When the New York Power Authority formally pulled the plug Tuesday on the offshore wind farm project, NYPA officials said it wasn’t “fiscally prudent” because even a 150-megawatt project – on the small side of the agency’s guidelines–would require subsidies of $60 million to $100 million a year. That was two to four times the subsidy a similarly sized land-based wind farm would require to be economically feasible.
“A larger project would just yield a larger subsidy,” said Jill Anderson, the Power Authority executive who delivered the report recommending that the project be scuttled.
But the subsidy wouldn’t have just lasted for a year or two. NYPA would have paid them for 20 years. So on even a small-scale project, it would have cost $1.2 billion to $2 billion in subsidies over 20 years just to make the project work financially.
Anderson was being polite in saying it wasn’t fiscally prudent.
It would have been a huge boondoggle. And a bigger project would have been an even bigger boondoggle.
The Power Authority would have paid the subsidies through the power purchase agreement it would have signed with the company it chose to develop the wind farm. Any developer would need the power purchase agreement to get financing for the project, and the authority would subsidize the wind farm by agreeing to pay prices that were way above the market rate for the electricity generated by the offshore turbines.
Now, to be fair, no renewable energy projects, from solar panels to wind farms, can compete on cost with traditional energy sources, such as power plants that run on coal or natural gas. But those conventional sources also are a big source of pollution and rely on fossil fuels. Paying a premium for new sources of clean energy does make sense in the long term.
The question is how much more.
Power Authority officials said they tried to make the Great Lakes project work. They looked at a smaller, pilot-sized project. They considered building the project in phases. Nothing could make the numbers come close to working.
“Economics are driving this one,” said Eugene L. Nicandri, a Power Authority trustee.
Supporters of the wind farm project said it could have helped make New York—and job-starved upstate in particular—a leader in the offshore wind energy market, with local companies developing the skills and expertise to make many of the 8,000-odd components that go into each turbine.
“NYPA focused on the cost, but not the benefits,” said Chris Wissermann, the managing director at Great Lakes Wind Energy, an Ohiobased company that made one of the five proposals to build the offshore wind farm.
“It’s a lost opportunity for New York,” said Wissermann, whose company had proposed a project of less than 100 megawatts. “These projects, at this point, are really closer to economic development projects than energy projects.”
Of course, we heard the same argument five years ago, when the state was looking at a$1.5 billion project to build a cutting-edge coal-fired power plant that would vastly reduce its harmful emissions at the Huntley Station conventional coal-burning plant in the Town of Tonawanda. The idea then was the project would make New York—and Western New York in particular—a leader in clean coal technology, potentially spawning a whole new industry here.
Then, as with the offshore wind farm today, the clean coal dreams came to naught because it came up short on the most crucial question of them all: power and jobs vs. price and the environment.
“The value of that estimated economic activity has to be weighed against the cost borne by customers,” NYPA’s Anderson said.
Power Authority trustees, wanting to put a positive spin on the demise of the Great Lakes venture, took pains to note that, as the upstate project dies, it is launching a new push for a big wind farm off the Long Island shore, where the demand for electricity is greater. Anderson said the subsidies for that project could be less because the market price for electricity is higher downstate.
But Brian P. Smith, the communications and program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment in Buffalo, said that downstate project will take years—maybe even a decade— to come together. By then, other states will have gained the first foothold in the offshore wind energy industry that he had hoped would get a start here.
“This does nothing to appease the supporters of a clean energy future in New York.” Smith said. “It’s a huge step backward for upstate and a tiny step forward downstate.”
Even then, you still have to wonder if the costs still won’t outweigh the benefits.
Monday, October 03, 2011
Now, you can sue Big Wind! Maybe
WTS.com has long recommended against suing the wind developers and town boards, urging instead civil disobedience. But times are changing, and the chances of a big lawsuit being successful are looking more promising, indeed.
One of our readers put us on to this article in today’s Wall Street Journal. This may be the route to take. A truly large lawsuit. It seems to us that with a high-powered law firm, and several million dollars invested in the lawsuit (invested by the law firm), there’s a better than even chance of winning against Big Wind and against town boards—like the Falmouth, Mass., town board.
The problem with lawsuits heretofore has been that people couldn’t afford them. According to this article, below, they’re now affordable—if you can persuade the law firm to seize the opportunity. Up till now, lawsuits have involved small-time attorneys on a shoestring budget. Big mistake! If you’re going to take the legal route, you’re going to need a big ass law firm with a budget in the several millions, at least. In part to hire expert witnesses, both to testify in person and to write the lengthy reports and rebuttals that will be required of them (which takes them hundreds of hours to write). The law firms will also want to subpoena all sorts of documents, including email, from the wind companies and town boards. This is time and money.
WTS.com can say this with assurance. Dr. Nina Pierpont, who is often asked to be an expert witness and yet routinely declines, would likely agree to be an expert witness in a big-ass suit—a suit that’s well funded and being handled by a major firm that’s prepared to “go the distance” with evidence, and whose attorneys have the training and brains to do a first-class job.
Think about it. If you need persuading, read this article recently posted on our site. Focus on the bald-faced lies by the wind industry. Does that make your blood boil? Especially if you’re one of the victims interviewed in the article? Read the rejoinder (Comment #1) by Chicago-based real estate appraiser, Mike McCann. Why couldn’t a serious law firm, with a well bankrolled lawsuit, prevail against this industry sleaze? Lying and deceit so fundamentally stupid, blatant, and frankly corny, one would expect it of an 8-year-old, not an adult, for God’s sake!
One of our readers put us on to this article in today’s Wall Street Journal. This may be the route to take. A truly large lawsuit. It seems to us that with a high-powered law firm, and several million dollars invested in the lawsuit (invested by the law firm), there’s a better than even chance of winning against Big Wind and against town boards—like the Falmouth, Mass., town board.
The problem with lawsuits heretofore has been that people couldn’t afford them. According to this article, below, they’re now affordable—if you can persuade the law firm to seize the opportunity. Up till now, lawsuits have involved small-time attorneys on a shoestring budget. Big mistake! If you’re going to take the legal route, you’re going to need a big ass law firm with a budget in the several millions, at least. In part to hire expert witnesses, both to testify in person and to write the lengthy reports and rebuttals that will be required of them (which takes them hundreds of hours to write). The law firms will also want to subpoena all sorts of documents, including email, from the wind companies and town boards. This is time and money.
WTS.com can say this with assurance. Dr. Nina Pierpont, who is often asked to be an expert witness and yet routinely declines, would likely agree to be an expert witness in a big-ass suit—a suit that’s well funded and being handled by a major firm that’s prepared to “go the distance” with evidence, and whose attorneys have the training and brains to do a first-class job.
Think about it. If you need persuading, read this article recently posted on our site. Focus on the bald-faced lies by the wind industry. Does that make your blood boil? Especially if you’re one of the victims interviewed in the article? Read the rejoinder (Comment #1) by Chicago-based real estate appraiser, Mike McCann. Why couldn’t a serious law firm, with a well bankrolled lawsuit, prevail against this industry sleaze? Lying and deceit so fundamentally stupid, blatant, and frankly corny, one would expect it of an 8-year-old, not an adult, for God’s sake!
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Hounsfield still hopes for Galloo Island Wind Farm
Local taxing jurisdictions haven’t yet given up hope that the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm will come to fruition.
“The Town Council that’s in office currently is 100 percent behind the windmill project,” Hounsfield Supervisor Timothy W. Scee Sr. said. “We’re still hoping for it and the potential revenue.”
Town residents and officials alike still support the 246-megawatt project, he said. A $54 million payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement was approved in 2010, which would have included about $8.2 million for the town.
“The community leaders have been talking to our state representatives, in hopes that we could persuade some of the officials on Galloo Island,” Mr. Scee said. “We’ve got our fingers crossed to hope they can see a way to provide the project with a” power purchase agreement.
Read the entire article
“The Town Council that’s in office currently is 100 percent behind the windmill project,” Hounsfield Supervisor Timothy W. Scee Sr. said. “We’re still hoping for it and the potential revenue.”
Town residents and officials alike still support the 246-megawatt project, he said. A $54 million payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement was approved in 2010, which would have included about $8.2 million for the town.
“The community leaders have been talking to our state representatives, in hopes that we could persuade some of the officials on Galloo Island,” Mr. Scee said. “We’ve got our fingers crossed to hope they can see a way to provide the project with a” power purchase agreement.
Read the entire article
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sheffield wind turbine spills gear oil
Workers Tuesday were to complete cleaning up 55 to 60 gallons of gear oil that spilled Saturday from a wind turbine generator high on a ridgeline in Sheffield.
The turbine is one of 16 recently installed by First Wind, a Boston company, which is constructing northern Vermont's first commercial wind farm. The turbines are being tested and have not begun generating power.
"Most of the oil spilled on the turbine itself and the gravel pad around it, but a small amount traveled 200 yards away," Chuck Schwer, head of the state's spill management program, said Tuesday.
He said none of the oil reached a water source.
John Lamontagne, a spokesman for First Wind, said no natural resource was affected by the leak.
"In areas where oil reached the soil, the soil has been removed and is being cleaned," he said and new grass planted.
The turbine generators sit atop 262-foot-tall towers. Each holds about 110 gallons of hydraulic and lubricating oils, according to a draft spill prevention plan the company filed in 2006, when it was seeking a permit from the Public Service Board.
Opponents of commercial wind projects on Vermont's ridgelines have warned in the past that wind development raises new pollution dangers on fragile mountaintops.
The leak was caused by a "mechanical issue involving an oil line in the generator," Lamontagne said.
He said the company was inspecting the remaining 15 turbines to be certain there are no other leaks. The Sheffield project is expected to begin generating power within the next six weeks.
The turbine is one of 16 recently installed by First Wind, a Boston company, which is constructing northern Vermont's first commercial wind farm. The turbines are being tested and have not begun generating power.
"Most of the oil spilled on the turbine itself and the gravel pad around it, but a small amount traveled 200 yards away," Chuck Schwer, head of the state's spill management program, said Tuesday.
He said none of the oil reached a water source.
John Lamontagne, a spokesman for First Wind, said no natural resource was affected by the leak.
"In areas where oil reached the soil, the soil has been removed and is being cleaned," he said and new grass planted.
The turbine generators sit atop 262-foot-tall towers. Each holds about 110 gallons of hydraulic and lubricating oils, according to a draft spill prevention plan the company filed in 2006, when it was seeking a permit from the Public Service Board.
Opponents of commercial wind projects on Vermont's ridgelines have warned in the past that wind development raises new pollution dangers on fragile mountaintops.
The leak was caused by a "mechanical issue involving an oil line in the generator," Lamontagne said.
He said the company was inspecting the remaining 15 turbines to be certain there are no other leaks. The Sheffield project is expected to begin generating power within the next six weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)