The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) has denied a permit application submitted by First Wind subsidiary Champlain Wind LLC for the Bowers Wind Project, a 69.1 MW wind energy development planned for Maine's Penobscot and Washington counties.
As currently proposed, the project would consist of 27 Siemens wind turbines with maximum height of 428 feet; new access and crane path roads; 34.5 kV above-ground collector lines; permanent meteorological towers; an operation and maintenance building; and a new substation to connect to an existing 115 kV transmission line.
The commission had raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the wind turbines' nighttime lighting, so First Wind began studying whether it could incorporate a radar-assisted warning system into the project’s design. Such a system, however, would first need to be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.
However, local environmental groups expressed opposition to the wind project, claiming it would have an adverse impact on the area’s landscape and wildlife, especially the lynx, birds and bats.
As a result, First Wind asked LURC to withdraw the company’s application for the site permit and said it would submit a revised project proposal with a new layout design. However, the commission denied that request, and instead rejected the permit application, First Wind spokesperson John Lamontagne tells NAW.
The company is still proceeding with the project and intends to submit a revised plan in the coming months. Lamontagne also notes that First Wind is looking to use more efficient turbines to reduce the project’s footprint.
“We have already analyzed the feedback that was raised during the review and are currently in the process of reconfiguring a new project that will be different than the one originally proposed,” Lamontagne says.
“This is not the first time we have made adjustments in response to community and regulatory feedback and then have continued on to build a successful project,” he continues. “Now that we have received official word from the commission, we plan to file a new proposal in the coming months that will better address stakeholder concerns while also bringing economic benefits to the surrounding community.”
Provided that the project gains all the necessary approvals, First Wind expects the project’s construction to begin next year.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Minnesota Taxpayers Stuck Footing The Bill For Wind They Can’t Use or Sell
Taxpayers in Minnesota ended up paying $70 million more than they needed to for electricity in 2011 because of “green” energy mandates, according to the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (MREA).
“Taxpayers already pay a high price to subsidize wind energy through billions in federal grants, loan guarantees and tax credits that prop up the ‘windustry,’” Tom Steward writes for the Minnesota State News.
“Now the bill for state renewable energy mandates is coming due with hundreds of thousands of Minnesota electric co-op and utility customers picking up the tab,” he adds.
A $70 million dollar tab, that is.
Related: Gov’t-Subsidized Wind Farms Told NOT to Produce Energy
“It’s an enormous subsidy. You have to add wind power, whether you need it or not,” said Mark Glaess, MREA executive director. “Right now we’re paying for wind we don’t need, we can’t use and can’t sell.”
So how did this happen?
Steward explains:
The Renewable Energy Standard (RES) passed by the 2007 Minnesota State Legislature directs electric utilities to ramp up their percentage of renewable energy sales to 25 percent by 2025. Put another way, one of every four kilowatt hours must come from renewable energy by 2025. Unlike many other states, Minnesota does not exempt co-ops and municipal utilities from complying with renewable energy standards. To meet the state’s escalating demands, rural electric co-ops and utilities locked in long-term “take or pay” contracts to purchase power from wind farms.
However, a drop in demand due to the lagging economy and competition from natural gas pushed the price of energy down significantly.
“The RES exists in a sort of price vacuum. No matter that coal-generated power costs considerably less than wind. Dozens of Minnesota co-ops are stuck with higher, pre-recession prices for surplus wind power which must be bought and distributed,” Steward writes.
“The difference between what the wind power costs and what it resells for now adds up to tens of millions of dollars a year statewide with rural residents caught in the middle,” he adds.
Which means Minnesota taxpayers are stuck paying for “green” energy regardless of whether they can sell it.
“It’s a well-intentioned law that did not contemplate the inexplicable law of unintended consequences because it never considered resource planning to meet energy load and demand. What happens when the load goes down? Our members still have to buy it,” Glaess said.
“And we’re going to have to increase rates to pay for our incumbent coal generation, which is getting smacked by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency),” he adds.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey is not particularly pleased with the situation:
Spare us, please, from “well-intentioned” laws. The legislature attempted to dictate market supply and demand, and it produced the failure that this kind of central planning always produces. As a result, Minnesotans have to pay energy costs above current market levels at a time when their disposable income has become more and more restricted, thanks to price increases in gasoline and food. It’s yet another demonstration of the folly of central planning.
Co-ops and utilities in Greater Minnesota say some customers already have a difficult enough time paying their utility bills without the mandate. Considering the fact that the MREA is only halfway through implementing the mandate, it’s probably going to a lot worse.
“What’s awful is the percentage of customers who are late in paying their electric bills,” said Glaess.
“The average percentage that poor people are spending on energy has increased by a great deal and then they’re throwing more of this on us? It’s regressive energy economics,” he adds.
“Taxpayers already pay a high price to subsidize wind energy through billions in federal grants, loan guarantees and tax credits that prop up the ‘windustry,’” Tom Steward writes for the Minnesota State News.
“Now the bill for state renewable energy mandates is coming due with hundreds of thousands of Minnesota electric co-op and utility customers picking up the tab,” he adds.
A $70 million dollar tab, that is.
Related: Gov’t-Subsidized Wind Farms Told NOT to Produce Energy
“It’s an enormous subsidy. You have to add wind power, whether you need it or not,” said Mark Glaess, MREA executive director. “Right now we’re paying for wind we don’t need, we can’t use and can’t sell.”
So how did this happen?
Steward explains:
The Renewable Energy Standard (RES) passed by the 2007 Minnesota State Legislature directs electric utilities to ramp up their percentage of renewable energy sales to 25 percent by 2025. Put another way, one of every four kilowatt hours must come from renewable energy by 2025. Unlike many other states, Minnesota does not exempt co-ops and municipal utilities from complying with renewable energy standards. To meet the state’s escalating demands, rural electric co-ops and utilities locked in long-term “take or pay” contracts to purchase power from wind farms.
However, a drop in demand due to the lagging economy and competition from natural gas pushed the price of energy down significantly.
“The RES exists in a sort of price vacuum. No matter that coal-generated power costs considerably less than wind. Dozens of Minnesota co-ops are stuck with higher, pre-recession prices for surplus wind power which must be bought and distributed,” Steward writes.
“The difference between what the wind power costs and what it resells for now adds up to tens of millions of dollars a year statewide with rural residents caught in the middle,” he adds.
Which means Minnesota taxpayers are stuck paying for “green” energy regardless of whether they can sell it.
“It’s a well-intentioned law that did not contemplate the inexplicable law of unintended consequences because it never considered resource planning to meet energy load and demand. What happens when the load goes down? Our members still have to buy it,” Glaess said.
“And we’re going to have to increase rates to pay for our incumbent coal generation, which is getting smacked by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency),” he adds.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey is not particularly pleased with the situation:
Spare us, please, from “well-intentioned” laws. The legislature attempted to dictate market supply and demand, and it produced the failure that this kind of central planning always produces. As a result, Minnesotans have to pay energy costs above current market levels at a time when their disposable income has become more and more restricted, thanks to price increases in gasoline and food. It’s yet another demonstration of the folly of central planning.
Co-ops and utilities in Greater Minnesota say some customers already have a difficult enough time paying their utility bills without the mandate. Considering the fact that the MREA is only halfway through implementing the mandate, it’s probably going to a lot worse.
“What’s awful is the percentage of customers who are late in paying their electric bills,” said Glaess.
“The average percentage that poor people are spending on energy has increased by a great deal and then they’re throwing more of this on us? It’s regressive energy economics,” he adds.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
State Moving Quickly Along Energy Highway
Just one week after a summit meeting among New York's leading energy luminaries about Gov. Andrew Cuomo's energy highway proposal, the state has issued a Request for Information (RFI), seeking ideas for potential projects from private developers, investor-owned utilities, the financial community, and others able and willing to construct a robust transmission infrastructure.
A conference for interested parties will be held on Thursday, April 19 from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. at the DoubleTree Hotel in Tarrytown. Advance registration is required as space is limited. Those planning to attend should e-mail info@nyenergyhighway.com.
The governor's task force will issue an Energy Highway Action Plan this summer, following its review of the RFI responses. The action plan, with the Task Force's recommendations, will be available to the public on the Energy Highway Web site.
The swiftness with which the administration is advancing the project underscores the significance that Gov. Cuomo has placed on it.
"Building a new energy highway for New York State will not only create thousands of jobs, but lay a new foundation for future economic growth," the governor said. "If we want to truly make New York State open for the businesses of tomorrow, we cannot rely on the power supply of yesterday."
A conference for interested parties will be held on Thursday, April 19 from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. at the DoubleTree Hotel in Tarrytown. Advance registration is required as space is limited. Those planning to attend should e-mail info@nyenergyhighway.com.
The governor's task force will issue an Energy Highway Action Plan this summer, following its review of the RFI responses. The action plan, with the Task Force's recommendations, will be available to the public on the Energy Highway Web site.
The swiftness with which the administration is advancing the project underscores the significance that Gov. Cuomo has placed on it.
"Building a new energy highway for New York State will not only create thousands of jobs, but lay a new foundation for future economic growth," the governor said. "If we want to truly make New York State open for the businesses of tomorrow, we cannot rely on the power supply of yesterday."
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Don’t waste money on wind turbines
I was literally blown away by The News editorial “Harness the wind.” Accepting wind energy’s inefficiencies and unreliability, yet endorsing it, makes no sense. Wind is not a good deal for pursuing alternative energy.
As a leading opponent to industrial wind turbines in Lake Erie, the issues were not that they were going to be sited too close to shore or an obstruction to fishermen. We understood the New York Power Authority plan and fishermen knew the environmental negatives. Global experience proves there are no environmental or economic benefits from industrial- scale wind energy. In addition, the facts do not support the wind industry’s claims for jobs per megawatt.
We opposed placing wind turbines in Lake Erie because they are an environmental nightmare. Birds, bats and even eagles struggling to make a comeback along Lake Erie will become casualties. Wind turbines cannot reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They must be backed up by power plants, which cannot efficiently cycle on and off at the whim of the wind.
There is no question that wind turbines have a huge impact on the aesthetics of the view. Wind turbines have an impact not only on those who live with the view but also those who will be impacted by the loss of income from people coming here to enjoy the unencumbered lake vistas and sunsets.
Wasting time, resources and money on wind turbines is not a boost for renewable energy. What is so renewable about wind turbines that require oil to make many of the component parts and tons of rare earth minerals for magnets? This just scratches the surface of the non-renewable wind turbines. Finally, the question is: Why add such an economic and environmental burden on New Yorkers for an energy source that cannot replace any conventional fossil fuel source, or reduce carbon dioxide?
Thomas Marks
Executive Director, Great Lakes Wind Truth; New York Director, Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council Derby
As a leading opponent to industrial wind turbines in Lake Erie, the issues were not that they were going to be sited too close to shore or an obstruction to fishermen. We understood the New York Power Authority plan and fishermen knew the environmental negatives. Global experience proves there are no environmental or economic benefits from industrial- scale wind energy. In addition, the facts do not support the wind industry’s claims for jobs per megawatt.
We opposed placing wind turbines in Lake Erie because they are an environmental nightmare. Birds, bats and even eagles struggling to make a comeback along Lake Erie will become casualties. Wind turbines cannot reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They must be backed up by power plants, which cannot efficiently cycle on and off at the whim of the wind.
There is no question that wind turbines have a huge impact on the aesthetics of the view. Wind turbines have an impact not only on those who live with the view but also those who will be impacted by the loss of income from people coming here to enjoy the unencumbered lake vistas and sunsets.
Wasting time, resources and money on wind turbines is not a boost for renewable energy. What is so renewable about wind turbines that require oil to make many of the component parts and tons of rare earth minerals for magnets? This just scratches the surface of the non-renewable wind turbines. Finally, the question is: Why add such an economic and environmental burden on New Yorkers for an energy source that cannot replace any conventional fossil fuel source, or reduce carbon dioxide?
Thomas Marks
Executive Director, Great Lakes Wind Truth; New York Director, Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council Derby
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Maine regulators OK wind deal against advice of staff
State regulators on Tuesday approved a multi-million-dollar deal that could fund construction of hundreds of wind turbines in Maine and the Northeast, despite a staff recommendation to reject the proposal.
All three members of the Public Utilities Commission voted for a complex series of transactions among First Wind, Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service and their parent, Nova Scotia-based Emera, Inc., and Ontario-based Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp.
The commissioners said the economic benefit of such investment was substantial, that any potential harm from the deal could be mitigated by PUC-imposed conditions and that the deal helped meet the ambitious goals of Maine's 2008 Wind Power Act. Maine currently has 205 commercial wind turbines that can produce 400 megawatts of electricity. Tuesday's deal could pave the way for construction of turbines producing an additional 1,200 megawatts.
"I'm not sure it would be sound policy for the commission to turn down a several hundred million dollar investment on the ground," said Commission Chairman Thomas Welch.
"The magnitude of this investment in Maine is seldom seen and even less so in renewable, clean development," said Commissioner David Littell.
"The Emera transactions meet a number of public policy goals which encourage the development of investment in wind energy projects," said Commissioner Vendean Vafiades.
The deal originally proposed that First Wind, Emera Inc. and Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp. would jointly build and operate wind energy projects in Maine and elsewhere in the Northeast. After a failed bid to go public in 2010, which left First Wind cash-hungry, the deal is a way for the Boston-based company to continue building wind towers across Maine and the region, as well as a way for Emera and Algonquin to reach new energy consumers in the U.S.
Legal filings estimate the worth of the deal at the "high end" as $880 million.
Algonquin subsequently pulled out of the portion of the deal to invest in First Wind's holdings, but remained a partner with Emera in related plans to expand into the Northeast energy markets.
Tuesday's decision runs against the January recommendation of PUC staff that commissioners reject the deal because "the risk of harm to ratepayers exceeds the benefits."
In a draft decision, staff wrote that the deal posed unacceptable potential for hikes in electricity prices "even if conditions intended to mitigate the risk of harm to ratepayers were imposed."
Several other parties also objected to the deal in filings with the commission over the past year.
Small electricity generators were joined in their objections by industrial energy users such as Verso, Huhtamaki and Madison Paper and the Maine Public Advocate, which represents the interests of utility customers. Some of them, like PUC staff, argued that electricity rates would rise; others said the plan would violate the state's Restructuring Act of 2000, which prohibits utilities from owning both transmission and generation on the premise that allowing them to do so would be anti-competitive and lead to higher electricity prices.
Anthony Buxton, attorney for the industrial energy users who protested the deal, said Tuesday that the commissioners had hurt Maine's energy consumers.
"The irony is that at a period when the competitive market is working very well, we have taken the risk of impairing the competitive market by allowing the vertical integration of utilities," said Buxton. "We did away with that in 2000 and got a very competitive market – and now it will be at risk."
"I agree that there are risks associated with the transactions," said Vafiades, "but have determined the benefits are significant."
Those risks, commissioners said, could be dealt with by imposing a number of conditions on the deal.
"There are a lot of them, probably 30, maybe more," said Welch, following the meeting.
One set of conditions, said Welch, would ensure that the companies did not favor their newly affiliated partners over lower-priced transmitters and distributors of power, thus costing customers more. Other conditions would limit employees of the affiliated companies from moving back and forth between companies, carrying information that they would normally be prevented from sharing.
Then, said Welch, "you want to have a healthy utility so they can do the things you rely on them to do." So the PUC will impose conditions "that insulate both Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service from any financial problems that Emera might have as a result of this transaction."
Emera spokeswoman Sasha Irving said Tuesday, "We're very pleased the three commissioners agreed unanimously that this is a positive transaction for the state of Maine and we look forward to receiving the final written order and we'll review it at that time."
First Wind's CEO Paul Gaynor thanked the commissioners for their approval. "The partnership will drive further growth of well-sited and well-run wind energy projects in the Northeast," Gaynor said.
All three members of the Public Utilities Commission voted for a complex series of transactions among First Wind, Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service and their parent, Nova Scotia-based Emera, Inc., and Ontario-based Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp.
The commissioners said the economic benefit of such investment was substantial, that any potential harm from the deal could be mitigated by PUC-imposed conditions and that the deal helped meet the ambitious goals of Maine's 2008 Wind Power Act. Maine currently has 205 commercial wind turbines that can produce 400 megawatts of electricity. Tuesday's deal could pave the way for construction of turbines producing an additional 1,200 megawatts.
"I'm not sure it would be sound policy for the commission to turn down a several hundred million dollar investment on the ground," said Commission Chairman Thomas Welch.
"The magnitude of this investment in Maine is seldom seen and even less so in renewable, clean development," said Commissioner David Littell.
"The Emera transactions meet a number of public policy goals which encourage the development of investment in wind energy projects," said Commissioner Vendean Vafiades.
The deal originally proposed that First Wind, Emera Inc. and Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp. would jointly build and operate wind energy projects in Maine and elsewhere in the Northeast. After a failed bid to go public in 2010, which left First Wind cash-hungry, the deal is a way for the Boston-based company to continue building wind towers across Maine and the region, as well as a way for Emera and Algonquin to reach new energy consumers in the U.S.
Legal filings estimate the worth of the deal at the "high end" as $880 million.
Algonquin subsequently pulled out of the portion of the deal to invest in First Wind's holdings, but remained a partner with Emera in related plans to expand into the Northeast energy markets.
Tuesday's decision runs against the January recommendation of PUC staff that commissioners reject the deal because "the risk of harm to ratepayers exceeds the benefits."
In a draft decision, staff wrote that the deal posed unacceptable potential for hikes in electricity prices "even if conditions intended to mitigate the risk of harm to ratepayers were imposed."
Several other parties also objected to the deal in filings with the commission over the past year.
Small electricity generators were joined in their objections by industrial energy users such as Verso, Huhtamaki and Madison Paper and the Maine Public Advocate, which represents the interests of utility customers. Some of them, like PUC staff, argued that electricity rates would rise; others said the plan would violate the state's Restructuring Act of 2000, which prohibits utilities from owning both transmission and generation on the premise that allowing them to do so would be anti-competitive and lead to higher electricity prices.
Anthony Buxton, attorney for the industrial energy users who protested the deal, said Tuesday that the commissioners had hurt Maine's energy consumers.
"The irony is that at a period when the competitive market is working very well, we have taken the risk of impairing the competitive market by allowing the vertical integration of utilities," said Buxton. "We did away with that in 2000 and got a very competitive market – and now it will be at risk."
"I agree that there are risks associated with the transactions," said Vafiades, "but have determined the benefits are significant."
Those risks, commissioners said, could be dealt with by imposing a number of conditions on the deal.
"There are a lot of them, probably 30, maybe more," said Welch, following the meeting.
One set of conditions, said Welch, would ensure that the companies did not favor their newly affiliated partners over lower-priced transmitters and distributors of power, thus costing customers more. Other conditions would limit employees of the affiliated companies from moving back and forth between companies, carrying information that they would normally be prevented from sharing.
Then, said Welch, "you want to have a healthy utility so they can do the things you rely on them to do." So the PUC will impose conditions "that insulate both Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service from any financial problems that Emera might have as a result of this transaction."
Emera spokeswoman Sasha Irving said Tuesday, "We're very pleased the three commissioners agreed unanimously that this is a positive transaction for the state of Maine and we look forward to receiving the final written order and we'll review it at that time."
First Wind's CEO Paul Gaynor thanked the commissioners for their approval. "The partnership will drive further growth of well-sited and well-run wind energy projects in the Northeast," Gaynor said.
Monday, April 09, 2012
First Wind's request to pull Bowers application denied
Regulators have blocked First Wind's efforts to pull its application for a 27-turbine wind farm on Bowers Mountain near Lincoln. The Massachusetts-based developer asked to withdraw the application last November when it seemed regulators would deny its permit.
The Land Use Regulation Commission on Friday voted not to allow First Wind to pull its application for the wind farm on the Penobscot-Washington county line, according to a press release from the Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, a group opposed to the project. Last fall, LURC asked staff to prepare an order denying the application because of its impact on scenic views, leading First Wind to request the withdrawal in order to address questions. Now, LURC also asked its staff to finish writing the order and will take a final vote on May 4.
LURC reviewed First Wind's request to withdraw in December and instead gave the company three months to address the project's impact on scenic views, with a March 9 deadline for submitting an outline of a reconfigured project. At that time, however, First Wind did not submit an outline and again asked to withdraw the application.
The Land Use Regulation Commission on Friday voted not to allow First Wind to pull its application for the wind farm on the Penobscot-Washington county line, according to a press release from the Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, a group opposed to the project. Last fall, LURC asked staff to prepare an order denying the application because of its impact on scenic views, leading First Wind to request the withdrawal in order to address questions. Now, LURC also asked its staff to finish writing the order and will take a final vote on May 4.
LURC reviewed First Wind's request to withdraw in December and instead gave the company three months to address the project's impact on scenic views, with a March 9 deadline for submitting an outline of a reconfigured project. At that time, however, First Wind did not submit an outline and again asked to withdraw the application.
Saturday, April 07, 2012
FIRST WIND’S BOWERS MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT TO BE DENIED
April 6, 2012
Lincoln, Maine
The Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) voted today not to allow First Wind Holdings, LLC of Boston to withdraw its application for the Bowers Mountain Wind Project. The project would have erected 27 forty-three story tall turbines on prominent ridgelines in Carroll and Kossuth, adjacent to the headwaters of the Downeast Lakes. This area has been a magnet for sporting tourism for more than a century. It is home to the Village of Grand Lake Stream, the state’s premier salmon hatchery, and is the birthplace of the square-end canoe known as a Grand Laker. LURC also directed its staff to complete the permit denial document as had been decided at their October 2011 meeting. The final denial vote will take place at 9:30 a.m. on May 4, 2012 at the Washington County Community College in Calais.
The Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed (PPDLW) has led the broad-based opposition to the project. The Maine Professional Guides Association, the Maine Sporting Camp Owners Association, and the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association also opposed this project.
“I could not be happier.” says PPDLW member Gary Campbell. “It’s been a long arduous battle, but the natural beauty of the Downeast Lakes Region is well worth fighting for. Today’s vote shows that Maine is not willing to sacrifice this magnificent natural resource for a few megawatts of expensive and intermittent wind energy.”
After a long and well documented process that included a site visit, lakes tour, three days of formal public hearings, and three deliberation sessions, a straw poll taken in October showed the Commissioners in unanimous agreement that the project would have an unreasonably adverse scenic impact on a number of significant paddling and fishing lakes, and consequently the numerous sporting camps, lodges, professional guides, and ancillary support businesses that are the lifeblood of the area. The Commission instructed LURC staff to prepare a denial document.
Facing an imminent denial, the applicant, through lead counsel Juliet Browne of Verrill Dana, filed a request several weeks later that they be allowed to withdraw the project application. After much deliberation, the LURC board tabled the request to withdraw, but did agree to give the applicant some additional time to reconfigure the project. Interveners in the case argued that the applicant was simply venue shopping. In the end, the LURC Commissioners awarded the applicant an additional 90 days to reconfigure the project in hope of mitigating the project’s scenic impact, while expressing serious reservations that it could be mitigated at all. The applicant assured the Commission that 90 days would be enough time and that they would bring back a formal outline of a reconfigured project by March 9th.
Twenty minutes prior to expiration of the deadline, the applicant submitted a letter stating that “[First Wind] is not able to present a particular reconfigured project to the Commission at this time.” The letter then repeated the earlier request that they be allowed to withdraw the Bowers application. At today’s meeting LURC voted to officially deny First Wind’s request to withdraw and directed its staff to resume preparation of the application denial document. The denial is now scheduled to become official by Commission vote on May 4, 2012.
The Scenic Downeast Lakes Region encompasses more than two dozen lakes including Pleasant, Shaw, Scraggly, Junior, West Grand, Pocumcus, Bottle and Keg Lakes. The turbines of the proposed Bowers Mountain Wind Project would have been visible from 11 lakes that are officially recognized as Scenic Resources of Statewide Significance, two of which boast Maine’s highest designation as “Outstanding for Scenic Quality”
(Pleasant Lake and West Grand Lake).
PPDLW’s President, Kevin Gurall explains, “The Scenic Downeast Lakes Region has a long, rich history of providing a wilderness experience to visitors and sportsmen from all over the world. Celebrities from Ted Williams and Jimmy Doolittle, to Presidents and foreign heads of state, as well as multiple generations of families have been coming here for well over 100 years to enjoy this network of clean, largely undeveloped lakes. The guiding tradition on this watershed can be traced back to the 1850’s. We have 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation professional guides who stitch together a living providing sportsmen with an outdoor experience that leaves them with memories for a lifetime. Never mind that this type of experience is becoming rare in Maine, there aren’t many places like this left in the entire continental U.S… and that’s why it’s so important that we protect it so future generations will have the opportunity to make their own memories of the wilderness character and scenic magnificence that is the Downeast Lakes Watershed. He added, “Those memories need not be ruined by an industrialized landscape… there have to be better solutions to our energy issues than defacing our treasured lake shore landscapes and our mountains. Tourism is our largest industry in Maine and employs more than 140,000 people. That’s much too important to risk for the mere trickle of high priced energy that’s generated by these wind projects. “
“Although PPDLW sounded the initial alarm, this was a grassroots effort by more than 300 citizens. People from the immediate area, from all corners of Maine and beyond worked together for nearly three years to defeat this project. It’s a true David vs. Goliath story. Fortunately, we had common sense, truth, and the state’s scenic impact regulations on our side.”
Lincoln, Maine
The Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) voted today not to allow First Wind Holdings, LLC of Boston to withdraw its application for the Bowers Mountain Wind Project. The project would have erected 27 forty-three story tall turbines on prominent ridgelines in Carroll and Kossuth, adjacent to the headwaters of the Downeast Lakes. This area has been a magnet for sporting tourism for more than a century. It is home to the Village of Grand Lake Stream, the state’s premier salmon hatchery, and is the birthplace of the square-end canoe known as a Grand Laker. LURC also directed its staff to complete the permit denial document as had been decided at their October 2011 meeting. The final denial vote will take place at 9:30 a.m. on May 4, 2012 at the Washington County Community College in Calais.
The Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed (PPDLW) has led the broad-based opposition to the project. The Maine Professional Guides Association, the Maine Sporting Camp Owners Association, and the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association also opposed this project.
“I could not be happier.” says PPDLW member Gary Campbell. “It’s been a long arduous battle, but the natural beauty of the Downeast Lakes Region is well worth fighting for. Today’s vote shows that Maine is not willing to sacrifice this magnificent natural resource for a few megawatts of expensive and intermittent wind energy.”
After a long and well documented process that included a site visit, lakes tour, three days of formal public hearings, and three deliberation sessions, a straw poll taken in October showed the Commissioners in unanimous agreement that the project would have an unreasonably adverse scenic impact on a number of significant paddling and fishing lakes, and consequently the numerous sporting camps, lodges, professional guides, and ancillary support businesses that are the lifeblood of the area. The Commission instructed LURC staff to prepare a denial document.
Facing an imminent denial, the applicant, through lead counsel Juliet Browne of Verrill Dana, filed a request several weeks later that they be allowed to withdraw the project application. After much deliberation, the LURC board tabled the request to withdraw, but did agree to give the applicant some additional time to reconfigure the project. Interveners in the case argued that the applicant was simply venue shopping. In the end, the LURC Commissioners awarded the applicant an additional 90 days to reconfigure the project in hope of mitigating the project’s scenic impact, while expressing serious reservations that it could be mitigated at all. The applicant assured the Commission that 90 days would be enough time and that they would bring back a formal outline of a reconfigured project by March 9th.
Twenty minutes prior to expiration of the deadline, the applicant submitted a letter stating that “[First Wind] is not able to present a particular reconfigured project to the Commission at this time.” The letter then repeated the earlier request that they be allowed to withdraw the Bowers application. At today’s meeting LURC voted to officially deny First Wind’s request to withdraw and directed its staff to resume preparation of the application denial document. The denial is now scheduled to become official by Commission vote on May 4, 2012.
The Scenic Downeast Lakes Region encompasses more than two dozen lakes including Pleasant, Shaw, Scraggly, Junior, West Grand, Pocumcus, Bottle and Keg Lakes. The turbines of the proposed Bowers Mountain Wind Project would have been visible from 11 lakes that are officially recognized as Scenic Resources of Statewide Significance, two of which boast Maine’s highest designation as “Outstanding for Scenic Quality”
(Pleasant Lake and West Grand Lake).
PPDLW’s President, Kevin Gurall explains, “The Scenic Downeast Lakes Region has a long, rich history of providing a wilderness experience to visitors and sportsmen from all over the world. Celebrities from Ted Williams and Jimmy Doolittle, to Presidents and foreign heads of state, as well as multiple generations of families have been coming here for well over 100 years to enjoy this network of clean, largely undeveloped lakes. The guiding tradition on this watershed can be traced back to the 1850’s. We have 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation professional guides who stitch together a living providing sportsmen with an outdoor experience that leaves them with memories for a lifetime. Never mind that this type of experience is becoming rare in Maine, there aren’t many places like this left in the entire continental U.S… and that’s why it’s so important that we protect it so future generations will have the opportunity to make their own memories of the wilderness character and scenic magnificence that is the Downeast Lakes Watershed. He added, “Those memories need not be ruined by an industrialized landscape… there have to be better solutions to our energy issues than defacing our treasured lake shore landscapes and our mountains. Tourism is our largest industry in Maine and employs more than 140,000 people. That’s much too important to risk for the mere trickle of high priced energy that’s generated by these wind projects. “
“Although PPDLW sounded the initial alarm, this was a grassroots effort by more than 300 citizens. People from the immediate area, from all corners of Maine and beyond worked together for nearly three years to defeat this project. It’s a true David vs. Goliath story. Fortunately, we had common sense, truth, and the state’s scenic impact regulations on our side.”
Friday, April 06, 2012
LURC decision leaves First Wind facing first defeat in Maine
The state’s largest wind developer could face defeat for the first time in Maine with LURC’s decision Friday to deny a request to withdraw a proposed wind project on Bowers Mountain.
The Land Use Regulation Commission voted 5-0 at the Waterfront Event Center to reject First Wind subsidiary Champlain Wind’s request to withdraw its proposal to build a 27-turbine wind farm in a rural, sparsely populated area east of Springfield on the Penobscot and Washington county line. Commissioner Robert Dunphy abstained.
The vote leaves the commission free to act on an October staff recommendation to reject the project at a special meeting or at its next scheduled meeting on May 4, LURC staff director Samantha Horn Olsen said. She doubted that Champlain Wind could change the project enough by then to satisfy LURC’s requirements.
First Wind officials said they plan to submit a scaled-down proposal to build on Bowers Mountain later this year, but that didn’t stop project opponents from calling Friday’s decision a significant advance.
The opponents, who had objected to what they believed would be the Bowers Mountain project’s adverse visual impact on at least eight lakes and ponds within eight miles of the site — some considered “outstanding” natural resources by the state — were elated with LURC’s action.
“This shows the world that First Wind is not unstoppable,” said David Corrigan, a registered Maine Master Guide from Concord Township who opposed the project. “This shows that if they come forward with a bad project they can be denied. As far as I know, that has never happened before to this company.”
“I think the commission has done extremely well in its deliberations,” said Gordon Mott, a Lakeville resident who opposed the project and lives on Almanac Mountain within view of the proposed site. “The application is by no means dead. The applicant can resubmit it, so victory is the wrong word for this.”
“I think it is a significant advance in getting good terms for future developments both there [at Bowers] and in the state in general,” Mott added.
Attorney Juliet T. Browne, who represents Champlain Wind, said the company had taken several steps to answer LURC’s concerns. The company reduced the original number of site wind turbines and the project’s footprint. That increased the project’s cost, but Champlain remains committed to its agreement with host towns as part of a sincere effort to meet LURC’s vague visual impact standards, she said.
The project originally consisted of 27 turbines and carried a $130 million price tag, First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said in a telephone interview after the meeting.
LURC’s process is lacking in significant ways, Browne said.
“The reality is that there hasn’t been a mechanism in this process for applicants to react to feedback” from commissioners, Browne said during Friday’s hearing. Allowing Champlain to withdraw the application, she said, would send an important message to developers that LURC would work with applicants in trying economic times.
It would create “an opportunity for applicants to come back with a project that meets your standard,” Browne said.
Kevin Gurall, president of the group Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, argued that LURC had already given Champlain ample time, including a 90-day extension, to revamp its plans.
Granting more extensions would effectively approve “procedural gamesmanship” that would “work to undermine the public process,” Gural said.
Commissioner Sally Farrand rejected the notion that First Wind or Champlain were anything other than “a straight broker,” but agreed with the project’s opponents.
“For us to allow this project to go on and on and on would make the citizens in effect partners in the business,” Farrand said.
Commissioner Edward Laverty agreed that the state’s visual impact standards needed work, but said they have existed for years and that Champlain had been lax in its follow-up of commission recommendations. Commission Chairwoman Gwen Hilton expressed satisfaction with opponents’ arguments that the project would mar the lakes region.
“I don’t see the value of extending the process and I think the applicant still has the opportunity to make substantial changes to the project and come back,” Commissioner Toby Hammond said.
Champlain will rework the proposal and submit it to LURC for review later this year, Lamontagne said.
“Our view is that the reconfigured proposal would have enough substantial revisions that it would address commission concerns enough for them to look favorably upon it,” he said.
Brad Blake, spokesman for the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power, congratulated LURC for its decision.
“We hope that this establishes a precedent,” Blake said, “that both LURC and Maine Department of Environmental Protection will start taking a more critical examination of all the issues pertaining to the cumulative effects of wind power site development throughout Maine.”
The Land Use Regulation Commission voted 5-0 at the Waterfront Event Center to reject First Wind subsidiary Champlain Wind’s request to withdraw its proposal to build a 27-turbine wind farm in a rural, sparsely populated area east of Springfield on the Penobscot and Washington county line. Commissioner Robert Dunphy abstained.
The vote leaves the commission free to act on an October staff recommendation to reject the project at a special meeting or at its next scheduled meeting on May 4, LURC staff director Samantha Horn Olsen said. She doubted that Champlain Wind could change the project enough by then to satisfy LURC’s requirements.
First Wind officials said they plan to submit a scaled-down proposal to build on Bowers Mountain later this year, but that didn’t stop project opponents from calling Friday’s decision a significant advance.
The opponents, who had objected to what they believed would be the Bowers Mountain project’s adverse visual impact on at least eight lakes and ponds within eight miles of the site — some considered “outstanding” natural resources by the state — were elated with LURC’s action.
“This shows the world that First Wind is not unstoppable,” said David Corrigan, a registered Maine Master Guide from Concord Township who opposed the project. “This shows that if they come forward with a bad project they can be denied. As far as I know, that has never happened before to this company.”
“I think the commission has done extremely well in its deliberations,” said Gordon Mott, a Lakeville resident who opposed the project and lives on Almanac Mountain within view of the proposed site. “The application is by no means dead. The applicant can resubmit it, so victory is the wrong word for this.”
“I think it is a significant advance in getting good terms for future developments both there [at Bowers] and in the state in general,” Mott added.
Attorney Juliet T. Browne, who represents Champlain Wind, said the company had taken several steps to answer LURC’s concerns. The company reduced the original number of site wind turbines and the project’s footprint. That increased the project’s cost, but Champlain remains committed to its agreement with host towns as part of a sincere effort to meet LURC’s vague visual impact standards, she said.
The project originally consisted of 27 turbines and carried a $130 million price tag, First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said in a telephone interview after the meeting.
LURC’s process is lacking in significant ways, Browne said.
“The reality is that there hasn’t been a mechanism in this process for applicants to react to feedback” from commissioners, Browne said during Friday’s hearing. Allowing Champlain to withdraw the application, she said, would send an important message to developers that LURC would work with applicants in trying economic times.
It would create “an opportunity for applicants to come back with a project that meets your standard,” Browne said.
Kevin Gurall, president of the group Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, argued that LURC had already given Champlain ample time, including a 90-day extension, to revamp its plans.
Granting more extensions would effectively approve “procedural gamesmanship” that would “work to undermine the public process,” Gural said.
Commissioner Sally Farrand rejected the notion that First Wind or Champlain were anything other than “a straight broker,” but agreed with the project’s opponents.
“For us to allow this project to go on and on and on would make the citizens in effect partners in the business,” Farrand said.
Commissioner Edward Laverty agreed that the state’s visual impact standards needed work, but said they have existed for years and that Champlain had been lax in its follow-up of commission recommendations. Commission Chairwoman Gwen Hilton expressed satisfaction with opponents’ arguments that the project would mar the lakes region.
“I don’t see the value of extending the process and I think the applicant still has the opportunity to make substantial changes to the project and come back,” Commissioner Toby Hammond said.
Champlain will rework the proposal and submit it to LURC for review later this year, Lamontagne said.
“Our view is that the reconfigured proposal would have enough substantial revisions that it would address commission concerns enough for them to look favorably upon it,” he said.
Brad Blake, spokesman for the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power, congratulated LURC for its decision.
“We hope that this establishes a precedent,” Blake said, “that both LURC and Maine Department of Environmental Protection will start taking a more critical examination of all the issues pertaining to the cumulative effects of wind power site development throughout Maine.”
THE DARK SIDE OF “GREEN”: WIND TURBINE ACCIDENTS, INJURIES AND FATALITIES RAISE SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS
Today marks the “International Protest Day Against Wind Power” with 765 websites participating.
A dark side of the wind industry that many media outlets have failed to report on is the thousands of documented cases of serious accidents. These include numerous documented cases of turbines falling over, blades flying off, injuries to workers and the public, and at least 99 reported fatality accidents.
Of the deaths, 67 were wind industry and direct supporters workers or small turbine operators and 32 were public fatalities.
How many tragedies have occurred worldwide is a well-kept secret within the wind industry. In the United Kingdom alone, however, Renewables UK, an industry trade association, has admitted to 1,500 wind turbine accidents/incidents in the UK alone during the past five years, the London Telegraph reported http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8948363/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-UK-wind-farms.html. Those included 300 injuries and four deaths—in just one small part of the world.
A partial database of accidents , injuries and deaths through December 2011 has been compiled at the Caithness Wind Farm Information Forum: http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm
According to the Caithness database, which estimates it represents only 9% of actual accidents (based on the RenewablesUK figures), an average of 128 accidents per year have occurred from 2007-2011, up from just 6 a year back in 1992-1996 due to the growing number of wind turbine installations.
Among the most grisly tragedies was that of John Donnelly, a worker killed in Oregon in 1989 when a lanyard that as supposed to prevent falls for turbine workers became entangled, dragging him into the spinning machinery. According to Paul Gipe, an advocate of wind power who authored an article on fatalities, the medical examiner described Donnelly’s demise as death by “multiple amputations”, witnessed by a horrified coworker.
Another Oregon worker, Chadd Mitchell, young father of two, was killed when a wind turbine tower he was in collapsed to the ground in Sherman County after the turbine’s rotor went into “overspeed,” the Oregonian reported on February 6, 2010. Siemens Power was fined for safety violations, and the family filed a lawsuit.
Other deaths have included electrocutions, falls, crush injuries, construction accidents, and a Minnesota man who was nearly cut in half by a chunk of ice knocked off a turbine tower in 1994. Three suicides have also been linked to turbines, including a worker who hanged himself, a parachutist, and a farmer who killed himself after neighbors protested a turbine he put on his property.
Caithness also has documented 221 separate incidences of blade failure, with pieces of blades documented to have flown over 1,300 meters—or 4,266 feet (4/5 of a mile). Blade pieces have gone through roofs and walls of nearby buildings.
At least 121 structural failures have been recorded too, including an entire wind turbine that crashed to the ground. The website www.windaction.org documents many of these. Turbines have crashed to the ground in school yards, near homes, roads and walking paths where only by sheer luck was no one underneath when the multi-ton structures collapsed. In the Palm Springs area, a turbine spinning out of control forced closure of a major highway. There are also concerns about many turbines still standing –where failures such as cracked foundations and sinkage have been observed.
Wind turbine fire, Australia, WindWatchAround 168 wind turbine fires have been documented. Some sparked brush fires and left some fire departments helpless to watch as oil in turbine components burned hundreds of feet in the air—out of reach of hoses—whirling burning debris across the landscape.
There are also many instances of ice throws hurling chunks of ice off blades—94 times in 2005 alone. Another 93 transport accidents involving turbines have been reported, including one turbine section that rammed through a house and another that knocked a utility pole through a restaurant.
Disturbingly, EnergyBiz Magazine reported in its March/April 2011 edition that “More troubling for wind fleet owners and operators is that many turbines are coming off warranty. The end of last year marked the first time in U.S. history that more wind turbines were operating out of warranty than were covered, according to Wind Systems magazine, while many more are approaching the end of their warranties. Hidden costs of maintenance have climbed sharply, though some promising technologies may help reduce those costs, Energy Biz noted.
Still the issues raise troubling questions: who will be responsible for catastrophic failures when warranties have run out? Are local boards making decisions regarding turbine placement sufficiently educated on the risks?
Farm surrounded-IllinoisHow far away from a wind turbine is a safe setback distance? Locally, some proposed industrial wind projects would place turbines within a half mile of homes, on up to three sides of the dwellings, in Ocotillo. In McCain Valley, Iberdrola's Tule Wind proposes setbacks from roads of only 1.1 times the height of the turbine - or around 455 feet maximum.
In Kansas, Rose Bacon, a member of the Governor’s Energy Task Force, became so concerned about lack of teeth in regulations and vulnerability of inexperienced local officials in small towns facing proposals from international wind companies that she likened the scenario to the “wildcatter days in the oil business,” the McPherson Sentinel reported in 2005.
Below are some specific examples of serious incidents documented through the above websites, where many more incidents can also be found.
A wind turbine crashed to the ground at a wind farm near The Dalles, Oregon in August 2007, killing one worker and injuring another, Associated Press reported.
•A blade from a wind turbine at Lister Hospital in the United Kingdom flew off and hit a car just one month after becoming fully operational in September 2011, the Comet reported.
•California Highway Patrol shut down Highway 58 for several hours to protect motorists from a runaway wind turbine in the Tehachapi area. “The runaway wind turbine, when it deteriorates or explodes, can send scrap metal and steel up to a mile away,” CHP Officer Ed Smith said, the Tehachapi News reported.
•A wind turbine plunged nearly 200 feet to the ground near I-10 in North Palm Springs after going into “overspeed”, KPSP news reported on May 1, 2009.
•An Iberdrola wind turbine caught fire on May 14, 2009 at Locust Ridge wind farm in Pennsylvania; the fire was blamed on a gear box problem.
•A 187-ton wind turbine crashed to the ground at the Fenner wind farm in New York after breaking off at its base. Enel shut down the entire 20-turbine wind farm in Madison, County New York in June 2010 for at least six months, the Oneida Daily Dispatch and other newspapers reported.
•Large chunks of seven turbine blades broke off at the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm in Pennsylvania, with pieces flying over 500 feet, the Patriot News reported in May 2007. Spanish wind-energy company Gamesa blamed insufficient glue for the failures.
•In Dolfor, United Kingdom, a turbine exploded and fell to the ground near walking tracks, leading the Shropshire Star to conclude In January 2012, “Turbines should be nowhere near public footpaths.”
•At Perkins High School in Ohio, blades on a month-old turbine broke apart while spinning, sending fiberglass pieces up to 40 yards (120 feet) away in February 2009. In December 2010 a blade again detached; fortunately school was not in session.
•A wind turbine crashed down near Western Reserve High School in Berlin Center in April 2011 in Ohio, WKBN news reported.
•At Fakenham High School in the United Kingdom, students witnessed a 40-foot wind turbine crash onto the school’s playing field and crush a contractor’s van in December 2009, Windaction.org reported.
•Redriven Power recalled blades after turbines therw blades onto an Ohio high school and an organic fig farm in northern California, Eastern AgriNews reported in May 2009.
•A General Electric turbine collapsed at an Altona, New York wind farm, the Press-Republican reported, after neighbors heard explosions and the turbine caught fire.
•In Norway, a blade from a Suez Energy North American V-90 wind turbine was hurled about 1,600 feet, landing near a home’s back door, the Journal Pioneer reported in December 2008.
•A turbine blade crashed through the roof of a neighbor’s home in Wallaceburg, Canada, the Chatham Daily News reported in February 2009.
•In November 2009, the Press & Journal reported that a wind turbine collapsed at Rasssay Primary School, forcing children to be sent home after it landed in their playground.
•A damaged transformer leaked 491 gallons of mineral oil in 2007 at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm’s substation in New York; in 2009 a transformer at the same site was destroyed by fire, the Watertown Daily News reported.
•A turbine near a highway twice lost blades, the Huron Daily Tribune reported in December 2010.
•Offshore wind farms in the North Sea are in danger of tumbling down, Wind Energy Update reported on March 18, 2011, noting that dissolved grout had shifted turbines within their foundations at around 600 of Europe’s 948 offshore turbines.
•Renewables UK has warned that hundreds of offshore wind turbines could be suffering from a design that makes them sink into the sea, the Times Online reported on April 13, 2010.
•Two men were injured while constructing a wind turbine tower in Rochester, Minnesota, the Post-Bulletin reported on January 14, 2011.
•Proven Energy told owners of over 600 smaller turbines to shut them down due to fears of catstrophic mechanical failure, the Press and Journal reported in September 2011; the manufacturer suspended sales.
•Five U.S. wind projects owned by Australia’s Infigen Energy have been engaged in legal actions with turbine manufacturer Gamesa over repair costs and lost production due to various warranty-related disputes, Recharge News reported in December 2011. The largest of those cases involves the Kumeyaay Wind Farm in Campo, where all 75 turbine blades had to be replaced due to storm damage at a cost of over $34.5 million. Kumeyaay has “vigorously” contested a Gemsa claim and was pursuing warranty-related claims of $10 million against Gamesa, the story added. [Note: This project is listed by Pattern Energy as a “success” story in its application to the California Public Utility Commission for the Ocotillo Wind Express project)
•Texas state representative Susan King had a wind turbine on her ranch that caught fire and burned two acres. She described it “throwing fire balls on my property”; KTXS found that despite pledges by Next Era Energy t o support volunteer fire departments, no funds had been provided in the past four years.
•In Hokkaido, Japan, firefighters found hoses were too short to extinguish a fire in a 66-meter-high wind turbine, which took four hours to burn itself out.
•Huge blades from three turbines in Huddersfield, England “were blown across a busy road and could have hurt wildlife or caused damage to property as well as endangering life,” the London Telegraph reported in January 2012. Gale force winds were blamed.
•In Western Illinois in 2008, a 6.5 ton blade sailed about 150 feet away, the Associated Press reported.
•One month earlier, a 330 foot turbine “burst into flame in Ayrshire” during a 165-mph storm on the Scottish border and crashed to the ground near a road, the Telegraph reported.
Oil stains, Campo-Andy Degroot•A Sheffield, Vermont wind turbine spilled 55-60 gallons of gear oil, spraying it out 200 yards; each turbine generator holds about 110 gallons of hydraulic and lubricating oils, the Burlington Free Press reported.
•An Abilene, Texas wind turbine erupted into flames and spread to grass around the tower, KTXS News reported on August 26, 2011. The turbine was owned by NextEra Energy.
•Iberdrola, the Spanish wind energy producer, blamed falling Suzlon Energy turbine blades on a one-tie accident, the Bloomberg News in North Dakota reported in May 18, 2011, suspending operations at its wind farm in North Rugby, North Dakota. The same model, however, suffered cracked blades starting in 2007, prompting a $100 million global retrofit.
•Three blades came off a turbine at a residence and farm in Forked River, New Jersey, causing the state to shut down its entire onshore wind turbine program in March 25, 2011, the NJ Spotlight reported.
•A lightning fire at a wind turbine in Peterson, Iowa in August 2010 was the “third or fourth” turbine fire that the Peterson Fire Department had put out in a dozen years, the Sioux Cit Journal reported.
•In White Deer Texas, News Channel 10 reported oil seeping down the sides of multiple turbines.
•In Iga Mie Prefecture, Japan, the Asahi Shimbun reported in January 2008, “malfunctions and accidents involving wind turbines have occurred repeatedly across the country, leading to suspended services and even the scrapping of one facility…Slipshod surveys of wind, flawed designs or sheer incompetence have dealt a blow to the reputatin of wind turbines…”
•Hundreds of motorists near Sunderland in the UK witnessed a turbine fire that caused rotor blades to break off; two more turbines by Vestas later fell over in high winds in Scotland, the JournalLive reported in 2008.
•Clipper Windpower had to spend $300 million to fix faulty blades after cracks appeared at multiple facilities, Enviornmental Finance reported in May 2009.
•A $6 million wind turbine caught fire at the Cathedral Rocks Wind Farm, starting blazes on the ground from falling embers the Adelaide Now newspaper covering Australia/New Zealand reported in February 2009.
•In Florida, the Desert Valley Star reported in January 2009 that FPL/NER operates 60 wind turbines—and reportedly 40% were “malfunctioning, in disrepair, or need maintenance.”
•Windtech International reported that a survey of 75 wind farm operators in the U.S. in 2008 found that 60% of turbines may be behind in critical maintenance due largely to a shortage of qualified turbine technicians.
While there are certainly many wind turbines that have never malfunctioned, the dangers cited above are real and have led many municipalities to adopt setback requirements from homes, roads, campgrounds, walkways, playgrounds and any inhabited buildings.
The wind industry has resisted setbacks, however. In Wind Energy Comes of Age, published in 1995, wind energy advocate Paul Gipe contends that setbacks of 500-1000 feet from residences are “more than adequate to protect public safety” and notes that in Europe, windmills have often been installed in places frequented by the public. Gipe insists that despite many accidents, the odds of being injured by a wind turbine remain less than that chance of being struck by lightning.
Setback distances vary widely. Some California communities use a multiple of size, such as three times the height of the turbine. Other areas have larger setback requirements. For instance, in Victoria Precinct, Australia, the government has adopted a 2 meter (1.24 mile) setback requirement for wind turbines to protect residents from risks of mechanical collapses.
In Brown County, Wisconsin, the Board of Health in January passed a resolution seeking emergency financial aid for residents near wind turbines who suffered serious health impacts including some families who abandoned their homes due to health concerns.
The Board called for adoption of the Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines which would require setbacks of at least 2,640 feet from property lines, with further restrictions on shadow flicker, noise and other factors. Developers would also be required to submit a report with blade and debris throw calculations to protect public safety.
A dark side of the wind industry that many media outlets have failed to report on is the thousands of documented cases of serious accidents. These include numerous documented cases of turbines falling over, blades flying off, injuries to workers and the public, and at least 99 reported fatality accidents.
Of the deaths, 67 were wind industry and direct supporters workers or small turbine operators and 32 were public fatalities.
How many tragedies have occurred worldwide is a well-kept secret within the wind industry. In the United Kingdom alone, however, Renewables UK, an industry trade association, has admitted to 1,500 wind turbine accidents/incidents in the UK alone during the past five years, the London Telegraph reported http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8948363/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-UK-wind-farms.html. Those included 300 injuries and four deaths—in just one small part of the world.
A partial database of accidents , injuries and deaths through December 2011 has been compiled at the Caithness Wind Farm Information Forum: http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm
According to the Caithness database, which estimates it represents only 9% of actual accidents (based on the RenewablesUK figures), an average of 128 accidents per year have occurred from 2007-2011, up from just 6 a year back in 1992-1996 due to the growing number of wind turbine installations.
Among the most grisly tragedies was that of John Donnelly, a worker killed in Oregon in 1989 when a lanyard that as supposed to prevent falls for turbine workers became entangled, dragging him into the spinning machinery. According to Paul Gipe, an advocate of wind power who authored an article on fatalities, the medical examiner described Donnelly’s demise as death by “multiple amputations”, witnessed by a horrified coworker.
Another Oregon worker, Chadd Mitchell, young father of two, was killed when a wind turbine tower he was in collapsed to the ground in Sherman County after the turbine’s rotor went into “overspeed,” the Oregonian reported on February 6, 2010. Siemens Power was fined for safety violations, and the family filed a lawsuit.
Other deaths have included electrocutions, falls, crush injuries, construction accidents, and a Minnesota man who was nearly cut in half by a chunk of ice knocked off a turbine tower in 1994. Three suicides have also been linked to turbines, including a worker who hanged himself, a parachutist, and a farmer who killed himself after neighbors protested a turbine he put on his property.
Caithness also has documented 221 separate incidences of blade failure, with pieces of blades documented to have flown over 1,300 meters—or 4,266 feet (4/5 of a mile). Blade pieces have gone through roofs and walls of nearby buildings.
At least 121 structural failures have been recorded too, including an entire wind turbine that crashed to the ground. The website www.windaction.org documents many of these. Turbines have crashed to the ground in school yards, near homes, roads and walking paths where only by sheer luck was no one underneath when the multi-ton structures collapsed. In the Palm Springs area, a turbine spinning out of control forced closure of a major highway. There are also concerns about many turbines still standing –where failures such as cracked foundations and sinkage have been observed.
Wind turbine fire, Australia, WindWatchAround 168 wind turbine fires have been documented. Some sparked brush fires and left some fire departments helpless to watch as oil in turbine components burned hundreds of feet in the air—out of reach of hoses—whirling burning debris across the landscape.
There are also many instances of ice throws hurling chunks of ice off blades—94 times in 2005 alone. Another 93 transport accidents involving turbines have been reported, including one turbine section that rammed through a house and another that knocked a utility pole through a restaurant.
Disturbingly, EnergyBiz Magazine reported in its March/April 2011 edition that “More troubling for wind fleet owners and operators is that many turbines are coming off warranty. The end of last year marked the first time in U.S. history that more wind turbines were operating out of warranty than were covered, according to Wind Systems magazine, while many more are approaching the end of their warranties. Hidden costs of maintenance have climbed sharply, though some promising technologies may help reduce those costs, Energy Biz noted.
Still the issues raise troubling questions: who will be responsible for catastrophic failures when warranties have run out? Are local boards making decisions regarding turbine placement sufficiently educated on the risks?
Farm surrounded-IllinoisHow far away from a wind turbine is a safe setback distance? Locally, some proposed industrial wind projects would place turbines within a half mile of homes, on up to three sides of the dwellings, in Ocotillo. In McCain Valley, Iberdrola's Tule Wind proposes setbacks from roads of only 1.1 times the height of the turbine - or around 455 feet maximum.
In Kansas, Rose Bacon, a member of the Governor’s Energy Task Force, became so concerned about lack of teeth in regulations and vulnerability of inexperienced local officials in small towns facing proposals from international wind companies that she likened the scenario to the “wildcatter days in the oil business,” the McPherson Sentinel reported in 2005.
Below are some specific examples of serious incidents documented through the above websites, where many more incidents can also be found.
A wind turbine crashed to the ground at a wind farm near The Dalles, Oregon in August 2007, killing one worker and injuring another, Associated Press reported.
•A blade from a wind turbine at Lister Hospital in the United Kingdom flew off and hit a car just one month after becoming fully operational in September 2011, the Comet reported.
•California Highway Patrol shut down Highway 58 for several hours to protect motorists from a runaway wind turbine in the Tehachapi area. “The runaway wind turbine, when it deteriorates or explodes, can send scrap metal and steel up to a mile away,” CHP Officer Ed Smith said, the Tehachapi News reported.
•A wind turbine plunged nearly 200 feet to the ground near I-10 in North Palm Springs after going into “overspeed”, KPSP news reported on May 1, 2009.
•An Iberdrola wind turbine caught fire on May 14, 2009 at Locust Ridge wind farm in Pennsylvania; the fire was blamed on a gear box problem.
•A 187-ton wind turbine crashed to the ground at the Fenner wind farm in New York after breaking off at its base. Enel shut down the entire 20-turbine wind farm in Madison, County New York in June 2010 for at least six months, the Oneida Daily Dispatch and other newspapers reported.
•Large chunks of seven turbine blades broke off at the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm in Pennsylvania, with pieces flying over 500 feet, the Patriot News reported in May 2007. Spanish wind-energy company Gamesa blamed insufficient glue for the failures.
•In Dolfor, United Kingdom, a turbine exploded and fell to the ground near walking tracks, leading the Shropshire Star to conclude In January 2012, “Turbines should be nowhere near public footpaths.”
•At Perkins High School in Ohio, blades on a month-old turbine broke apart while spinning, sending fiberglass pieces up to 40 yards (120 feet) away in February 2009. In December 2010 a blade again detached; fortunately school was not in session.
•A wind turbine crashed down near Western Reserve High School in Berlin Center in April 2011 in Ohio, WKBN news reported.
•At Fakenham High School in the United Kingdom, students witnessed a 40-foot wind turbine crash onto the school’s playing field and crush a contractor’s van in December 2009, Windaction.org reported.
•Redriven Power recalled blades after turbines therw blades onto an Ohio high school and an organic fig farm in northern California, Eastern AgriNews reported in May 2009.
•A General Electric turbine collapsed at an Altona, New York wind farm, the Press-Republican reported, after neighbors heard explosions and the turbine caught fire.
•In Norway, a blade from a Suez Energy North American V-90 wind turbine was hurled about 1,600 feet, landing near a home’s back door, the Journal Pioneer reported in December 2008.
•A turbine blade crashed through the roof of a neighbor’s home in Wallaceburg, Canada, the Chatham Daily News reported in February 2009.
•In November 2009, the Press & Journal reported that a wind turbine collapsed at Rasssay Primary School, forcing children to be sent home after it landed in their playground.
•A damaged transformer leaked 491 gallons of mineral oil in 2007 at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm’s substation in New York; in 2009 a transformer at the same site was destroyed by fire, the Watertown Daily News reported.
•A turbine near a highway twice lost blades, the Huron Daily Tribune reported in December 2010.
•Offshore wind farms in the North Sea are in danger of tumbling down, Wind Energy Update reported on March 18, 2011, noting that dissolved grout had shifted turbines within their foundations at around 600 of Europe’s 948 offshore turbines.
•Renewables UK has warned that hundreds of offshore wind turbines could be suffering from a design that makes them sink into the sea, the Times Online reported on April 13, 2010.
•Two men were injured while constructing a wind turbine tower in Rochester, Minnesota, the Post-Bulletin reported on January 14, 2011.
•Proven Energy told owners of over 600 smaller turbines to shut them down due to fears of catstrophic mechanical failure, the Press and Journal reported in September 2011; the manufacturer suspended sales.
•Five U.S. wind projects owned by Australia’s Infigen Energy have been engaged in legal actions with turbine manufacturer Gamesa over repair costs and lost production due to various warranty-related disputes, Recharge News reported in December 2011. The largest of those cases involves the Kumeyaay Wind Farm in Campo, where all 75 turbine blades had to be replaced due to storm damage at a cost of over $34.5 million. Kumeyaay has “vigorously” contested a Gemsa claim and was pursuing warranty-related claims of $10 million against Gamesa, the story added. [Note: This project is listed by Pattern Energy as a “success” story in its application to the California Public Utility Commission for the Ocotillo Wind Express project)
•Texas state representative Susan King had a wind turbine on her ranch that caught fire and burned two acres. She described it “throwing fire balls on my property”; KTXS found that despite pledges by Next Era Energy t o support volunteer fire departments, no funds had been provided in the past four years.
•In Hokkaido, Japan, firefighters found hoses were too short to extinguish a fire in a 66-meter-high wind turbine, which took four hours to burn itself out.
•Huge blades from three turbines in Huddersfield, England “were blown across a busy road and could have hurt wildlife or caused damage to property as well as endangering life,” the London Telegraph reported in January 2012. Gale force winds were blamed.
•In Western Illinois in 2008, a 6.5 ton blade sailed about 150 feet away, the Associated Press reported.
•One month earlier, a 330 foot turbine “burst into flame in Ayrshire” during a 165-mph storm on the Scottish border and crashed to the ground near a road, the Telegraph reported.
Oil stains, Campo-Andy Degroot•A Sheffield, Vermont wind turbine spilled 55-60 gallons of gear oil, spraying it out 200 yards; each turbine generator holds about 110 gallons of hydraulic and lubricating oils, the Burlington Free Press reported.
•An Abilene, Texas wind turbine erupted into flames and spread to grass around the tower, KTXS News reported on August 26, 2011. The turbine was owned by NextEra Energy.
•Iberdrola, the Spanish wind energy producer, blamed falling Suzlon Energy turbine blades on a one-tie accident, the Bloomberg News in North Dakota reported in May 18, 2011, suspending operations at its wind farm in North Rugby, North Dakota. The same model, however, suffered cracked blades starting in 2007, prompting a $100 million global retrofit.
•Three blades came off a turbine at a residence and farm in Forked River, New Jersey, causing the state to shut down its entire onshore wind turbine program in March 25, 2011, the NJ Spotlight reported.
•A lightning fire at a wind turbine in Peterson, Iowa in August 2010 was the “third or fourth” turbine fire that the Peterson Fire Department had put out in a dozen years, the Sioux Cit Journal reported.
•In White Deer Texas, News Channel 10 reported oil seeping down the sides of multiple turbines.
•In Iga Mie Prefecture, Japan, the Asahi Shimbun reported in January 2008, “malfunctions and accidents involving wind turbines have occurred repeatedly across the country, leading to suspended services and even the scrapping of one facility…Slipshod surveys of wind, flawed designs or sheer incompetence have dealt a blow to the reputatin of wind turbines…”
•Hundreds of motorists near Sunderland in the UK witnessed a turbine fire that caused rotor blades to break off; two more turbines by Vestas later fell over in high winds in Scotland, the JournalLive reported in 2008.
•Clipper Windpower had to spend $300 million to fix faulty blades after cracks appeared at multiple facilities, Enviornmental Finance reported in May 2009.
•A $6 million wind turbine caught fire at the Cathedral Rocks Wind Farm, starting blazes on the ground from falling embers the Adelaide Now newspaper covering Australia/New Zealand reported in February 2009.
•In Florida, the Desert Valley Star reported in January 2009 that FPL/NER operates 60 wind turbines—and reportedly 40% were “malfunctioning, in disrepair, or need maintenance.”
•Windtech International reported that a survey of 75 wind farm operators in the U.S. in 2008 found that 60% of turbines may be behind in critical maintenance due largely to a shortage of qualified turbine technicians.
While there are certainly many wind turbines that have never malfunctioned, the dangers cited above are real and have led many municipalities to adopt setback requirements from homes, roads, campgrounds, walkways, playgrounds and any inhabited buildings.
The wind industry has resisted setbacks, however. In Wind Energy Comes of Age, published in 1995, wind energy advocate Paul Gipe contends that setbacks of 500-1000 feet from residences are “more than adequate to protect public safety” and notes that in Europe, windmills have often been installed in places frequented by the public. Gipe insists that despite many accidents, the odds of being injured by a wind turbine remain less than that chance of being struck by lightning.
Setback distances vary widely. Some California communities use a multiple of size, such as three times the height of the turbine. Other areas have larger setback requirements. For instance, in Victoria Precinct, Australia, the government has adopted a 2 meter (1.24 mile) setback requirement for wind turbines to protect residents from risks of mechanical collapses.
In Brown County, Wisconsin, the Board of Health in January passed a resolution seeking emergency financial aid for residents near wind turbines who suffered serious health impacts including some families who abandoned their homes due to health concerns.
The Board called for adoption of the Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines which would require setbacks of at least 2,640 feet from property lines, with further restrictions on shadow flicker, noise and other factors. Developers would also be required to submit a report with blade and debris throw calculations to protect public safety.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
New York and Department of Energy reach wind deal
New York State has reached a deal with the Obama administration that will speed up the development of off-shore wind projects on the Great Lakes.
Friday, the Department of Energy announced a Memorandum of Understanding with New York and four other states that would basically streamline the regulatory reviews of any proposed off-shore proposals.
Last year, New York State passed the Article X law, giving itself power to make the final decision on wind projects instead of local governments. The Department of Energy says this deal is all about the President's commitment to renewable energy.
"We're also very strongly committed to make sure all regulatory steps are properly performed and all kinds of public comment and all of those protections are fully observed. We're just trying to be efficient in the way we do that," said Daniel Poneman of the U.S. Department of Energy.
And while there aren't any wind projects on the Great Lakes yet , there is a proposal in the works for one on Lake Erie.
Friday, the Department of Energy announced a Memorandum of Understanding with New York and four other states that would basically streamline the regulatory reviews of any proposed off-shore proposals.
Last year, New York State passed the Article X law, giving itself power to make the final decision on wind projects instead of local governments. The Department of Energy says this deal is all about the President's commitment to renewable energy.
"We're also very strongly committed to make sure all regulatory steps are properly performed and all kinds of public comment and all of those protections are fully observed. We're just trying to be efficient in the way we do that," said Daniel Poneman of the U.S. Department of Energy.
And while there aren't any wind projects on the Great Lakes yet , there is a proposal in the works for one on Lake Erie.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Great Lakes Offshore Wind Farms Agreement Reached Between 5 States And Federal Government
The Obama administration and five states have reached an agreement to speed up approval of offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, which have been delayed by cost concerns and public opposition.
Under the deal, which administration officials disclosed to The Associated Press ahead of an announcement scheduled for Friday, state and federal agencies will craft a blueprint for speeding regulatory review of proposed wind farms without sacrificing environmental and safety standards. The Great Lakes have no offshore wind turbines, although a Cleveland partnership announced plans last year for a demonstration project that would place five to seven turbines in Lake Erie about 7 miles north of the city, generating 20-30 megawatts of electricity.
Offshore wind projects have been proposed elsewhere in the region, including Michigan and New York, stirring fierce debate.
Critics say they would ruin spectacular vistas, lower shoreline property values and harm birds and fish. New York Power Authority trustees last September abandoned a plan for private companies to place up to 200 turbines, each about 450 feet high, in lakes Erie and Ontario. The Canadian province of Ontario in February 2011 ordered a moratorium on wind energy development in its Great Lakes waters to allow more study of environmental issues.
Supporters describe the lakes' winds as a vast, untapped source of clean energy and economic growth.
"This agreement among federal agencies and Great Lakes states is a smart, practical way to encourage the development of homegrown energy that will create jobs, power homes and reduce pollution in American communities," said Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Administration officials said the region's offshore winds could generate more than 700 gigawatts – one-fifth of all potential wind energy nationwide. Each gigawatt of offshore wind could power 300,000 homes while reducing demand for electricity from coal, which emits greenhouse gases and other pollutants, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.
Public resistance and logistical problems would pose formidable obstacles to approaching those levels. Yet harnessing only a small portion of the Great Lakes' offshore wind could generate thousands of jobs, officials said.
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania signed the agreement. The other three states with Great Lakes coastlines – Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin – declined invitations but could join the partnership later, an administration official said.
The agreement is modeled after another between the federal government and Eastern states designed to support wind energy production in the Atlantic and encourage investment in new offshore wind technology.
"This agreement will enable states to work together to ensure that any proposed offshore wind projects are reviewed in a consistent manner, and that the various state and federal agencies involved collaborate and coordinate their reviews," Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said developing offshore wind energy would "promote economic development and create jobs, while reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources."
Among 10 federal agencies taking part are the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Developers would need state and federal approval to establish offshore wind farms. State governments own the Great Lakes bottomlands within U.S. territory, while a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required to erect the turbines and all 10 federal agencies would review the plans.
Under the deal, which administration officials disclosed to The Associated Press ahead of an announcement scheduled for Friday, state and federal agencies will craft a blueprint for speeding regulatory review of proposed wind farms without sacrificing environmental and safety standards. The Great Lakes have no offshore wind turbines, although a Cleveland partnership announced plans last year for a demonstration project that would place five to seven turbines in Lake Erie about 7 miles north of the city, generating 20-30 megawatts of electricity.
Offshore wind projects have been proposed elsewhere in the region, including Michigan and New York, stirring fierce debate.
Critics say they would ruin spectacular vistas, lower shoreline property values and harm birds and fish. New York Power Authority trustees last September abandoned a plan for private companies to place up to 200 turbines, each about 450 feet high, in lakes Erie and Ontario. The Canadian province of Ontario in February 2011 ordered a moratorium on wind energy development in its Great Lakes waters to allow more study of environmental issues.
Supporters describe the lakes' winds as a vast, untapped source of clean energy and economic growth.
"This agreement among federal agencies and Great Lakes states is a smart, practical way to encourage the development of homegrown energy that will create jobs, power homes and reduce pollution in American communities," said Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Administration officials said the region's offshore winds could generate more than 700 gigawatts – one-fifth of all potential wind energy nationwide. Each gigawatt of offshore wind could power 300,000 homes while reducing demand for electricity from coal, which emits greenhouse gases and other pollutants, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.
Public resistance and logistical problems would pose formidable obstacles to approaching those levels. Yet harnessing only a small portion of the Great Lakes' offshore wind could generate thousands of jobs, officials said.
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania signed the agreement. The other three states with Great Lakes coastlines – Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin – declined invitations but could join the partnership later, an administration official said.
The agreement is modeled after another between the federal government and Eastern states designed to support wind energy production in the Atlantic and encourage investment in new offshore wind technology.
"This agreement will enable states to work together to ensure that any proposed offshore wind projects are reviewed in a consistent manner, and that the various state and federal agencies involved collaborate and coordinate their reviews," Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said developing offshore wind energy would "promote economic development and create jobs, while reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources."
Among 10 federal agencies taking part are the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Developers would need state and federal approval to establish offshore wind farms. State governments own the Great Lakes bottomlands within U.S. territory, while a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required to erect the turbines and all 10 federal agencies would review the plans.
APOV: PC power not sustainable
Tom Rivers’ recent report on the costs associated with installing home-use-size wind turbines was quite enlightening (“Partridge adds third Batavia windmill,” story, March 13)
As cited in the article, “State and federal incentives are covering almost the entire $75,000 cost for the new windmill.” It was also reported that “grants” paid half of the cost for the first two ($55,000 each). That adds up to $130,000 that the rest of us paid to cover the cost of one residence’s electricity — and they will still have to rely on our reliable sources when the wind isn’t blowing.
While such set-ups are certainly nice for those on the receiving end, let’s take a deeper look to see just how “sustainable” such a solution really is.
Reportedly, the cost of installing the unit would be covered in 12 years — information that presumably comes from the company selling the units. The article made no mention of maintenance costs, which are typically ongoing with these things due to all the moving parts. The average life of the units was not mentioned either — which, if the same as their larger counterparts, is only 13-15 years.
Since Americans’ average annual income was recently reported to be $32,400 per year (while those living off government entitlements is higher, at $32,700), the $130,000 that we (all ratepayers and taxpayers) paid to cover the cost for one residence to get the “politically-correct (PC) electricity du jour (of the day)” would be over four years salary for today’s average wage earner. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government)
Let’s say 100 lucky residences across New York state are able to get the same deal, and have one to three home-use-size turbines installed. Those 100 residences would get their “PC electricity du jour” at a cost to the rest of us of $7,500,000 to $22,500,000. Yes — it is our ratepayer and taxpayer dollars that cover the cost of these things.
New York state was already ranked as one of the worst states in the country to do business for many reasons, including our already-high electricity rates. (www.northnet.org/brvmug/NYSDirtyDozen.pdf )
A recent report by The Manhattan Institute cited that states (like New York) that have mandated the use of “renewables” (i.e., wind) have seen their electricity rates soar even higher — increasing from 30 percent to 50 percent. (www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/eper_10.pdf)
So while a few folks may be the lucky recipients of “PC electricity du juor” installed at their homes, the rest of us will assume these costs through increased utility bills, the economy worsening as businesses and industry avoid or leave New York state, and “average” wage earners who are already struggling to make ends meet see their situation become even more dire. And this is what they call “sustainable”?
Just as it is for the federal incentives offered to those who buy the “Volt,” the fact is, only those who are financially well off enough can afford to buy one — be it a Volt, or a turbine — while the rest of us pay for it. Will it really be any surprise when today’s “average” wage earners simply decide it isn’t worth the struggle anymore, and join the ranks of those living on the government dole?
Sadly, I see this as the ulterior motive of an administration focused on achieving total government control. Their means to this end is already working extremely well, and unfortunately, is being helped along by well-intended people who fail to consider long-term ramifications as they exploit these kinds of “grants” and incentivized programs. At some point, we — or our children — are going to have pay the fiddler.
I don’t know anyone who is opposed to “green” energy per se, as long as those who want it, pay for it themselves. Entitlement debt is destroying our great nation. These kinds of taxpayer- and ratepayer-funded give-away programs in the name of being “green” are not at all “sustainable” — especially if we want our children and grandchildren to live free and prosper.
As cited in the article, “State and federal incentives are covering almost the entire $75,000 cost for the new windmill.” It was also reported that “grants” paid half of the cost for the first two ($55,000 each). That adds up to $130,000 that the rest of us paid to cover the cost of one residence’s electricity — and they will still have to rely on our reliable sources when the wind isn’t blowing.
While such set-ups are certainly nice for those on the receiving end, let’s take a deeper look to see just how “sustainable” such a solution really is.
Reportedly, the cost of installing the unit would be covered in 12 years — information that presumably comes from the company selling the units. The article made no mention of maintenance costs, which are typically ongoing with these things due to all the moving parts. The average life of the units was not mentioned either — which, if the same as their larger counterparts, is only 13-15 years.
Since Americans’ average annual income was recently reported to be $32,400 per year (while those living off government entitlements is higher, at $32,700), the $130,000 that we (all ratepayers and taxpayers) paid to cover the cost for one residence to get the “politically-correct (PC) electricity du jour (of the day)” would be over four years salary for today’s average wage earner. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government)
Let’s say 100 lucky residences across New York state are able to get the same deal, and have one to three home-use-size turbines installed. Those 100 residences would get their “PC electricity du jour” at a cost to the rest of us of $7,500,000 to $22,500,000. Yes — it is our ratepayer and taxpayer dollars that cover the cost of these things.
New York state was already ranked as one of the worst states in the country to do business for many reasons, including our already-high electricity rates. (www.northnet.org/brvmug/NYSDirtyDozen.pdf )
A recent report by The Manhattan Institute cited that states (like New York) that have mandated the use of “renewables” (i.e., wind) have seen their electricity rates soar even higher — increasing from 30 percent to 50 percent. (www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/eper_10.pdf)
So while a few folks may be the lucky recipients of “PC electricity du juor” installed at their homes, the rest of us will assume these costs through increased utility bills, the economy worsening as businesses and industry avoid or leave New York state, and “average” wage earners who are already struggling to make ends meet see their situation become even more dire. And this is what they call “sustainable”?
Just as it is for the federal incentives offered to those who buy the “Volt,” the fact is, only those who are financially well off enough can afford to buy one — be it a Volt, or a turbine — while the rest of us pay for it. Will it really be any surprise when today’s “average” wage earners simply decide it isn’t worth the struggle anymore, and join the ranks of those living on the government dole?
Sadly, I see this as the ulterior motive of an administration focused on achieving total government control. Their means to this end is already working extremely well, and unfortunately, is being helped along by well-intended people who fail to consider long-term ramifications as they exploit these kinds of “grants” and incentivized programs. At some point, we — or our children — are going to have pay the fiddler.
I don’t know anyone who is opposed to “green” energy per se, as long as those who want it, pay for it themselves. Entitlement debt is destroying our great nation. These kinds of taxpayer- and ratepayer-funded give-away programs in the name of being “green” are not at all “sustainable” — especially if we want our children and grandchildren to live free and prosper.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Prattsburgh against Ecogen appeal, seeks to negotiate
Prattsburgh, NY — The Prattsburgh Town Board on Tuesday counter appealed an attempt by a wind farm developer to overturn an order signed by a state Supreme Court justice.
Ecogen officials did not give a reason for appealing the order, which they originally submitted.
The order – approved by Justice John Ark in February – included a road use agreement written by Ecogen. It also gave the developer 168 days to show “substantial construction.”
Councilman Chuck Shick said the town is challenging Ecogen’s appeal in an attempt to get the developer to negotiate. Ecogen has declined to meet with town officials, including Shick, who is the town’s appointed liaison with the town's lawyer for the lawsuit.
“That seemed like the only way we have to get them to talk to us,” Shick said. “They sure haven’t responded to any of our other offers to sit down and talk.”
Shick said board members had discussed challenging the judge’s order but agreed to wait until he and Supervisor Lenny McConnell could meet with their attorney, Ed Hourihan.
After Ecogen’s unexpected action Monday, Hourihan advised a counter appeal, Shick said.
The appeals mark another chapter in a long dispute, which erupted about four years ago when residents in the nearby town of Cohocton complained the newly operational First Wind wind farm was noisy.
At the time, the Prattsburgh Town Board was in negotiations with Ecogen, and was divided on the developer’s proposed setbacks. The board considered a moratorium on wind farms to investigate the reports of noise, but withdrew its plans when the developer notified the town the temporary ban would be seen as a hostile move.
• APPEAL, Pg. 2
Ecogen held a public meeting to explain to residents what measures it would put in place to reduce any noise and maintained it was ready to begin construction.
However, other issues arose, including a dispute over a road use agreement and the incentives Ecogen was prepared to offer the town.
Opponents of the project were elected the following November, giving them a clear majority during the following term.
Within days of the election, Ecogen threatened to sue the town if the issues were not settled in December, before those favoring the project stepped down.
A settlement, including a road use agreement written by Ecogen, was approved by the outgoing board, but rescinded by the new board – thus s parking a year-long lawsuit before Ark.
Ark’s April 2011 ruling included a call for both sides to agree on the road use agreement and gave Ecogen 168 days to show “substantial construction.” He signed the order last month. Ecogen has yet to begin construction and has refused to discuss the road use agreement.
Currently, Town Board is united in the need to discuss any settlement with Ecogen. McConnell maintains the terms of the order – in particular, the lack of incentives – are simply up for negotiations.
Others on the board say the project should meet setback requirements enacted under the town’s industrial wind laws.
At a special meeting two weeks ago, the board offered to meet with Ecogen in open session to discuss their differences. Instead, the wind developer appealed Ark’s order.
“We can’t get them to the table,” Shick said. “They’re ignoring us, like they always have. To me (the counter appeal) means ‘We’re not going to roll over. We won’t have you bullying us.’”
Ecogen has a standard policy of declining to discuss litigation in public.
Ecogen officials did not give a reason for appealing the order, which they originally submitted.
The order – approved by Justice John Ark in February – included a road use agreement written by Ecogen. It also gave the developer 168 days to show “substantial construction.”
Councilman Chuck Shick said the town is challenging Ecogen’s appeal in an attempt to get the developer to negotiate. Ecogen has declined to meet with town officials, including Shick, who is the town’s appointed liaison with the town's lawyer for the lawsuit.
“That seemed like the only way we have to get them to talk to us,” Shick said. “They sure haven’t responded to any of our other offers to sit down and talk.”
Shick said board members had discussed challenging the judge’s order but agreed to wait until he and Supervisor Lenny McConnell could meet with their attorney, Ed Hourihan.
After Ecogen’s unexpected action Monday, Hourihan advised a counter appeal, Shick said.
The appeals mark another chapter in a long dispute, which erupted about four years ago when residents in the nearby town of Cohocton complained the newly operational First Wind wind farm was noisy.
At the time, the Prattsburgh Town Board was in negotiations with Ecogen, and was divided on the developer’s proposed setbacks. The board considered a moratorium on wind farms to investigate the reports of noise, but withdrew its plans when the developer notified the town the temporary ban would be seen as a hostile move.
• APPEAL, Pg. 2
Ecogen held a public meeting to explain to residents what measures it would put in place to reduce any noise and maintained it was ready to begin construction.
However, other issues arose, including a dispute over a road use agreement and the incentives Ecogen was prepared to offer the town.
Opponents of the project were elected the following November, giving them a clear majority during the following term.
Within days of the election, Ecogen threatened to sue the town if the issues were not settled in December, before those favoring the project stepped down.
A settlement, including a road use agreement written by Ecogen, was approved by the outgoing board, but rescinded by the new board – thus s parking a year-long lawsuit before Ark.
Ark’s April 2011 ruling included a call for both sides to agree on the road use agreement and gave Ecogen 168 days to show “substantial construction.” He signed the order last month. Ecogen has yet to begin construction and has refused to discuss the road use agreement.
Currently, Town Board is united in the need to discuss any settlement with Ecogen. McConnell maintains the terms of the order – in particular, the lack of incentives – are simply up for negotiations.
Others on the board say the project should meet setback requirements enacted under the town’s industrial wind laws.
At a special meeting two weeks ago, the board offered to meet with Ecogen in open session to discuss their differences. Instead, the wind developer appealed Ark’s order.
“We can’t get them to the table,” Shick said. “They’re ignoring us, like they always have. To me (the counter appeal) means ‘We’re not going to roll over. We won’t have you bullying us.’”
Ecogen has a standard policy of declining to discuss litigation in public.
Friday, March 23, 2012
UTC's Clipper Sale Underscores Harsh Wind Power Market Realities
Hartford, Conn.-based United Technologies Corp. (UTC) announced on March 15 that it was selling off Carpinteria, Calif.-based wind turbine manufacturer Clipper Windpower as part of a strategy to acquire Goodrich Corp., a supplier of systems and services to the aerospace and defense industries.
To help fund the Goodrich acquisition, UTC is also divesting its Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne, Milton Roy, Sullair and Sundyne business units.
UTC acquired 49.5% of Clipper in December 2009 for about $270 million. Less than a year later, UTC spent an additional $112 million to acquire Clipper's remaining shares.
At the time of the acquisition, it was expected that Clipper could leverage UTC's management and operational expertise, as well as its technology in blades, turbines and gearbox design. Further, it was thought that Clipper could build on UTC’s existing portfolio of energy-efficiency products and power generation systems, which are manufactured by UTC’s Pratt & Whitney business unit.
Despite the synergistic potential, the current market challenges in the wind industry call into question not only the sector's short- and long-term viability, but also UTC's long-term strategy for Clipper.
The crushing market realities
While UTC characterized Clipper as no longer core to its operations, Gregory J. Hayes, the company's senior vice president and chief financial officer, was far more candid during an analyst call last week.
"We got into this business with the thought that there was going to be a renewable energy mandate in this country - and there has not been one," he said. "We entered into this business thinking that the growth we've seen in the last five years would continue as a push for renewables in this country. And, in fact, that has not happened. It really has made wind power less economic than anybody had anticipated two years ago."
Market realities aside, Hayes also questioned if UTC should invest further in Clipper's turbine technology to go heavily into the offshore wind market.
"If we're going to stay in this business, it requires significant additional investment," he said. “Clipper makes a very good machine in the 2.5 MW class. But where growth is going to come is in the higher 5 MW class, and it's going to come from offshore [which will] require hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. And quite frankly, we're not going to do it."
Shortly after UTC's announcement, industry reaction was mixed.
"Given the market's uncertainty, UTC concluded that a low-margin, high-risk, highly capital intensive business is not where they wanted to spend their investment dollars," Brian Redmond, managing director at Paragon Energy Holdings, a principal investment firm that provides financial advisory and commercial asset management services in the energy sector, told NAW.
"The current low energy prices negatively impact energy sale margins, and the uncertainty around a long-term [production tax credit and investment tax credit] and/or comprehensive renewable energy mandate adds market risk,” he added.
However, UTC’s announcement came as a surprise to some.
"I was surprised by a few things," Dan Shreve, a principal at MAKE Consulting, told NAW. "Firstly, [i] that UTC does not recognize that there are growth markets in the Americas outside of the U.S. - especially in Mexico, where Clipper has had success in the past. Further, I would assume that a large conglomerate such as UTC would take advantage of the near-term market weakness in the U.S. to retool Clipper and make a strong push when the market recovers in the mid term."
Shreve speculated that UTC's motivation for the sale may have been an offshore wind-only strategy similar to that of AREVA.
However, he said, UTC is "spot-on" when it comes to development spending being quite significant, as evidenced by recent announcement from Vestas indicating the wind turbine manufacturer would be willing to entertain a strategic partner to help offset the development costs of the massive V164 turbine model.
To help fund the Goodrich acquisition, UTC is also divesting its Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne, Milton Roy, Sullair and Sundyne business units.
UTC acquired 49.5% of Clipper in December 2009 for about $270 million. Less than a year later, UTC spent an additional $112 million to acquire Clipper's remaining shares.
At the time of the acquisition, it was expected that Clipper could leverage UTC's management and operational expertise, as well as its technology in blades, turbines and gearbox design. Further, it was thought that Clipper could build on UTC’s existing portfolio of energy-efficiency products and power generation systems, which are manufactured by UTC’s Pratt & Whitney business unit.
Despite the synergistic potential, the current market challenges in the wind industry call into question not only the sector's short- and long-term viability, but also UTC's long-term strategy for Clipper.
The crushing market realities
While UTC characterized Clipper as no longer core to its operations, Gregory J. Hayes, the company's senior vice president and chief financial officer, was far more candid during an analyst call last week.
"We got into this business with the thought that there was going to be a renewable energy mandate in this country - and there has not been one," he said. "We entered into this business thinking that the growth we've seen in the last five years would continue as a push for renewables in this country. And, in fact, that has not happened. It really has made wind power less economic than anybody had anticipated two years ago."
Market realities aside, Hayes also questioned if UTC should invest further in Clipper's turbine technology to go heavily into the offshore wind market.
"If we're going to stay in this business, it requires significant additional investment," he said. “Clipper makes a very good machine in the 2.5 MW class. But where growth is going to come is in the higher 5 MW class, and it's going to come from offshore [which will] require hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. And quite frankly, we're not going to do it."
Shortly after UTC's announcement, industry reaction was mixed.
"Given the market's uncertainty, UTC concluded that a low-margin, high-risk, highly capital intensive business is not where they wanted to spend their investment dollars," Brian Redmond, managing director at Paragon Energy Holdings, a principal investment firm that provides financial advisory and commercial asset management services in the energy sector, told NAW.
"The current low energy prices negatively impact energy sale margins, and the uncertainty around a long-term [production tax credit and investment tax credit] and/or comprehensive renewable energy mandate adds market risk,” he added.
However, UTC’s announcement came as a surprise to some.
"I was surprised by a few things," Dan Shreve, a principal at MAKE Consulting, told NAW. "Firstly, [i] that UTC does not recognize that there are growth markets in the Americas outside of the U.S. - especially in Mexico, where Clipper has had success in the past. Further, I would assume that a large conglomerate such as UTC would take advantage of the near-term market weakness in the U.S. to retool Clipper and make a strong push when the market recovers in the mid term."
Shreve speculated that UTC's motivation for the sale may have been an offshore wind-only strategy similar to that of AREVA.
However, he said, UTC is "spot-on" when it comes to development spending being quite significant, as evidenced by recent announcement from Vestas indicating the wind turbine manufacturer would be willing to entertain a strategic partner to help offset the development costs of the massive V164 turbine model.
Monday, March 19, 2012
United Technologies Unloads Clipper Windpower
United Technologies, the industrial conglomerate based in Hartford, CT, is putting Clipper Windpower on the chopping block.
Less than two years after picking up Clipper for $112 million in late 2010, UTC claims the Carpinteria, CA-based wind turbine manufacturer does not fit within UTC’s future focus on the aerospace and building industries, according to comments made by an UTC representative.
Clipper, which has about 600 employees, makes one of the largest wind turbines in the United States – the 2.5-megawatt (MW) Liberty wind power turbine.
When UTC picked up the wind energy pioneer in 2010, Clipper was developing a mega-scale wind turbine, the Britannia, for offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom, which would have had a nameplate capacity of 7.5 MW. Eight months after the acquisition, UTC pulled the plug on the Britannia offshore wind turbine project.
Several factors have recently dampened demand for utility-scale wind power turbines, including a global oversupply of wind turbines, escalating competition from lower-cost manufacturers and the stubbornly sluggish speed of the global economic recovery.
As always, ReCharge News provides an excellent blow-by-blow breakdown of the UTC’s two-year affair with Clipper Windpower:
UTC in January 2010 invested an initial $207m to take a 49.5% stake in Clipper following a liquidity crisis at the wind turbine manufacturer. It gained full control in December 2010 for an additional $223m . . . Clipper was then losing money and share in its core US market. Installations of its flagship 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbine plunged to 28 in 2010 from 242 the previous year . . . .
The company’s image had also taken a hard hit after cracking problems surfaced in 2007 that required a $330m remediation program to replace the blades on all its turbines. Many of its third-party customers left for other vendors.
UTC plans to use the proceeds from the Clipper Windpower divestiture to pay for the $16.5 billion acquisition of Charlotte, NC-based aerospace-industry juggernaut Goodrich Corp.
Less than two years after picking up Clipper for $112 million in late 2010, UTC claims the Carpinteria, CA-based wind turbine manufacturer does not fit within UTC’s future focus on the aerospace and building industries, according to comments made by an UTC representative.
Clipper, which has about 600 employees, makes one of the largest wind turbines in the United States – the 2.5-megawatt (MW) Liberty wind power turbine.
When UTC picked up the wind energy pioneer in 2010, Clipper was developing a mega-scale wind turbine, the Britannia, for offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom, which would have had a nameplate capacity of 7.5 MW. Eight months after the acquisition, UTC pulled the plug on the Britannia offshore wind turbine project.
Several factors have recently dampened demand for utility-scale wind power turbines, including a global oversupply of wind turbines, escalating competition from lower-cost manufacturers and the stubbornly sluggish speed of the global economic recovery.
As always, ReCharge News provides an excellent blow-by-blow breakdown of the UTC’s two-year affair with Clipper Windpower:
UTC in January 2010 invested an initial $207m to take a 49.5% stake in Clipper following a liquidity crisis at the wind turbine manufacturer. It gained full control in December 2010 for an additional $223m . . . Clipper was then losing money and share in its core US market. Installations of its flagship 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbine plunged to 28 in 2010 from 242 the previous year . . . .
The company’s image had also taken a hard hit after cracking problems surfaced in 2007 that required a $330m remediation program to replace the blades on all its turbines. Many of its third-party customers left for other vendors.
UTC plans to use the proceeds from the Clipper Windpower divestiture to pay for the $16.5 billion acquisition of Charlotte, NC-based aerospace-industry juggernaut Goodrich Corp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)