Some Herkimer County residents near the Hardscrabble Wind Farm are fed up with the noise, the view and “negative impact” they say 37 wind turbines bring to their backyards.
Frustrated by the wind farm that some residents say drives them “crazy,” 60 Middleville, Fairfield and Norway residents have filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the entities responsible for its construction, namely Iberdrola Renewables.
“A lot of it has to do with the effect that it’s having in being in close proximity to the residences,” said Jeff DeFrancisco, an attorney from DeFrancisco & Flagiatano Law Firm of Syracuse.
Among the complaints, the lawsuit asserts that those responsible for the construction of the wind farm were negligent in assessing the site to determine whether it was properly suited for the project, and that the 450-foot turbines are a public and private nuisance.
Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman said the company had no comment since it had not received the papers.
DeFrancisco, who is working with Syracuse environmental Attorney Melody Scalfone, said the concerns range from the negative impact the turbines have on the residents’ enjoyment of their home to health problems and difficulty selling the property.
Noise concerns
Jimmy Salamone, who lives on Davis Road in Fairfield, said he gets headaches and his ears ring.
“The noise is literally driving me out of my house,” he said.
Iberdrola installed a noise-reduction system at four turbines in Fairfield earlier this year. Prior to that, the town had requested sound studies.
Fairfield Town Supervisor Henry Crofoot said he anticipates the preliminary results of the system to be presented within the next month.
Salamone said the town leadership hasn’t had the residents’ best interests in mind.
“I’m very, very disgusted with the way our town supervisor and Town Board have handled any of this,” he said. “These things are hurting people.”
Crofoot, who said he has not seen the lawsuit, said the town is doing what it can.
“We will do whatever we can to help our residents within the letter of the law,” he said.
‘We’ve got to leave’
Salamone said he hopes the lawsuit will encourage Iberdrola to shut down the wind farm, or that the plaintiffs will be “heavy compensated.”
“I would expect them to buy my house, whatever the lawsuit is, and we would leave,” he said. “One way or another, we’ve got to leave.”
Leaving is difficult for many residents, DeFrancisco said, because the turbines can impact property values.
“A lot of people don’t want to live in that area because (turbines) obstruct the view,” he said.
Others, Scalfone said, bought property intending to build a retirement home and now can’t sell the land because of the turbines.
The bottom line is the turbines are a nuisance, he said.
“The New York law simply states it’s unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your property,” Scalfone said. “The residents’ quality of life has been significantly impacted.”
Some Herkimer County residents near the Hardscrabble Wind Farm are fed up with the noise, the view and “negative impact” they say 37 wind turbines bring to their backyards.
Frustrated by the wind farm that some residents say drives them “crazy,” 60 Middleville, Fairfield and Norway residents have filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the entities responsible for its construction, namely Iberdrola Renewables.
“A lot of it has to do with the effect that it’s having in being in close proximity to the residences,” said Jeff DeFrancisco, an attorney from DeFrancisco & Flagiatano Law Firm of Syracuse.
Among the complaints, the lawsuit asserts that those responsible for the construction of the wind farm were negligent in assessing the site to determine whether it was properly suited for the project, and that the 450-foot turbines are a public and private nuisance.
Iberdrola Communications Manager Paul Copleman said the company had no comment since it had not received the papers.
DeFrancisco, who is working with Syracuse environmental Attorney Melody Scalfone, said the concerns range from the negative impact the turbines have on the residents’ enjoyment of their home to health problems and difficulty selling the property.
Noise concerns
Jimmy Salamone, who lives on Davis Road in Fairfield, said he gets headaches and his ears ring.
“The noise is literally driving me out of my house,” he said.
Iberdrola installed a noise-reduction system at four turbines in Fairfield earlier this year. Prior to that, the town had requested sound studies.
Fairfield Town Supervisor Henry Crofoot said he anticipates the preliminary results of the system to be presented within the next month.
Salamone said the town leadership hasn’t had the residents’ best interests in mind.
“I’m very, very disgusted with the way our town supervisor and Town Board have handled any of this,” he said. “These things are hurting people.”
Crofoot, who said he has not seen the lawsuit, said the town is doing what it can.
“We will do whatever we can to help our residents within the letter of the law,” he said.
‘We’ve got to leave’
Salamone said he hopes the lawsuit will encourage Iberdrola to shut down the wind farm, or that the plaintiffs will be “heavy compensated.”
“I would expect them to buy my house, whatever the lawsuit is, and we would leave,” he said. “One way or another, we’ve got to leave.”
Leaving is difficult for many residents, DeFrancisco said, because the turbines can impact property values.
“A lot of people don’t want to live in that area because (turbines) obstruct the view,” he said.
Others, Scalfone said, bought property intending to build a retirement home and now can’t sell the land because of the turbines.
The bottom line is the turbines are a nuisance, he said.
“The New York law simply states it’s unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your property,” Scalfone said. “The residents’ quality of life has been significantly impacted.”
Source
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Meteorological test towers to be put up in Wayland
They’ve been put up around Wayland, so why not in Wayland?
Pittsburgh, Pa. -based Everpower Wind Holdings Inc., the same company with wind turbines in nearby Howard, will be putting up two meteorological test towers in Wayland.
"[Meteorlogical test towers] primarily measure wind speed and direction. The information these towers provide will allow us to assess the wind resource of the area,” Everpower senior director of development Kevin Sheen said.
The results of the tests will help Everpower determine whether there is enough wind speed necessary to build wind turbines, and will help the company learn the wind direction to assist in siting turbine locations.
Everpower is hoping, weather permitting, for the test towers to be up by Christmas.
Everpower's Howard Wind Project utilizes 25 turbines and generates 51.25 megawatts of electricity at full load – enough to power the equivalent of 35,000 households, Sheen?said.
The exact locations of where the Wayland test towers will be placed have not yet been disclosed by Everpower.
However, Sheen said that one met tower, which will stand at 190 feet, will be placed two miles northwest of Hartsville; and the other tower, which will stand 313 feet tall, will be placed two and a half miles southwest of Cohocton.
Each tower will stay in place for at least three years, possibly up to five years.
Source
Pittsburgh, Pa. -based Everpower Wind Holdings Inc., the same company with wind turbines in nearby Howard, will be putting up two meteorological test towers in Wayland.
"[Meteorlogical test towers] primarily measure wind speed and direction. The information these towers provide will allow us to assess the wind resource of the area,” Everpower senior director of development Kevin Sheen said.
The results of the tests will help Everpower determine whether there is enough wind speed necessary to build wind turbines, and will help the company learn the wind direction to assist in siting turbine locations.
Everpower is hoping, weather permitting, for the test towers to be up by Christmas.
Everpower's Howard Wind Project utilizes 25 turbines and generates 51.25 megawatts of electricity at full load – enough to power the equivalent of 35,000 households, Sheen?said.
The exact locations of where the Wayland test towers will be placed have not yet been disclosed by Everpower.
However, Sheen said that one met tower, which will stand at 190 feet, will be placed two miles northwest of Hartsville; and the other tower, which will stand 313 feet tall, will be placed two and a half miles southwest of Cohocton.
Each tower will stay in place for at least three years, possibly up to five years.
Source
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Wind farms drop property values
The EverPower wind farm proposes 29 turbines, 494 feet tall, towering over homes on Chipmonk Road, Four Mile Road, Knapp Creek and Birch Run.
Many other homes and businesses in Allegany, Olean and Carrollton, including St. Bonaventure University, Rock City Park and St. Elizabeth’s Motherhouse will have a view of the turbines for decades ahead.
A National Research Council (NRC) study submitted to the Allegany Town Board showed that of existing property value studies near wind energy facilities, few studies focus on non-farm, residential property in close proximity to (not bordering, but in the vicinity of) a wind farm, and “forecasts of property values in prospective host areas that are based on comparisons with existing host areas are of questionable validity, especially if there are significant differences between the areas.”
However, studies in Wisconsin and Ontario, Canada, show alarming drops in the value of residential real property near turbines. Therefore, the NRC recommends wind energy project sponsors "provide property-value guarantees to property owners within a specified distance from the facility when they want to sell their properties."
EverPower has never proposed doing this.
Homeowners are legitimately alarmed by the prospect of the loss of value in their primary investment. Residents also submitted to the board a study performed by the Appraisal Group One, Wind Turbine Impact Study, in Wisconsin, where property in “bordering proximity” to wind-energy facilities lost a whopping 39 percent to 43 percent. Losses continue in property that is in “close proximity” with up to 36 percent loss, while property in “near proximity” saw a negative impact of 24 percent to 29 percent.
The study further found that having a turbine within view caused the property value to plummet 30 percent.
While many property owners did not receive official assessment reductions this past year because the wind-energy facility is not yet constructed, real property values in the area have already suffered. Recent letters in this paper have brought this fact to the attention of our representatives.
There are no comparable real property value studies taking into account the character of our area and the extreme wind-energy installation now proposed for Chipmonk. The turbines in the Wisconsin study referenced above are 389 feet tall. Another study released this month by Lansink Appraisals & Consulting, Case Study, Diminution in Value, Wind Turbine Analysis, found that residential (non-farm) property near a wind farm in Ontario, Canada, lost 38.8 percent of its value. The turbines in the Canadian study are 393 feet tall.
Turbines for the Allegany project will dwarf those of the Wisconsin and Canadian studies. EverPower will make the citizens of Allegany, young and old, the research population for this colossal experiment on wind turbines for their own profit.
What would happen if your home lost 40 percent or more of its value? This is the agonizing reality for residents and property owners in Chipmonk, Knapp Creek, the Four Mile and the Birch Run. Note that our individual losses will also reverberate throughout the community.
Recently, the assessment rolls in Wolfe Island (on the St. Lawrence Seaway) were reduced by $3 million dollars because homes in close proximity to turbines lost value. (The turbines on Wolfe Island are 410 feet, 84 feet shorter than those proposed by EverPower.) The tax rolls for this township show 78 significant assessment reductions since 2008 (the wind farm became operational in 2009). The six homes nearest the turbines lost $100,000 each.
Obviously, wind turbines erected near residential areas have a negative effect on property assessments.
Property owners, residents and business owners should be aware that, while Allegany homeowners pay property taxes at full rate, EverPower would be allowed to make greatly reduced fractional payments. The unavoidable declines in Allegany’s tax rolls will substantially offset any wind farm PILOT payments.
The Allegany Town Board’s responsibility is to protect the health and general welfare of all citizens within the community. Unless the board is able to do the job it was elected to do, decades of weak property values will cause irreparable harm to the town and school tax base.
Source
Many other homes and businesses in Allegany, Olean and Carrollton, including St. Bonaventure University, Rock City Park and St. Elizabeth’s Motherhouse will have a view of the turbines for decades ahead.
The Allegany Town Board members have been apprised of the concerns of property owners surrounding the wind energy facility.
A National Research Council (NRC) study submitted to the Allegany Town Board showed that of existing property value studies near wind energy facilities, few studies focus on non-farm, residential property in close proximity to (not bordering, but in the vicinity of) a wind farm, and “forecasts of property values in prospective host areas that are based on comparisons with existing host areas are of questionable validity, especially if there are significant differences between the areas.”
However, studies in Wisconsin and Ontario, Canada, show alarming drops in the value of residential real property near turbines. Therefore, the NRC recommends wind energy project sponsors "provide property-value guarantees to property owners within a specified distance from the facility when they want to sell their properties."
EverPower has never proposed doing this.
Homeowners are legitimately alarmed by the prospect of the loss of value in their primary investment. Residents also submitted to the board a study performed by the Appraisal Group One, Wind Turbine Impact Study, in Wisconsin, where property in “bordering proximity” to wind-energy facilities lost a whopping 39 percent to 43 percent. Losses continue in property that is in “close proximity” with up to 36 percent loss, while property in “near proximity” saw a negative impact of 24 percent to 29 percent.
The study further found that having a turbine within view caused the property value to plummet 30 percent.
While many property owners did not receive official assessment reductions this past year because the wind-energy facility is not yet constructed, real property values in the area have already suffered. Recent letters in this paper have brought this fact to the attention of our representatives.
There are no comparable real property value studies taking into account the character of our area and the extreme wind-energy installation now proposed for Chipmonk. The turbines in the Wisconsin study referenced above are 389 feet tall. Another study released this month by Lansink Appraisals & Consulting, Case Study, Diminution in Value, Wind Turbine Analysis, found that residential (non-farm) property near a wind farm in Ontario, Canada, lost 38.8 percent of its value. The turbines in the Canadian study are 393 feet tall.
Turbines for the Allegany project will dwarf those of the Wisconsin and Canadian studies. EverPower will make the citizens of Allegany, young and old, the research population for this colossal experiment on wind turbines for their own profit.
What would happen if your home lost 40 percent or more of its value? This is the agonizing reality for residents and property owners in Chipmonk, Knapp Creek, the Four Mile and the Birch Run. Note that our individual losses will also reverberate throughout the community.
Recently, the assessment rolls in Wolfe Island (on the St. Lawrence Seaway) were reduced by $3 million dollars because homes in close proximity to turbines lost value. (The turbines on Wolfe Island are 410 feet, 84 feet shorter than those proposed by EverPower.) The tax rolls for this township show 78 significant assessment reductions since 2008 (the wind farm became operational in 2009). The six homes nearest the turbines lost $100,000 each.
Obviously, wind turbines erected near residential areas have a negative effect on property assessments.
Property owners, residents and business owners should be aware that, while Allegany homeowners pay property taxes at full rate, EverPower would be allowed to make greatly reduced fractional payments. The unavoidable declines in Allegany’s tax rolls will substantially offset any wind farm PILOT payments.
The Allegany Town Board’s responsibility is to protect the health and general welfare of all citizens within the community. Unless the board is able to do the job it was elected to do, decades of weak property values will cause irreparable harm to the town and school tax base.
Source
Monday, November 05, 2012
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Study links wind turbines to illness
Opponents to wind farms who allege health risks have their first scientific support in a peer-reviewed study linking proximity to turbines to illness.
An article, published in the "Noise and Health" journal, gave optimism to some people in rural and agricultural southwestern Ontario, where wind farms are proliferating despite resistance from residents, the London (Ontario) Free Press reported.
The scientific journal addressed a study done in Maine by Canadian epidemiologist Jeffery Aramini that suggested people living within a mile of wind turbines experienced more sleep deprivation and mental health issues than those further away.
"The reality is that some people are getting sick," Aramini said. "As a public health person, I can't wrap my head around [government inaction]."
Opponents in Ontario have been rebuffed for several years by the provincial government and health officials, who said there was no scientific basis for health concerns.
Esther Wrightman, who leads one local opposition group near Strathroy, Ontario, called the report a breakthrough.
"I view it as a huge step forward. It definitely gives credibility to our case," she said.
Chris Forrest of the Canadian Wind Energy Association played down the journal's report.
"The balance of scientific, medical and human experience to date clearly demonstrates that sound from wind turbines does not adversely impact human health," he said.
Source
An article, published in the "Noise and Health" journal, gave optimism to some people in rural and agricultural southwestern Ontario, where wind farms are proliferating despite resistance from residents, the London (Ontario) Free Press reported.
The scientific journal addressed a study done in Maine by Canadian epidemiologist Jeffery Aramini that suggested people living within a mile of wind turbines experienced more sleep deprivation and mental health issues than those further away.
"The reality is that some people are getting sick," Aramini said. "As a public health person, I can't wrap my head around [government inaction]."
Opponents in Ontario have been rebuffed for several years by the provincial government and health officials, who said there was no scientific basis for health concerns.
Esther Wrightman, who leads one local opposition group near Strathroy, Ontario, called the report a breakthrough.
"I view it as a huge step forward. It definitely gives credibility to our case," she said.
Chris Forrest of the Canadian Wind Energy Association played down the journal's report.
"The balance of scientific, medical and human experience to date clearly demonstrates that sound from wind turbines does not adversely impact human health," he said.
Source
Customer seeking to freeze Clipper Windpower assets, including Cedar Rapids factory
A major Clipper Windpower customer is seeking to freeze the recently sold company’s assets — including its Cedar Rapids factory and equipment — to ensure it can pay a possible arbitration settlement.
Wind project developer and owner First Wind Energy LLC said Clipper accepted $59.5 million in advance payments for wind turbines it no longer produces in the lawsuit filed last month in Linn District Court in Cedar Rapids.
Clipper manufactured its huge Clipper Liberty 2.5-megawatt wind turbines in Cedar Rapids from 2006 until earlier this year. The Carpinteria, Calif.-based company has been sold twice in the last two years.
Clipper’s leaders were tight-lipped this past summer as Clipper suspended turbine production and laid off 76 employees after the company was sold by United Technologies Corp. to a private equity firm, Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Platinum Equity LLC.
Warranty claims, according to the lawsuit, have been a huge financial problem for Clipper Windpower. The company’s previous owner, United Technologies Corp., indicated it was setting aside $91 million to pay for warranty claims on Clipper’s products.
First Wind, based in Boston, said the undelivered turbines and related issues are now part of an arbitration proceeding in Chicago. It is seeking a writ of attachment on Clipper’s Iowa assets because it is worried that Clipper Windpower will dispose of them, making it impossible for First Wind to collect any award it receives in arbitration.
“Clipper has not only ceased production of these turbines, but has wrongfully refused to return the advance payments, even though it has no plans to meet its contractual obligations to produce and deliver the turbines to first wind,” the lawsuit said.
“Indeed,” the lawsuit continued, “Clipper even turned down First Wind’s proposed order for 20 turbines earlier this year.”
Clipper began producing turbines in Cedar Rapids in 2006. The lawsuit claims that as early as early as March 24, 2008, because of Clipper’s financial difficulties, First Wind and another customer had to provide secured financing to Clipper so that it could meet its repair obligations.
The lawsuit also details difficulties by First Wind in trying to obtain project financing for wind development in which it planned to use Clipper Windpower turbines because of Clipper’s financial instability.
First Wind had expected the acquisition of Clipper by United Technologies about two years ago to ease the financial problems, but it did not, the lawsuit said.
As evidence of Clipper’s non-production status, the lawsuit detailed a series of email exchanges last March.
First Wind was seeking clarification of Clipper’s production capabilities because it was interested in buying 41 turbines to take advantage of the possibility of receiving U.S. Treasury grants to assist in financing a wind development. It believed its prior deposits with Clipper might serve as owner equity in qualifying for the grants.
Clipper’s chief commercial officer, Robert Gates, confirmed in the exchanges that Clipper was rebuilding turbine gear boxes for warranty purposes and no longer building new turbines. In fact, he said, Clipper had recently “passed” on a 16-turbine sale to have more gearbox components to serve existing customers.
In the same email exchange, the lawsuit says, Gates indicated another turbine model slated for production by Clipper likely would not be available until 2014 or 2015.
“By May 2012, First Wind was informed by Clipper that it had ceased all manufacturing of wind turbines and had no intention of resuming manufacturing them,” the lawsuit said.
First Wind has purchased 150 of the 2.5-megawatt Clipper wind turbines since 2006, according to the lawsuit. The importance of having Clipper continue to honor parts, service and maintenance agreements on the turbines is one of the critical concerns for First Wind and other Clipper customers.
Clipper Windpower’s attorneys have been granted an extension to respond to the lawsuit. CEO Michael Reed declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the company does not comment on litigation.
Platinum Equity, Clipper’s new owner, did not respond to a request for comment.
Clipper Windpower’s $22 million investment in Cedar Rapids was one of Iowa’s first victories attracting wind power manufacturers in 2005. At least five other states had been courting the promising California company as it got ready to launch production.
A basket of state incentives included a $500,000 forgivable loan, $2 million short-term loan, $346,000 infrastructure assistance grant and enterprise zone benefits.
Clipper is facing a similar lawsuit to freeze its assets in California courts. Much of that lawsuit in Santa Barbara Superior County Court is under seal, according to the Pacific Coast Business Times.
Wind project developer and owner First Wind Energy LLC said Clipper accepted $59.5 million in advance payments for wind turbines it no longer produces in the lawsuit filed last month in Linn District Court in Cedar Rapids.
Clipper manufactured its huge Clipper Liberty 2.5-megawatt wind turbines in Cedar Rapids from 2006 until earlier this year. The Carpinteria, Calif.-based company has been sold twice in the last two years.
Clipper’s leaders were tight-lipped this past summer as Clipper suspended turbine production and laid off 76 employees after the company was sold by United Technologies Corp. to a private equity firm, Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Platinum Equity LLC.
Warranty claims, according to the lawsuit, have been a huge financial problem for Clipper Windpower. The company’s previous owner, United Technologies Corp., indicated it was setting aside $91 million to pay for warranty claims on Clipper’s products.
First Wind, based in Boston, said the undelivered turbines and related issues are now part of an arbitration proceeding in Chicago. It is seeking a writ of attachment on Clipper’s Iowa assets because it is worried that Clipper Windpower will dispose of them, making it impossible for First Wind to collect any award it receives in arbitration.
“Clipper has not only ceased production of these turbines, but has wrongfully refused to return the advance payments, even though it has no plans to meet its contractual obligations to produce and deliver the turbines to first wind,” the lawsuit said.
“Indeed,” the lawsuit continued, “Clipper even turned down First Wind’s proposed order for 20 turbines earlier this year.”
Clipper began producing turbines in Cedar Rapids in 2006. The lawsuit claims that as early as early as March 24, 2008, because of Clipper’s financial difficulties, First Wind and another customer had to provide secured financing to Clipper so that it could meet its repair obligations.
The lawsuit also details difficulties by First Wind in trying to obtain project financing for wind development in which it planned to use Clipper Windpower turbines because of Clipper’s financial instability.
First Wind had expected the acquisition of Clipper by United Technologies about two years ago to ease the financial problems, but it did not, the lawsuit said.
As evidence of Clipper’s non-production status, the lawsuit detailed a series of email exchanges last March.
First Wind was seeking clarification of Clipper’s production capabilities because it was interested in buying 41 turbines to take advantage of the possibility of receiving U.S. Treasury grants to assist in financing a wind development. It believed its prior deposits with Clipper might serve as owner equity in qualifying for the grants.
Clipper’s chief commercial officer, Robert Gates, confirmed in the exchanges that Clipper was rebuilding turbine gear boxes for warranty purposes and no longer building new turbines. In fact, he said, Clipper had recently “passed” on a 16-turbine sale to have more gearbox components to serve existing customers.
In the same email exchange, the lawsuit says, Gates indicated another turbine model slated for production by Clipper likely would not be available until 2014 or 2015.
“By May 2012, First Wind was informed by Clipper that it had ceased all manufacturing of wind turbines and had no intention of resuming manufacturing them,” the lawsuit said.
First Wind has purchased 150 of the 2.5-megawatt Clipper wind turbines since 2006, according to the lawsuit. The importance of having Clipper continue to honor parts, service and maintenance agreements on the turbines is one of the critical concerns for First Wind and other Clipper customers.
Clipper Windpower’s attorneys have been granted an extension to respond to the lawsuit. CEO Michael Reed declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the company does not comment on litigation.
Platinum Equity, Clipper’s new owner, did not respond to a request for comment.
Clipper Windpower’s $22 million investment in Cedar Rapids was one of Iowa’s first victories attracting wind power manufacturers in 2005. At least five other states had been courting the promising California company as it got ready to launch production.
A basket of state incentives included a $500,000 forgivable loan, $2 million short-term loan, $346,000 infrastructure assistance grant and enterprise zone benefits.
Clipper is facing a similar lawsuit to freeze its assets in California courts. Much of that lawsuit in Santa Barbara Superior County Court is under seal, according to the Pacific Coast Business Times.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
First Wind submits second Bowers Mountain wind-site application
CARROLL PLANTATION, Maine — A First Wind subsidiary will try again to build an industrial wind site on Bowers Mountain, this time proposing to erect 16 turbines instead of 27, company officials said Wednesday.
The new project, company officials said, answers problems that led the Land Use Regulation Commission to reject the initial plan in April. Under the new proposal, turbines would be farther from nearby lakes. The towers would feature radar-controlled aviation warning lights to reduce light pollution and carry turbines that generate 30 percent more electricity than previous models.
First Wind of Massachusetts or its subsidiary, Champlain Wind LLC, also will create a watershed fund — money that could be used to improve the deer herd and promote local guiding and other tourism businesses, officials said.
“This is a $100 million project that would be located in rural Maine and has the potential to put nearly 100 Maine companies and hundreds of Mainers to work during the construction phase, with several permanent positions for the life of the project,” said Matt Kearns, First Wind’s vice president of Northeast business development. “The wind industry has invested more than $1 billion in Maine over the last few years and with projects like this we can continue to invest in Maine companies, communities, students and organizations.”
“Since 2009 we have been listening to people who live in and around the project area to make sure that their input is considered in the design of the project,” said Neil Kiely, director of development for First Wind. “Although it is early in the review process, we are extremely encouraged by the support we have received.”
Located east of Lee and southeast of Springfield near Route 6, Bowers Mountain is 1,127 feet. It overlooks seven lakes — including Bottle, Keg, Duck, Junior and Scraggly lakes — near the western Washington and eastern Penobscot county lines.
Its surroundings include some of the most sensitive wildlands in Maine, project critics have said. The mountain is home to many varieties of wildlife as well as thriving camping, hunting and wildlife guide industries.
About 144 residents reside in the proposed host community of Carroll Plantation. Recently, 112 residents and landowners signed a petition in support of the project, company officials said.
Now called the Land Use Planning Commission, LURC voted 5-0 with little fanfare to accept a staff recommendation and reject the 27-turbine project during a brief meeting April 20 at the Four Points by Sheraton hotel in Bangor. Commissioner Robert Dunphy abstained.
Commissioners said they were swayed by arguments that the project would have a punishing effect on hundreds of nature guides and other tourism-based industries employing hundreds more indirectly that all depend on the area’s beauty to survive.
The commission’s scenic consultant said that Champlain Wind’s consultants downplayed the project’s impact upon the region. In their 27-page decision, commissioners said they relied heavily on testimony from the area’s guides that the turbines “would reduce the likelihood their clients would want to return to the area and thus [the turbines would] adversely impact their businesses.”
Anti-wind-power advocates and residential groups that had opposed the project called the LURC vote their most significant win since they started fighting projects proposed by First Wind of Massachusetts about five years ago.
“It’s a good day. We have been fighting this for a long time,” David Corrigan, a registered Maine Master Guide from Concord Township who opposed the project, said on April 20. “This sets a great precedent. The commission spent a lot of time discussing and looking at this. I think it sets a precedent as far as how these projects should be scrutinized and what the results should be.”
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has accepted the new, or second, application, spokeswoman Samantha Depoy-Warren said. The agency certified the application as complete on Oct. 25. Environmental protection officials are required to have two public hearings on the project. One hearing will be attended by the agency’s commissioner or deputy commissioner, Depoy-Warren said.
Under new state laws passed during the last legislative session, the DEP and LUPC will review the project concurrently, with LUPC certifying to the DEP that the project meets LUPC criteria, LUPC Director Nick Livesay said. The DEP will issue the project’s final permit, if the project qualifies, he said.
First Wind claims endorsements for the project from the Maine Audubon Society, American Lung Association of the Northeast, Conservation Law Foundation, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club. The project has also been endorsed by the Washington County commissioners and the Sunrise County Economic Council, officials said.
One of the project’s opponents, Lakeville resident Gordon Mott, expressed doubt Wednesday that the new proposal would change his opinion. He credited the company with scaling back the project’s footprint but said he didn’t see enough conservation benefits in the new effort to warrant his support.
Mott cautioned, however, that he had not seen the proposal in detail.
Source
The new project, company officials said, answers problems that led the Land Use Regulation Commission to reject the initial plan in April. Under the new proposal, turbines would be farther from nearby lakes. The towers would feature radar-controlled aviation warning lights to reduce light pollution and carry turbines that generate 30 percent more electricity than previous models.
First Wind of Massachusetts or its subsidiary, Champlain Wind LLC, also will create a watershed fund — money that could be used to improve the deer herd and promote local guiding and other tourism businesses, officials said.
“This is a $100 million project that would be located in rural Maine and has the potential to put nearly 100 Maine companies and hundreds of Mainers to work during the construction phase, with several permanent positions for the life of the project,” said Matt Kearns, First Wind’s vice president of Northeast business development. “The wind industry has invested more than $1 billion in Maine over the last few years and with projects like this we can continue to invest in Maine companies, communities, students and organizations.”
“Since 2009 we have been listening to people who live in and around the project area to make sure that their input is considered in the design of the project,” said Neil Kiely, director of development for First Wind. “Although it is early in the review process, we are extremely encouraged by the support we have received.”
Located east of Lee and southeast of Springfield near Route 6, Bowers Mountain is 1,127 feet. It overlooks seven lakes — including Bottle, Keg, Duck, Junior and Scraggly lakes — near the western Washington and eastern Penobscot county lines.
Its surroundings include some of the most sensitive wildlands in Maine, project critics have said. The mountain is home to many varieties of wildlife as well as thriving camping, hunting and wildlife guide industries.
About 144 residents reside in the proposed host community of Carroll Plantation. Recently, 112 residents and landowners signed a petition in support of the project, company officials said.
Now called the Land Use Planning Commission, LURC voted 5-0 with little fanfare to accept a staff recommendation and reject the 27-turbine project during a brief meeting April 20 at the Four Points by Sheraton hotel in Bangor. Commissioner Robert Dunphy abstained.
Commissioners said they were swayed by arguments that the project would have a punishing effect on hundreds of nature guides and other tourism-based industries employing hundreds more indirectly that all depend on the area’s beauty to survive.
The commission’s scenic consultant said that Champlain Wind’s consultants downplayed the project’s impact upon the region. In their 27-page decision, commissioners said they relied heavily on testimony from the area’s guides that the turbines “would reduce the likelihood their clients would want to return to the area and thus [the turbines would] adversely impact their businesses.”
Anti-wind-power advocates and residential groups that had opposed the project called the LURC vote their most significant win since they started fighting projects proposed by First Wind of Massachusetts about five years ago.
“It’s a good day. We have been fighting this for a long time,” David Corrigan, a registered Maine Master Guide from Concord Township who opposed the project, said on April 20. “This sets a great precedent. The commission spent a lot of time discussing and looking at this. I think it sets a precedent as far as how these projects should be scrutinized and what the results should be.”
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has accepted the new, or second, application, spokeswoman Samantha Depoy-Warren said. The agency certified the application as complete on Oct. 25. Environmental protection officials are required to have two public hearings on the project. One hearing will be attended by the agency’s commissioner or deputy commissioner, Depoy-Warren said.
Under new state laws passed during the last legislative session, the DEP and LUPC will review the project concurrently, with LUPC certifying to the DEP that the project meets LUPC criteria, LUPC Director Nick Livesay said. The DEP will issue the project’s final permit, if the project qualifies, he said.
First Wind claims endorsements for the project from the Maine Audubon Society, American Lung Association of the Northeast, Conservation Law Foundation, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club. The project has also been endorsed by the Washington County commissioners and the Sunrise County Economic Council, officials said.
One of the project’s opponents, Lakeville resident Gordon Mott, expressed doubt Wednesday that the new proposal would change his opinion. He credited the company with scaling back the project’s footprint but said he didn’t see enough conservation benefits in the new effort to warrant his support.
Mott cautioned, however, that he had not seen the proposal in detail.
Source
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Ten years too late, it’s good riddance to wind farms – one of the most dangerous delusions of our age
The significance of yesterday’s shock announce-ment by our Energy Minister John Hayes that the Government plans to put a firm limit on the building of any more onshore windfarms is hard to exaggerate.
On the face of it, this promises to be the beginning of an end to one of the greatest and most dangerous political delusions of our time.
For years now, the plan to cover hundreds of square miles of the British countryside with ever more wind turbines has been the centrepiece of Britain’s energy policy — and one supported by all three major political parties.
Back in 2008, when Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced his wish to see the country spend £100 billion on windfarms, the only response from the Tory leader David Cameron was to say that he should have done it sooner.
It was the only way, they all agreed, Britain could meet our commitment to the EU that, by 2020, we must produce nearly a third of our electricity from ‘renewables’ — with the largest part provided by tens of thousands more wind turbines.
Yet now, out of the blue, has come this announcement by the Coalition Energy Minister that from now on there is to be a moratorium on building onshore turbines other than those for which consent has already been given.
Bonanza
What made this even more piquant was the fact that Mr Hayes chose to drop this bombshell just hours before attending a conference in Glasgow staged by RenewableUK, the professional lobby group for Britain’s wind industry.
These are the very people who for years have been making fortunes out of the greatest public subsidy bonanza of modern times. Now Mr Hayes is to stop their gravy train in its tracks.
It will give them the biggest shock of their professional lives.
Mr Hayes' diktat only referred to the prevention of wind farms on shore, but many turbines are placed out at sea to maximise wind exposure
The ramifications of such a policy U-turn stretch in all directions, not least to Brussels, where our EU colleagues won’t be taken in for a moment by Mr Hayes’s disingenuous claim that Britain doesn’t need more onshore windfarms because we are now on course to meet our ‘renewables’ target without them.
But nowhere will this announcement be greeted with more delirious surprise than in all those hundreds of communities across the land where outraged local protest groups have formed in ever greater numbers to fight the onward march of what they see as the greatest threat to Britain’s countryside for centuries.
Ludicrous
I have been following this extraordinary story for ten years ever since, in 2002, I first began looking carefully at what really lay behind this deceptive obsession with the charms of wind power. It didn’t take me long, talking to experts and reading up on the technical facts, to see that the fashionable enthusiasm for wind energy was based on a colossal illusion.
I first warned about what I called ‘the greatest mistake in our history’ in an article in the Mail almost ten years ago.
Source
On the face of it, this promises to be the beginning of an end to one of the greatest and most dangerous political delusions of our time.
For years now, the plan to cover hundreds of square miles of the British countryside with ever more wind turbines has been the centrepiece of Britain’s energy policy — and one supported by all three major political parties.
Back in 2008, when Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced his wish to see the country spend £100 billion on windfarms, the only response from the Tory leader David Cameron was to say that he should have done it sooner.
It was the only way, they all agreed, Britain could meet our commitment to the EU that, by 2020, we must produce nearly a third of our electricity from ‘renewables’ — with the largest part provided by tens of thousands more wind turbines.
Yet now, out of the blue, has come this announcement by the Coalition Energy Minister that from now on there is to be a moratorium on building onshore turbines other than those for which consent has already been given.
Bonanza
What made this even more piquant was the fact that Mr Hayes chose to drop this bombshell just hours before attending a conference in Glasgow staged by RenewableUK, the professional lobby group for Britain’s wind industry.
These are the very people who for years have been making fortunes out of the greatest public subsidy bonanza of modern times. Now Mr Hayes is to stop their gravy train in its tracks.
It will give them the biggest shock of their professional lives.
Mr Hayes' diktat only referred to the prevention of wind farms on shore, but many turbines are placed out at sea to maximise wind exposure
The ramifications of such a policy U-turn stretch in all directions, not least to Brussels, where our EU colleagues won’t be taken in for a moment by Mr Hayes’s disingenuous claim that Britain doesn’t need more onshore windfarms because we are now on course to meet our ‘renewables’ target without them.
But nowhere will this announcement be greeted with more delirious surprise than in all those hundreds of communities across the land where outraged local protest groups have formed in ever greater numbers to fight the onward march of what they see as the greatest threat to Britain’s countryside for centuries.
Ludicrous
I have been following this extraordinary story for ten years ever since, in 2002, I first began looking carefully at what really lay behind this deceptive obsession with the charms of wind power. It didn’t take me long, talking to experts and reading up on the technical facts, to see that the fashionable enthusiasm for wind energy was based on a colossal illusion.
I first warned about what I called ‘the greatest mistake in our history’ in an article in the Mail almost ten years ago.
Source
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Wind Farm Called "Giant Pain in the Neck"
Crohnote: Again I say Governor Cuomo...Are you watching? Is this the company you want New Yorkers to continue to do business with? Is this the company you will let, along with British Petroleum, industrialize and destroy the tourist economy of the 1000 Islands? The towns of Fairfield, Middleville, Norway, Hammond, Clayton, Orleans, Brownville, Morristown, Oswegatchie, Parishville, Hopkinton, Litchfield, New Hartford, Frankfort and many more have, and will, continue to suffer at the hands of this foreign corporate giant all for the sake of green energy. Allowing the greed of foreign corporations to have priority over the health, safety and welfare of your constituents while continuing the promotion of the most inefficiently produced form of renewable energy MUST STOP.
October 30, 2012
Dozens of neighbors of a $200 million wind farm sued the companies behind it, claiming noise and lights give them migraines, make them nervous and keep them up at night. Their dogs bark too much, dairy cows are less productive, and TV and Internet services are interrupted, the 60 plaintiffs claim in Albany County Supreme Court. All live within a mile of the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project, northeast of Utica in the rural communities of Fairfield, Middleville and Norway. Iberdrola Energy Services and a slew of affiliates are named as defendants, along with Hardscrabble Wind Power, Atlantic Wind USA and affiliates, engineering consultant CHM2 Hill and staff acoustical engineer Mark Bastasch.
The property owners claim the defendants “carelessly and negligently failed to adequately assess and/or test the site of the Hardscrabble project to determine whether the subject project would be feasible and/or produce reasonable benefits to the community.” They say the wind farm – with 37 turbines that stand 476 feet tall – is too large, too noisy and too close to their homes. The 74-megawatt project began producing electricity in January 2011, according to the website of Iberdrola Renewables, an affiliate of Iberdrola USA. The project is touted as “home-grown” because the blades and tower sections for the turbines were made in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Iberdrola USA, which provides gas- and electricity-delivery services to 2.4 million customers in New York and New England, is a subsidiary of Spain’s largest utility, Iberdrola S.A., which owns hydroelectric, fossil-fueled, nuclear and renewable power-generation facilities worldwide.
The plaintiffs accuse the companies of negligence, private nuisance, trespass and strict products liability. They seek punitive damages, saying that “all of the defendants acted willfully, recklessly, were grossly negligent, and/or acted with a conscious disregard with regard to each of the allegations set forth in this complaint.” The 49-page complaint details a litany of damages from each plaintiff, from headaches and stress to sediment in drinking water and airport-like noises.
Plaintiff Diane Abele says she has lost profits from her dairy farm “because the cows have been less productive since defendants built the turbines.”
Plaintiffs Bernadette Baylor and Richard Baylor Jr. say they have been unable to sell their house and land since the wind turbines were installed. They claim that because of the turbines’ noise, they abandoned their home, now rent another, and were forced to file for bankruptcy.
Plaintiffs Andrew McEvoy and Theresa McEvoy bought their property in 2002 and 2 years later bought alpacas “with the intention of building an alpaca farm,” according to the complaint. But since the turbines were built, they suspended the operation, into which they had invested “considerable time and money.”
Plaintiff June Salamone “has increased headaches, nervous/tension feelings of panic and anxiety, dizziness, and sleep disturbance due to the wind turbines,” the complaint states. “The thumping and whooshing sounds from the turbines permeates through plaintiff June Salamone’s body” and she “cannot get an uninterrupted night of sleep.”
All of the plaintiffs claim they have “suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment” of their property and “a negative impact on the value of the property.”
They say the wind farm operated at just 22.8 percent of capacity last year, “contrary to the intent and purpose of creating significant renewable energy,” as the defendants proposed.
They also claim the wind farm was built “because of huge governmental subsidies to the benefit of the defendants” and “little or no benefit to the public.”
The plaintiffs worry that “when the turbines become old and no longer function … Herkimer County may be left looking like a vast industrial junkyard.”
Rural Herkimer County, just east of Utica, includes large swaths of the Adirondack Mountains.
“Plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants have caused significant damage to the plaintiffs and that such damage is substantial, irreparable, and was proximately caused by the acts of the defendants as set forth in this complaint.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Jeff DeFrancisco and Melody Scalfone, with DeFrancisco & Falgiatano in Syracuse.
Source
October 30, 2012
Dozens of neighbors of a $200 million wind farm sued the companies behind it, claiming noise and lights give them migraines, make them nervous and keep them up at night. Their dogs bark too much, dairy cows are less productive, and TV and Internet services are interrupted, the 60 plaintiffs claim in Albany County Supreme Court. All live within a mile of the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project, northeast of Utica in the rural communities of Fairfield, Middleville and Norway. Iberdrola Energy Services and a slew of affiliates are named as defendants, along with Hardscrabble Wind Power, Atlantic Wind USA and affiliates, engineering consultant CHM2 Hill and staff acoustical engineer Mark Bastasch.
The property owners claim the defendants “carelessly and negligently failed to adequately assess and/or test the site of the Hardscrabble project to determine whether the subject project would be feasible and/or produce reasonable benefits to the community.” They say the wind farm – with 37 turbines that stand 476 feet tall – is too large, too noisy and too close to their homes. The 74-megawatt project began producing electricity in January 2011, according to the website of Iberdrola Renewables, an affiliate of Iberdrola USA. The project is touted as “home-grown” because the blades and tower sections for the turbines were made in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Iberdrola USA, which provides gas- and electricity-delivery services to 2.4 million customers in New York and New England, is a subsidiary of Spain’s largest utility, Iberdrola S.A., which owns hydroelectric, fossil-fueled, nuclear and renewable power-generation facilities worldwide.
The plaintiffs accuse the companies of negligence, private nuisance, trespass and strict products liability. They seek punitive damages, saying that “all of the defendants acted willfully, recklessly, were grossly negligent, and/or acted with a conscious disregard with regard to each of the allegations set forth in this complaint.” The 49-page complaint details a litany of damages from each plaintiff, from headaches and stress to sediment in drinking water and airport-like noises.
Plaintiff Diane Abele says she has lost profits from her dairy farm “because the cows have been less productive since defendants built the turbines.”
Plaintiffs Bernadette Baylor and Richard Baylor Jr. say they have been unable to sell their house and land since the wind turbines were installed. They claim that because of the turbines’ noise, they abandoned their home, now rent another, and were forced to file for bankruptcy.
Plaintiffs Andrew McEvoy and Theresa McEvoy bought their property in 2002 and 2 years later bought alpacas “with the intention of building an alpaca farm,” according to the complaint. But since the turbines were built, they suspended the operation, into which they had invested “considerable time and money.”
Plaintiff June Salamone “has increased headaches, nervous/tension feelings of panic and anxiety, dizziness, and sleep disturbance due to the wind turbines,” the complaint states. “The thumping and whooshing sounds from the turbines permeates through plaintiff June Salamone’s body” and she “cannot get an uninterrupted night of sleep.”
All of the plaintiffs claim they have “suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment” of their property and “a negative impact on the value of the property.”
They say the wind farm operated at just 22.8 percent of capacity last year, “contrary to the intent and purpose of creating significant renewable energy,” as the defendants proposed.
They also claim the wind farm was built “because of huge governmental subsidies to the benefit of the defendants” and “little or no benefit to the public.”
The plaintiffs worry that “when the turbines become old and no longer function … Herkimer County may be left looking like a vast industrial junkyard.”
Rural Herkimer County, just east of Utica, includes large swaths of the Adirondack Mountains.
“Plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants have caused significant damage to the plaintiffs and that such damage is substantial, irreparable, and was proximately caused by the acts of the defendants as set forth in this complaint.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Jeff DeFrancisco and Melody Scalfone, with DeFrancisco & Falgiatano in Syracuse.
Source
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Lakes not so great for wind projects, according to new energy blueprint
ALBANY – The Cuomo administration, which last year scuttled as too expensive a plan to construct the nation’s first wind energy farm in the Great Lakes, is putting its offshore focus in an area 15 miles into the Atlantic Ocean off New York City.
Now questions are arising about whether Lake Erie and Lake Ontario will ever be tried, at least by the current administration, as a source for the renewable form of energy generation.
The new state energy “blueprint” released last week in Albany presents a clear preference to focus efforts on a state wind farm plan off the Rockaways in New York City. It comes seven months after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed an agreement with President Obama and governors of Great Lakes states to develop offshore wind farms more quickly.
State officials insist they are not closing the door on Great Lakes wind generation. But they also say there has been little interest from developers and much concern over the high cost of trying to place turbines not only far from the state’s main energy demands downstate but also on bodies of water that freeze during winters – such as Lake Erie – or in the deeper waters of Lake Ontario.
“We are open to develop Great Lakes offshore projects,” said Gil Quiniones, the president of the New York Power Authority and point person involved in developing an energy planning blueprint presented to Cuomo last week at the Capitol.
For now, offshore projects are far more expensive than land-based wind farms, said Quiniones, whose agency late last year killed a plan – citing at least $1 billion in potential costs – to place up to 150 turbines offshore between Buffalo and Chautauqua County.
Environmental groups say the Cuomo administration missed an opportunity with its new energy plan to focus more on renewable forms of energy, including Great Lakes wind projects, and that the new blueprint will send a sour signal to wind farm energy investors.
“We’re at a crossroads in this state. We see power plants on the verge of retirement and the decisions we make today are going to have an impact for decades. The failure to include Great Lakes wind as part of our wish list is a failure of the plan,” said Brian Smith, program and communications director at the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a statewide advocacy group with offices in Buffalo.
Smith said the new energy blueprint offered only “lip service” to future wind development.
“This is certainly not a signal to offshore wind developers that New York is open for business,” he said.
The scuttled Great Lakes plan was backed by many environmental organizations but opposed by a number of shoreline communities for a host of reasons, including backlash from residents who did not want waterfront views to include large turbines on the horizon. And state officials said the costs to build and maintain the turbines would have been long-term money losers for ratepayers.
“Great Lakes wind projects would be extremely difficult and very expensive,” said Senate Energy Committee Chairman George D. Maziarz, a Newfane Republican.
While Lake Erie is not as deep as Lake Ontario, making development costs potentially lower, Maziarz said community protests were heard by regulators and politicians alike. “The local communities were up in arms in opposition to it. I would think it would be a nonstarter,” Maziarz said of future Great Lakes wind projects.
The Cuomo administration’s energy blueprint released last week said high costs make offshore wind development “not expected in the near term.” The New York Power Authority, along with power companies on Long Island and New York City, has a licensing application under way with federal officials to begin the process, though, of developing an Atlantic Ocean project off Queens. The blueprint said the Great Lakes Offshore Wind project, killed last year, “suffered from inadequate site and resource information along with premature issuances of a competitive solicitation.”
Now, the document states, the state should “pursue more targeted site assessment” for wind with a focus on the Atlantic Ocean projects “in order to best leverage limited state-level funding,” it said. Source
Now questions are arising about whether Lake Erie and Lake Ontario will ever be tried, at least by the current administration, as a source for the renewable form of energy generation.
The new state energy “blueprint” released last week in Albany presents a clear preference to focus efforts on a state wind farm plan off the Rockaways in New York City. It comes seven months after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed an agreement with President Obama and governors of Great Lakes states to develop offshore wind farms more quickly.
State officials insist they are not closing the door on Great Lakes wind generation. But they also say there has been little interest from developers and much concern over the high cost of trying to place turbines not only far from the state’s main energy demands downstate but also on bodies of water that freeze during winters – such as Lake Erie – or in the deeper waters of Lake Ontario.
“We are open to develop Great Lakes offshore projects,” said Gil Quiniones, the president of the New York Power Authority and point person involved in developing an energy planning blueprint presented to Cuomo last week at the Capitol.
For now, offshore projects are far more expensive than land-based wind farms, said Quiniones, whose agency late last year killed a plan – citing at least $1 billion in potential costs – to place up to 150 turbines offshore between Buffalo and Chautauqua County.
Environmental groups say the Cuomo administration missed an opportunity with its new energy plan to focus more on renewable forms of energy, including Great Lakes wind projects, and that the new blueprint will send a sour signal to wind farm energy investors.
“We’re at a crossroads in this state. We see power plants on the verge of retirement and the decisions we make today are going to have an impact for decades. The failure to include Great Lakes wind as part of our wish list is a failure of the plan,” said Brian Smith, program and communications director at the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a statewide advocacy group with offices in Buffalo.
Smith said the new energy blueprint offered only “lip service” to future wind development.
“This is certainly not a signal to offshore wind developers that New York is open for business,” he said.
The scuttled Great Lakes plan was backed by many environmental organizations but opposed by a number of shoreline communities for a host of reasons, including backlash from residents who did not want waterfront views to include large turbines on the horizon. And state officials said the costs to build and maintain the turbines would have been long-term money losers for ratepayers.
“Great Lakes wind projects would be extremely difficult and very expensive,” said Senate Energy Committee Chairman George D. Maziarz, a Newfane Republican.
While Lake Erie is not as deep as Lake Ontario, making development costs potentially lower, Maziarz said community protests were heard by regulators and politicians alike. “The local communities were up in arms in opposition to it. I would think it would be a nonstarter,” Maziarz said of future Great Lakes wind projects.
The Cuomo administration’s energy blueprint released last week said high costs make offshore wind development “not expected in the near term.” The New York Power Authority, along with power companies on Long Island and New York City, has a licensing application under way with federal officials to begin the process, though, of developing an Atlantic Ocean project off Queens. The blueprint said the Great Lakes Offshore Wind project, killed last year, “suffered from inadequate site and resource information along with premature issuances of a competitive solicitation.”
Now, the document states, the state should “pursue more targeted site assessment” for wind with a focus on the Atlantic Ocean projects “in order to best leverage limited state-level funding,” it said. Source
Horse Creek Wind Farm developer might upsize project, begin state siting process as soon as next spring
Horse Creek Wind Farm’s developer could introduce a larger project under the state’s Article X siting process.
Paul N. Copleman, communications manager with Iberdrola Renewables Inc., said the current proposal — which would be considered by a state siting board instead of Clayton planners if, and when, the developer moves forward — is for a wind farm of up to 126 megawatts.
However, the state, in Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s recently released “energy highway” blueprint, identifies Horse Creek Wind Farm as a potential renewable energy project with an electricity-generating capacity of at least 126 megawatts and as much as 376 megawatts.
“We haven’t made any determinations yet about the size of the project or the type of wind turbines we may propose,” Mr. Copleman said.
Wind farm developer Atlantic Wind LLC, a subsidiary of Iberdrola, last asked Clayton to consider a 48-turbine, 96-megawatt project.
In 2005, it initially sought a 130-megawatt project with 62 turbines in the southeastern part of Clayton and the neighboring town of Orleans, but downsized it by removing Orleans from the project’s scope.
After a year of inactivity, the company recently suspended its local application with the Clayton Planning Board to seek an Article X review, which would expedite the approval process and give a state siting board the authority to override local zoning laws that it deems unreasonable.
“We did recently inform the town of Clayton that we intend to pursue the Article X process for our Horse Creek project, but we don’t anticipate beginning that process until next spring at the earliest,” Mr. Copleman said, adding that it is “premature to speculate” on the timing of a project application to the state.
There are too many unknown factors that could affect the application and construction of Horse Creek, he said, such as the condition of the electricity market and federal policy.
Congress has yet to renew the U.S. government’s production tax credit for wind energy, which is set to expire at the end of the year.
The $12 billion tax credit provides 2.2 cents per kilowatt for the first decade of a wind farm’s operation and opinions are split, with the Obama administration pushing for the continuation of the incentive and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney seeking to end wind subsidies. Source
Paul N. Copleman, communications manager with Iberdrola Renewables Inc., said the current proposal — which would be considered by a state siting board instead of Clayton planners if, and when, the developer moves forward — is for a wind farm of up to 126 megawatts.
However, the state, in Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s recently released “energy highway” blueprint, identifies Horse Creek Wind Farm as a potential renewable energy project with an electricity-generating capacity of at least 126 megawatts and as much as 376 megawatts.
“We haven’t made any determinations yet about the size of the project or the type of wind turbines we may propose,” Mr. Copleman said.
Wind farm developer Atlantic Wind LLC, a subsidiary of Iberdrola, last asked Clayton to consider a 48-turbine, 96-megawatt project.
In 2005, it initially sought a 130-megawatt project with 62 turbines in the southeastern part of Clayton and the neighboring town of Orleans, but downsized it by removing Orleans from the project’s scope.
After a year of inactivity, the company recently suspended its local application with the Clayton Planning Board to seek an Article X review, which would expedite the approval process and give a state siting board the authority to override local zoning laws that it deems unreasonable.
“We did recently inform the town of Clayton that we intend to pursue the Article X process for our Horse Creek project, but we don’t anticipate beginning that process until next spring at the earliest,” Mr. Copleman said, adding that it is “premature to speculate” on the timing of a project application to the state.
There are too many unknown factors that could affect the application and construction of Horse Creek, he said, such as the condition of the electricity market and federal policy.
Congress has yet to renew the U.S. government’s production tax credit for wind energy, which is set to expire at the end of the year.
The $12 billion tax credit provides 2.2 cents per kilowatt for the first decade of a wind farm’s operation and opinions are split, with the Obama administration pushing for the continuation of the incentive and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney seeking to end wind subsidies. Source
First Wind abandons Kahuku expansion as wind farm remains offline
Twelve wind turbines that rise above Kahuku remained motionless Friday, like frozen giants sitting among the Koolau Mountains.
It's been nearly three months since a fire knocked the Kahuku wind farm offline, and local residents are wondering when the project by Massachusetts-based First Wind will once again generate power.
"A lot of Kahuku residents feel since it's here, that the sooner they find a solution and can get this facility up and running again, the better it is for everybody," said Kent Fonoimoana, a board member of the Kahuku Community Association.
The 30-megawatt wind farm, capable of powering 7,700 homes, was crippled Aug. 1 after a fire erupted inside the project's battery warehouse. It was the third fire inside the 7,000 square-foot warehouse since the wind farm began generating power in March of 2011.
First Wind spokesman Kekoa Kaluhiwa tells KITV4 the cause of the fire remains undetermined, and it's not known when the project might get back online.
"Unfortunately, we still haven't come to a conclusion on the exact cause of (the fire)" said Kaluhiwa. "We are working with Hawaiian Electric on steps forward, and seeing how we can bring the project back online."
Although First Wind could face sanctions under a 20-year contract with Hawaiian Electric Co. if power generation doesn't resume, HECO spokesman Darren Pai said the focus right now is getting the wind farm back online.
"That's our principal concern right now, and we're not focused on contract provisions that don't have any immediate impact," said Pai.
Meanwhile, First Wind has abandoned plans to add five wind turbines to a parcel of land below the current wind farm footprint in Kahuku. The decision comes after the KCA voted in May not to support the expansion.
"They made it quite clear that they do not want to see more turbines in the Kahuku area," said Kaluhiwa.
Although the KCA board voted to support construction of the original wind farm, some board members like Fonoimoana are now openly wondering whether the project was the right fit for the area. That's especially true now that the wind farm has ceased generating power.
"I consider wind turbines a huge blight on the community," said Fonoimoana. "We are surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, and in my honest opinion, the answer to our energy problems or energy challenges, are surrounding us."
The battery energy storage system used by First Wind in Kahuku and the Kaheawa Wind II project on Maui was developed by Texas-based company Xtreme Power. The batteries are needed to evenly distribute energy along the electrical grid.
State Sen. Mike Gabbard is concerned enough about the Kahuku wind farm being rendered useless, he's planning an informational briefing at the state Capitol sometime in December.
"We haven't set a date yet, but when we bring all the parties together, that will be able to provide some of the answers for the community," said Gabbard, who chairs the Committee on Energy and the Environment. "Bringing together First Wind, Xtreme Power, also Castle and Cooke (and) the Department of Health, so we can just see what's going on."
Kahuku residents receive no discount on electrical rates after supporting construction of the wind farm. Instead, First Wind provides $45,000 a year in the form of a benefits package.
However, Fonoimoana and other members of the KCA want to know exactly how the money is being spent. The KCA received $2,500 from First Wind as part of the deal, but hasn't received a list of other expenditures.
"We have requested in writing and in person an accounting of who's getting what," said Fonoimoana, "But to date, we have yet to receive that from First Wind."
Kaluhiwa was unable to provide a list of organizations receiving funds from the benefits package, but said First Wind supports efforts in education, erosion control, health care and perpetuation of the Hawaiian culture.
It's been nearly three months since a fire knocked the Kahuku wind farm offline, and local residents are wondering when the project by Massachusetts-based First Wind will once again generate power.
"A lot of Kahuku residents feel since it's here, that the sooner they find a solution and can get this facility up and running again, the better it is for everybody," said Kent Fonoimoana, a board member of the Kahuku Community Association.
The 30-megawatt wind farm, capable of powering 7,700 homes, was crippled Aug. 1 after a fire erupted inside the project's battery warehouse. It was the third fire inside the 7,000 square-foot warehouse since the wind farm began generating power in March of 2011.
First Wind spokesman Kekoa Kaluhiwa tells KITV4 the cause of the fire remains undetermined, and it's not known when the project might get back online.
"Unfortunately, we still haven't come to a conclusion on the exact cause of (the fire)" said Kaluhiwa. "We are working with Hawaiian Electric on steps forward, and seeing how we can bring the project back online."
Although First Wind could face sanctions under a 20-year contract with Hawaiian Electric Co. if power generation doesn't resume, HECO spokesman Darren Pai said the focus right now is getting the wind farm back online.
"That's our principal concern right now, and we're not focused on contract provisions that don't have any immediate impact," said Pai.
Meanwhile, First Wind has abandoned plans to add five wind turbines to a parcel of land below the current wind farm footprint in Kahuku. The decision comes after the KCA voted in May not to support the expansion.
"They made it quite clear that they do not want to see more turbines in the Kahuku area," said Kaluhiwa.
Although the KCA board voted to support construction of the original wind farm, some board members like Fonoimoana are now openly wondering whether the project was the right fit for the area. That's especially true now that the wind farm has ceased generating power.
"I consider wind turbines a huge blight on the community," said Fonoimoana. "We are surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, and in my honest opinion, the answer to our energy problems or energy challenges, are surrounding us."
The battery energy storage system used by First Wind in Kahuku and the Kaheawa Wind II project on Maui was developed by Texas-based company Xtreme Power. The batteries are needed to evenly distribute energy along the electrical grid.
State Sen. Mike Gabbard is concerned enough about the Kahuku wind farm being rendered useless, he's planning an informational briefing at the state Capitol sometime in December.
"We haven't set a date yet, but when we bring all the parties together, that will be able to provide some of the answers for the community," said Gabbard, who chairs the Committee on Energy and the Environment. "Bringing together First Wind, Xtreme Power, also Castle and Cooke (and) the Department of Health, so we can just see what's going on."
Kahuku residents receive no discount on electrical rates after supporting construction of the wind farm. Instead, First Wind provides $45,000 a year in the form of a benefits package.
However, Fonoimoana and other members of the KCA want to know exactly how the money is being spent. The KCA received $2,500 from First Wind as part of the deal, but hasn't received a list of other expenditures.
"We have requested in writing and in person an accounting of who's getting what," said Fonoimoana, "But to date, we have yet to receive that from First Wind."
Kaluhiwa was unable to provide a list of organizations receiving funds from the benefits package, but said First Wind supports efforts in education, erosion control, health care and perpetuation of the Hawaiian culture.
Source
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Wind energy forum brings hundreds
It was standing room only in the Recreation Park on Tuesday night — with “BP Go Home” protesters occupying one side and green-shirted Voters for Wind filling the other.
Sandwiched between an audience of 300 people and local lawmakers from Cape Vincent and Lyme was Richard F. Chandler, representing BP Wind Energy, who was grilled by town officials for nearly two hours in a comment-heavy question-and-answer session following a brief presentation on the project.
Members of both town councils and planning boards spoke in unison, criticizing BP’s “back-door approach” to the $300 million project and the developer’s new 124-turbine layout that is in clear violation of local zoning laws.
There will be no wind turbines in the town of Lyme — only a transmission line — under BP’s new proposal. And although the configurations are preliminary, Mr. Chandler, director of business development for the project, said the turbines would not exceed 500 feet in height.
BP is pursuing a speedier approval process under Article X that would also allow a state siting board to overrule what it deems as unreasonable local laws. Article X of the 2011 Power NY Act imposes a 12-month deadline for the consideration of electric-generating facilities of 25 megawatts or higher.
Not only is the state seeking to expedite the siting of energy projects, it is also pushing for a $675 million investment in renewable energy.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, in his recent “energy highway” plan, calls for $250 million in state renewable energy funding to leverage $475 million in private investment, with a goal to create an additional 270 megawatts of energy.
The Cape Vincent Wind Farm is mentioned in the plan as one such potential project, with a listed minimum and maximum capacity of 285 megawatts.
However, Mr. Chandler said the size of the project has not been finalized and reiterated his past statement to the state Public Service Commission that the wind farm could be as small as 200 megawatts.
Several Lyme and Cape Vincent officials also took offense Tuesday night that the developer had come up with its own wind turbine setbacks.
“Our zoning law is not up for sale and not negotiable,” said Cape Vincent Planning Board member Paul L. Docteur. “We will defend our zoning law to the end.”
Mr. Chandler said BP “factored in” several standards — including Cape Vincent’s wind laws and those from other wind projects in the country — to come up with its own “reasonable” guidelines that “address health and safety concerns” and “exceed industry standards.”
BP’s setbacks include: 1,500 feet from Route 12E, 1,000 feet from County Route 6 and nonparticipating property lines, 650 feet from roads and a quarter-mile from residences.
Both Cape Vincent and Lyme’s setbacks are considerably stricter.
Read the entire article
Sandwiched between an audience of 300 people and local lawmakers from Cape Vincent and Lyme was Richard F. Chandler, representing BP Wind Energy, who was grilled by town officials for nearly two hours in a comment-heavy question-and-answer session following a brief presentation on the project.
Members of both town councils and planning boards spoke in unison, criticizing BP’s “back-door approach” to the $300 million project and the developer’s new 124-turbine layout that is in clear violation of local zoning laws.
There will be no wind turbines in the town of Lyme — only a transmission line — under BP’s new proposal. And although the configurations are preliminary, Mr. Chandler, director of business development for the project, said the turbines would not exceed 500 feet in height.
BP is pursuing a speedier approval process under Article X that would also allow a state siting board to overrule what it deems as unreasonable local laws. Article X of the 2011 Power NY Act imposes a 12-month deadline for the consideration of electric-generating facilities of 25 megawatts or higher.
Not only is the state seeking to expedite the siting of energy projects, it is also pushing for a $675 million investment in renewable energy.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, in his recent “energy highway” plan, calls for $250 million in state renewable energy funding to leverage $475 million in private investment, with a goal to create an additional 270 megawatts of energy.
The Cape Vincent Wind Farm is mentioned in the plan as one such potential project, with a listed minimum and maximum capacity of 285 megawatts.
However, Mr. Chandler said the size of the project has not been finalized and reiterated his past statement to the state Public Service Commission that the wind farm could be as small as 200 megawatts.
Several Lyme and Cape Vincent officials also took offense Tuesday night that the developer had come up with its own wind turbine setbacks.
“Our zoning law is not up for sale and not negotiable,” said Cape Vincent Planning Board member Paul L. Docteur. “We will defend our zoning law to the end.”
Mr. Chandler said BP “factored in” several standards — including Cape Vincent’s wind laws and those from other wind projects in the country — to come up with its own “reasonable” guidelines that “address health and safety concerns” and “exceed industry standards.”
BP’s setbacks include: 1,500 feet from Route 12E, 1,000 feet from County Route 6 and nonparticipating property lines, 650 feet from roads and a quarter-mile from residences.
Both Cape Vincent and Lyme’s setbacks are considerably stricter.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Cape Vincent citizens stage an anti-wind "Agreement".
Last night, citizens who are opposed to any industrial wind development in the Golden Crescent and Thousand Island region, took it to the streets and staged a public agreement.
The peaceful mob of people, who agree with their local public officials, spent the afternoon marching around the Cape Vincent British Petroleum office, carrying signs that said things like "Bp Go Home" and "Home Rule Rules".
Then, after spending the time near the British Petroleum's downtown Cape Vincent office, the agreeing citizens went to Cape Vincent's Recreation Park where they assembled to greet British Petroleum's Richard Chandler, their community organizer and their local lease holders, all of whom are attempting to break the laws of the Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent by shoving 124 wind turbines down our pie holes.
Chandler showed the public officials a map of his local law-breaking project and presented a power point presentation that was not big enough for anyone to see. During his presentation, Chandler claimed that he had overwhelming community support for what he and British Petroleum intended to do. Every man and every woman representing our community as public servants then told Mr. Chandler that he did not have overwhelming public support for his project. The last time I saw Chandler, he was telling the press the same prevarication.
Read the entire article
The peaceful mob of people, who agree with their local public officials, spent the afternoon marching around the Cape Vincent British Petroleum office, carrying signs that said things like "Bp Go Home" and "Home Rule Rules".
Then, after spending the time near the British Petroleum's downtown Cape Vincent office, the agreeing citizens went to Cape Vincent's Recreation Park where they assembled to greet British Petroleum's Richard Chandler, their community organizer and their local lease holders, all of whom are attempting to break the laws of the Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent by shoving 124 wind turbines down our pie holes.
Chandler showed the public officials a map of his local law-breaking project and presented a power point presentation that was not big enough for anyone to see. During his presentation, Chandler claimed that he had overwhelming community support for what he and British Petroleum intended to do. Every man and every woman representing our community as public servants then told Mr. Chandler that he did not have overwhelming public support for his project. The last time I saw Chandler, he was telling the press the same prevarication.
Read the entire article
Thursday, October 18, 2012
AWEA meeting to probe details of possible PTC phaseout, long-term policy needs
Wind industry representatives will gather today to discuss the long-term economic implications of their key tax break, including how and whether it could be reduced or phased out and what policy mechanisms could replace it, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
The two-day, closed-door meeting being convened by the American Wind Energy Association, the industry’s primary trade association, is separate from the industry’s long-standing push for an immediate extension of the production tax credit, which expires at the end of this year for wind.
Several months ago, AWEA established three working groups to examine long-term policy issues, and those groups are nearly complete with their task, spurring this week’s meeting.
One group focused on analyzing the economic impacts of various PTC phaseout designs to determine what would be optimal for the industry, another group focused on the political realities of what could make it through Congress, and a third examined other policies that could supplement or replace a PTC if it expired, such as renewable portfolio standards or master limited partnership status for renewable energy companies.
The overarching goal is to determine “what does the industry need to stay alive, basically,” said one industry lobbyist familiar with the meeting who, like others who spoke to Greenwire for this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The industry has been buffeted by thousands of layoffs in recent months, mostly among component manufacturers, as virtually no equipment orders have been placed for next year because of uncertainty surrounding the tax credit. AWEA says 37,000 jobs will be lost without an extension of the credit.
“We have meetings all the time analyzing PTC options as well as markets and technology,” said Ellen Carey, an AWEA spokeswoman. “That should come as no surprise given the policy uncertainty we continue to experience.”
Congress is expected to address the immediate fate of the PTC during a lame-duck session, although the future of the credit and myriad other issues largely hinge on the outcome of the elections, industry lobbyists and congressional aides say.
As AWEA has lobbied for an extension of the credit, its representatives have stressed that they are not asking for the credit to be continued indefinitely, and some industry backers have suggested phasing out the credit over a number of years (E&E Daily, June 12).
But the industry as a whole has struggled to come to a consensus on the details of a phaseout. That, among other factors, has limited the scope of discussions between the industry and Capitol Hill, creating some frustration among the lawmakers and congressional staffers who would write legislation to address the issue. At least two companies have met with staff on the House Ways and Means Committee in recent weeks to discuss phaseout proposals, according to sources familiar with the meetings, although it remains unclear how detailed those discussions have been.
“Ways and Means would like specifics so they can craft a deal,” a second industry lobbyist said, referring to the House tax-writing committee.
It remains to be seen whether Congress will take up an “extenders” bill before the end of the year, with the presidential election likely to determine how much lawmakers attempt to accomplish in November and December. If President Obama is re-elected, most observers expect a busy lame-duck session, but if Republican Mitt Romney wins the White House, Congress is expected to put off most of its work until after the new president is inaugurated.
A House aide said the industry would benefit from getting details to the Hill sooner rather than later.
“Wind is rapidly becoming the next ethanol, and it is tough to imagine how sitting on the sidelines to see which way the political winds blow on Election Day will be seen as anything other than just that — political,” said the aide, who requested anonymity. “Working in good faith and fulfilling commitments that have been made to members and staff are critical to determining next steps — and those steps will be determined sooner rather than later.”
Hopes for a PTC extension received a boost in August, when the Senate Finance Committee gave bipartisan backing to an extenders bill that would prolong and modify the tax credit (E&E Daily, Aug. 3). That bill could hit the Senate floor soon after Congress returns the week after the elections.
More detailed discussion of a phaseout could happen between staff and lobbyists and within the industry over the next few months, although specific proposals are not expected to be made public until and unless Congress approaches comprehensive tax reform.
If Congress embarks on an effort to overhaul the tax code for the first time since 1986, targeted tax breaks such as the PTC are seen as likely candidates for elimination to offset lower rates for individuals and businesses. It is not just renewable energy companies that are wary of what such reform could mean for their bottom lines, as tax credits and deductions enjoyed by oil and natural gas producers as well as various other energy sectors also could get the ax in a streamlined tax code.
Several variables are at play in determining whether the industry could survive without the PTC, including how long persistent low natural gas prices will continue, the pace at which turbine technology costs continue falling and what other policies would remain in place to drive wind development.
Low gas prices have been an especially key concern over the past few years because they make it more difficult for wind to compete with cheap, gas-fired electricity. And demand for new wind projects has fallen as state-level renewable energy mandates are being met. Because of these factors, analysts expect the industry to struggle next year, regardless of what happens with the PTC, although losing the tax credit would make the situation even worse (ClimateWire, Oct. 9).
A relatively novel idea has been gaining traction in Washington as a way to help the wind industry by allowing it to use a financing model that has long been enjoyed by oil, gas and mining companies. A bipartisan group of senators earlier this year offered legislation that would let renewable energy companies, such as wind developers, structure themselves as master limited partnerships, which would allow them to split income, taxes and tax credits among numerous investors to eliminate their corporate tax bills (Greenwire, June 7)
Today’s AWEA meeting is not expected to produce a consensus position on the longer-term phaseout question, a third industry lobbyist said, noting that it is not a formal meeting of AWEA’s board. But it should give participants a better idea of the economic and political implications of various approaches that could get more attention as part of a comprehensive tax reform debate next year.
“I think at the end of the day, industry has come to grips with the notion this benefit can’t be unfettered over time,” a fourth wind lobbyist said.
Source
The two-day, closed-door meeting being convened by the American Wind Energy Association, the industry’s primary trade association, is separate from the industry’s long-standing push for an immediate extension of the production tax credit, which expires at the end of this year for wind.
Several months ago, AWEA established three working groups to examine long-term policy issues, and those groups are nearly complete with their task, spurring this week’s meeting.
One group focused on analyzing the economic impacts of various PTC phaseout designs to determine what would be optimal for the industry, another group focused on the political realities of what could make it through Congress, and a third examined other policies that could supplement or replace a PTC if it expired, such as renewable portfolio standards or master limited partnership status for renewable energy companies.
The overarching goal is to determine “what does the industry need to stay alive, basically,” said one industry lobbyist familiar with the meeting who, like others who spoke to Greenwire for this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The industry has been buffeted by thousands of layoffs in recent months, mostly among component manufacturers, as virtually no equipment orders have been placed for next year because of uncertainty surrounding the tax credit. AWEA says 37,000 jobs will be lost without an extension of the credit.
“We have meetings all the time analyzing PTC options as well as markets and technology,” said Ellen Carey, an AWEA spokeswoman. “That should come as no surprise given the policy uncertainty we continue to experience.”
Congress is expected to address the immediate fate of the PTC during a lame-duck session, although the future of the credit and myriad other issues largely hinge on the outcome of the elections, industry lobbyists and congressional aides say.
As AWEA has lobbied for an extension of the credit, its representatives have stressed that they are not asking for the credit to be continued indefinitely, and some industry backers have suggested phasing out the credit over a number of years (E&E Daily, June 12).
But the industry as a whole has struggled to come to a consensus on the details of a phaseout. That, among other factors, has limited the scope of discussions between the industry and Capitol Hill, creating some frustration among the lawmakers and congressional staffers who would write legislation to address the issue. At least two companies have met with staff on the House Ways and Means Committee in recent weeks to discuss phaseout proposals, according to sources familiar with the meetings, although it remains unclear how detailed those discussions have been.
“Ways and Means would like specifics so they can craft a deal,” a second industry lobbyist said, referring to the House tax-writing committee.
It remains to be seen whether Congress will take up an “extenders” bill before the end of the year, with the presidential election likely to determine how much lawmakers attempt to accomplish in November and December. If President Obama is re-elected, most observers expect a busy lame-duck session, but if Republican Mitt Romney wins the White House, Congress is expected to put off most of its work until after the new president is inaugurated.
A House aide said the industry would benefit from getting details to the Hill sooner rather than later.
“Wind is rapidly becoming the next ethanol, and it is tough to imagine how sitting on the sidelines to see which way the political winds blow on Election Day will be seen as anything other than just that — political,” said the aide, who requested anonymity. “Working in good faith and fulfilling commitments that have been made to members and staff are critical to determining next steps — and those steps will be determined sooner rather than later.”
Hopes for a PTC extension received a boost in August, when the Senate Finance Committee gave bipartisan backing to an extenders bill that would prolong and modify the tax credit (E&E Daily, Aug. 3). That bill could hit the Senate floor soon after Congress returns the week after the elections.
More detailed discussion of a phaseout could happen between staff and lobbyists and within the industry over the next few months, although specific proposals are not expected to be made public until and unless Congress approaches comprehensive tax reform.
If Congress embarks on an effort to overhaul the tax code for the first time since 1986, targeted tax breaks such as the PTC are seen as likely candidates for elimination to offset lower rates for individuals and businesses. It is not just renewable energy companies that are wary of what such reform could mean for their bottom lines, as tax credits and deductions enjoyed by oil and natural gas producers as well as various other energy sectors also could get the ax in a streamlined tax code.
Several variables are at play in determining whether the industry could survive without the PTC, including how long persistent low natural gas prices will continue, the pace at which turbine technology costs continue falling and what other policies would remain in place to drive wind development.
Low gas prices have been an especially key concern over the past few years because they make it more difficult for wind to compete with cheap, gas-fired electricity. And demand for new wind projects has fallen as state-level renewable energy mandates are being met. Because of these factors, analysts expect the industry to struggle next year, regardless of what happens with the PTC, although losing the tax credit would make the situation even worse (ClimateWire, Oct. 9).
A relatively novel idea has been gaining traction in Washington as a way to help the wind industry by allowing it to use a financing model that has long been enjoyed by oil, gas and mining companies. A bipartisan group of senators earlier this year offered legislation that would let renewable energy companies, such as wind developers, structure themselves as master limited partnerships, which would allow them to split income, taxes and tax credits among numerous investors to eliminate their corporate tax bills (Greenwire, June 7)
Today’s AWEA meeting is not expected to produce a consensus position on the longer-term phaseout question, a third industry lobbyist said, noting that it is not a formal meeting of AWEA’s board. But it should give participants a better idea of the economic and political implications of various approaches that could get more attention as part of a comprehensive tax reform debate next year.
“I think at the end of the day, industry has come to grips with the notion this benefit can’t be unfettered over time,” a fourth wind lobbyist said.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)