New York State Windpower: Enough Business/Government Cronyism

While Invenergy waits for the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) to be extended by this ‘Lame Duck’ Congress, as expressed in the 12/4/12 Batavia Daily News article: “Orangeville windfarm waits on the tax credit,” there are thousands of local tax- and rate-paying citizens who are eagerly awaiting the expiration, permanent expiration, of this $0.022/kWh subsidy. The PTC is nothing more than a tax-shelter-generator for wealthy, multinational, rent-seeking corporations like Invenergy.

How does a business plan dependent on massive taxpayer-funded handouts for profitability make it past the drawing board in the first place?!? Any of us would have filed such a plan to its rightful place—in the garbage can.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)– with the help of political cronies in high places–have attempted, and failed to push the PTC through various bills, not once, not twice, but FIVE (5) times in a little over a year. Congressmen were inundated with letters, e-mails and phone calls each of those (5) previous attempts from a lot of us telling them to say NO to the PTC–which they did. Yet, here it comes again.

No Means NO!

We hope that our elected “public servants” understand that NO means NO! “We the People” do NOT want more wasteful spending on an inefficient, unreliable, antiquated energy source that ruins peoples’ lives, kills hundreds of thousands of birds a year, does nothing to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, and has exorbitant costs to boot.

The sad reality is, however, that with 66 corporate lobbyists for every elected official roaming the halls in Washington, D.C., Big Corporate Big Bucks are working hard to buy the legislation that best suits their bottom lines – taxpayers and sound science be damned.

With 250 industrial wind turbines already strewn across Wyoming County, a number of our rural Townships have been turned into industrial wind factories – devastating the quality of life and property values of many local residents. These peoples’ homes have been rendered virtually worthless. Many of these folks can’t afford to take a huge loss, so they end up stuck there – many suffering from the ill effects of ‘infrasound’ known as “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”

Rural Blight

The desperation of those stuck living amongst industrial wind installations is evident within this e-mail I recently received from one of those residents:

We are at our wits end. My last call to Invenergy two days ago was, needless to say, useless. I told her to shut them off at night or I will cut the locks off and do it my self! My next e-mail will be to the Sheriff — again! If I can get arrested, just maybe I will get my day in court. We have spent at least $20k so far, and are out of money. The health dept also refuses to return my calls.”

It is hard to believe that treating our neighbors like this is actually going on in America today, but it is. All for “the love of money – the root of so many kinds of evil.

Sadly, NYS officials have publicly acknowledged that ‘infrasound’ is a problem from industrial wind factories worldwide, yet they have done absolutely nothing to stop this corporate assault on their taxpaying citizens.

Governor Cuomo has remained shamefully silent, despite lawsuits by NYS citizens who are suing Iberdrola because of the noise issue, and calls to do a long overdue health study. (I wonder if Governor Cuomo would buy one of these noise-damaged homes and move his family in there…!?)

The sad thing is that all of this devastation is for naught. Industrial wind is NOT economically, environmentally, nor scientifically sound energy policy – period.

No Intellectual Justification

The wind industry exists because of their claims that wind would significantly reduce CO2 emissions and thereby reduce Global Warming. After decades of giving $BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to RICH multi-national corporations like GE, BP, Iberdrola, NextEra, AES, FPL, First Wind, Invenergy, etc, CO2 emissions have NOT been significantly reduced – ANYWHERE!

Since none of the volatile wind production is indexed to actual reductions in fossil fuel generation or CO2 emissions (because it can’t achieve those reductions), the wind PTC is useful only as a means of reducing tax obligations for Stony Creek Wind’s equity partners.

Income generation through tax avoidance has been what the wind industry has been about since the days of ENRON, once the nation’s leading wind producer. Massaging the tax code via phony calls for more “renewable energy” has yielded multinational corporations like General Electric and Florida Power & Light a fortune over the last decade — they haven’t paid a dime in federal income taxes.

To rally support for the PTC corporate welfare program, AWEA is now focusing on their “jobs creation” claims — which are plain, unadulterated hogwash. As anyone who’s done an ounce of research on the wind issue knows – wind is actually a NET JOBS LOSER.

As was reported in the article, NYS Money Road to Nowhere, “On a per kWh basis, wind receives 80 times the public subsidies received by fossil fuels, but produces no reliable electricity capacity and very few American jobs. In fact, for every green job that wind supposedly creates, it destroys two to four regular jobs – in large part due to “skyrocketing” electricity rates.”

Crony Corruptocrats

Beyond all the “green” energy pie-in-the-sky promises that morally-bankrupt wind salesmen or crony-Corruptocrats may offer in the name of The Wind Farm Scam, the incivility of throwing up scores of useless machines (they would be considered lemons if they were any other sort of modern machine or appliance) is a sad testimony about how cheaply people’s values can be bought, and how little many care for the welfare of their neighbors.

If people wonder why the world is in the sad shape it is in, they need look no further than the neighbors stuck living within the massive footprints of dysfunctional wind factories, whom they are choosing to ignore. Selling ones’ neighbors out for the biggest “Swindle” to ever come down the pike is hardly what Jesus had in mind when He told us, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

It’s time to END the PTC! For more information, see: http://ptcfacts.Info/

Source

Deval Patrick & Paul Gaynor: Crony Capitalism At First Wind

The third fire at First Wind’s Kahuku Wind project since operations began in March of 2011 spewed lead and lasted for three days. The publicly-funded multimillion dollar Xtreme Battery storage facility filled with toxic smoke, and 12,000 batteries were completely destroyed. Hawaii News Now reports some fear this environmental threat will be repeated at First Wind’s other projects.

Hawaii Free Press provides a grim prognosis for Kahuku Wind:

“Recent developments reduce the chances that First Wind will ever be able to repair the defective turbines which were supposed to power the burned batteries at Kahuku.”

Boston-based First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor is Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s appointed green policy advisor under the Global Warming Solutions Act. Gaynor is also appointed co-chair of the Mass Department of Environmental Protection Advisory Committee “Low Carbone Energy Supply Subcommittee.” First Wind has benefitted by a $117 million loan guarantee for (12) Clipper Liberty wind turbines at Kahuku despite a trade secret between Clipper Wind and First Wind executed to obscure from the public information about structural and mechanical problems ongoing with Clipper wind turbines.

Cash-strapped-Clipper, founded by Enron’s James Dehlsen, was recently dumped by the parent company United Technology Corporation UTC to Platinum Equity of CA that expressed no interest in providing remedy to Clipper’s $300 million costs in unscheduled maintenance. First Wind has deployed Clipper Liberty wind turbines in projects across the US according to court documents, with 12 newly installed but idle at Kahuku Wind, by loan of $117 million backed by the public.

First Wind recently sought a writ of attachment from the courts against Clipper Wind for $59.5 million dollars in Cedar Rapids, with arbitration proceeding in Chicago. A similar case has been filed against Clipper under sealed documents in Santa Barbara, CA. The (Iowa) Gazette reported on November 3, 2012: “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.”

Massachusetts’ Deval Patrick Administration in May of 2009 identified the long beleaguered Clipper Wind as the Wind Turbine Technology Testing Facility's first customer.

While the Pacific Coast Business Times reported on November 16, 2012, “Clipper Windpower appears ready to implement a plan to eliminate all of its South Coast positions and shutter its Carpinteria headquarters by early next year.”

The Charlestown Wind Turbine Technology Testing Center has received ARRA stimulus of $24.7 million, and $13.2 million in grants and loans from Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MACEC), with Founding Chairman former MA Executive Secretary of Energy Ian Bowles. MACEC, formed under the Patrick Administration’s Jobs Act, collects ratepayer dollars to invest in green business ventures of questionable public merit. This publicly-funded $40 million dollar Wind Turbine Technology Testing Center, operated by MACEC, has provided 0.00 jobs for the past 1.5 years according to the federal government's recovery tracker.

NECN Boston refers to First Wind as 'New England’s largest wind developer.' And, waving a bright red flag Hawaii Free Press refers to First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor as the ‘Hawaii Wind Developer tied to Largest-ever asset seizure by anti-Mafia police.’ UPC First Wind got its start when Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) alum Paul Gaynor was tapped by UPC Group to bring the success of wind projects in Italy, Italian Vento Power Corporation (IVPC), to the United States according to WPI Summer News 2005.

While multiple news outlets, including the Financial Times, report that the President of Italian Wind Energy Association and Director of the IVPC was arrested on “charges related to fraud involved in obtaining public subsidies to construct wind farms” in November of 2009 during Operation “Gone with the Wind.” Oreste Vigorito of IVPC was convicted in July of 2012.

According to House Budget Committee’s ‘Empty Promise of Green Jobs’ study, “The Costly Consequences of Crony Capitalism” 11/21/11:

First Wind Holdings received a $117 million loan guarantee in March of 2010. First Wind withdrew its initial public offering in October of 2010, due to a lack of investor demand. According to the Boston Globe, investors shied away from the company because “First Wind owes more than $500 million, loses money on a steady basis, and reports a negative cash flow.”

The House Oversight Committee Report of March 20, 2012 titled, 'The Department of Energy’s Disastrous Management of Loan Guarantee Program' provides blistering criticism of green company executives lining their pockets before filing for bankruptcy in MA. First Wind, developer of "Kahuku" is identified as (S&P “Junk” rated) in this report.

The Interior Department photo above was actually used for promotional purposes by DOI for First Wind’s Kawailoa project in Oahu. It’s troubling that Secretary Salazar has ignored the catastrophic and publicly-funded failures of First Wind and Xtreme Battery at Kahuku Wind in Oahu. Awarding public subsidies to "Junk" rated wind companies whose technology has ongoing mechanical and structural problems under "trade secret” is an outrage.

Neither the Obama nor the MA Patrick Administration have picked a winner in First Wind so much as they have sealed the fate of tax and ratepayers funding First Wind, affiliates’ and subsidiaries’, vendors’ and dependents’ failures. If the objectives are low-cost green jobs, reliable and affordable energy sources that are reasonably safe, we’ve not met these with public funding, grants and loan guarantees to the US pioneers of UPC First Wind.

Barbara Durkin is the green-energy reporter for the Daily Bail. She has spent the past decade interfacing with regulators and stakeholders in the Ad Hoc review of the "world's largest" Cape Wind offshore wind project. Her independent investigation of wind energy cost vs. benefits has expanded beyond the shores of Nantucket Sound to include land-based renewable energy.

Source

Orangeville Residents Fighting Expansion of Wind Farm

Wyoming County promotes itself as having more wind turbines than any county in New York State.

But plans to add a new wind farm in the Town of Orangeville are facing stifff resistance from several hundred residents.

Calling themselves 'Clear Skies Over Orangeville,' the group is challenging the project because the turbines would be located too close to homes.

"It is about the people who live here and what they will be subjected to, and if they will be able to stay here," said concerned resident, Lynn Lomanto.

The residents are worried that low-frequency turbine noise, called infra-sound, will make many homes in the small community unliveable.

So far, 'Clear Skies Over Orangeville' have taken the matter to court twice - both times unsuccessfully.

"It seems to be all for the money," adds 'Clear Skies' President, Cathi Orr.

Fighting the expansion has been an uphill battle for the group because land-lease agreements for the installation of turbines offers cash-poor farmers, and town governments, a source of much needed income.

'Clear Skies" is now one of many concerned nationwide groups that have contacted Congress urging them to let the 'Wind Production Tax Credit' expire at the end of the month.

Source

Backlash against Big Wind Continues

Last month, 60 residents of New York’s Herkimer County filed a lawsuit in Albany that provides yet another example of the growing backlash against the wind-energy sector. It also exposes the double standard that exists in both the mainstream media and among environmental groups when it comes to “green” energy.

The main defendant in the lawsuit is the Spanish electric utility Iberdrola, which is the second-largest wind-energy operator in the U.S. The Herkimer County residents — all of whom live within a mile or so of the $200 million Hardscrabble Wind Power Project — are suing Iberdrola and a group of other companies because of the noise and disruption caused by the wind project.

The lawsuit comes at a touchy time for the wind industry, which is desperately trying to convince Congress to extend the industry’s production tax credit that expires at the end of this year. The subsidy gives wind-energy companies 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity that they produce.

Wind-energy proponents claim that an elimination of this tax credit could result in the loss of 37,000 jobs, but they have not been able to silence the dozens upon dozens of groups that have sprung up to fight expansion of the wind sector. And few places in the U.S. have seen a bigger backlash than New York State. About two dozen New York towns have passed rules banning or restricting wind-energy development, and many rural residents have expressed ongoing concerns about turbine noise.

The noise issue is front and center in the Hardscrabble lawsuit. Neighbors of the project have been complaining about noise from the turbines since last year. Two noise studies done on the Hardscrabble facility found that the turbines sometimes exceed their permitted limit of 50 decibels. In response to the complaints, Iberdrola Renewables — which owns the Hardscrabble project — installed noise-reduction equipment on a handful of the turbines.

In the lawsuit, the residents claim that the noise produced by the turbines on the 74-megawatt facility causes headaches and disturbs their sleep. Some of the residents say they have abandoned their homes because of the noise. Others are claiming that the project has hurt their property values. The key paragraph in the suit says that the defendants “failed to adequately assess the effect that the wind turbines would have on neighboring properties including, but not limited to, noise creation, significant loss of use and enjoyment of property . . . diminished property values, destruction of scenic countryside, various forms of trespass and nuisance to neighboring properties, and health concerns, among other effects.”

For years, the wind industry and its many supporters on the “green” left have been trying to dismiss the turbine-noise issue — and the nearby residents who are complaining about the problem. In late 2009, the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association published a paper that attempted to quiet critics of the noise problem; they stated in the paper that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” The paper also suggested that the symptoms critics were attributing to wind-turbine noise were psychosomatic and declared flatly that the vibrations from the turbines were “too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.”

The Herkimer County lawsuit — Abele et al. v. Iberdrola et al. — will bring the noise issue into the legal arena where it can be properly adjudicated. But it’s not yet clear what the plaintiffs might get if they win, because the lawsuit doesn’t name a specific dollar amount in damages. Jeff DeFrancisco, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said that New York State doesn’t allow plaintiffs to put a dollar value on the damages. Further, DeFrancisco said the plantiffs cannot seek injunctive relief because the turbines are already in place. “All we can do is seek compensation,” he says.

DeFrancisco said the litigation was necessary because the residents living near the turbines had no other options. The plaintiffs, he says, “can’t live peacefully” in their homes. “These are people who never had a problem before.” Some of them, he says, “would like to move but can’t because they can’t sell their homes.”

In addition to illustrating the backlash against the wind industry, the Herkimer County lawsuit provides yet another example of the double standard that exists in media coverage of “green” energy. Rural newspapers in New York and a few anti-wind websites have covered the lawsuit, but it has not been mentioned in mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times.

It’s easy to imagine what the coverage in the Times might look like if a lawsuit similar to the one in Herkimer County was filed against a company that was drilling for oil or natural gas. Last year, the Times ran a number of stories under a banner called “drilling down” — some of them were published on the front page — spotlighting hydraulic fracturing and the possibility of water contamination due to drilling.

The issues involved in oil and gas drilling and wind-turbine development are similar. They all entail new industrial activity in rural areas. All bring friction — truck traffic, noise, and other disruptions — to regions that are not accustomed to energy development. But the Times has never published a story on the backlash against the wind industry, even though New York is home to much of the backlash.

Although it’s easy to get riled about the newspaper of record, it’s mainstream environmental groups that display the most pernicious double standard. Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and other groups were founded on the notion of environmental protection. The Sierra Club’s mission statement declares that it wants to “educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.”

If that’s true, why isn’t the Sierra Club campaigning for the rights of the residents in Herkimer County? Don’t rural landowners have the right to a high-quality natural and human environment that is free from industrial intrusions, like, say, 470-foot-high wind turbines that are built within a few thousand feet of their homes?

The hard reality is that for groups such as the Sierra Club and their fellow travelers, the issue of climate change — and their near-religious belief that wind turbines are an effective method of cutting carbon dioxide emissions — trumps nearly every other concern. If rural residents in Herkimer County and elsewhere are getting steamrolled by wind-energy developers, well, then, that’s just too bad.

It will take months for the Herkimer County lawsuit to wend its way through the courts. But the lawsuit shows, once again, that the anti-wind backlash is growing. And that blowback will only get worse — with or without the help of the self-proclaimed “environmentalists.”

Source

Michigan’s insane 25×25 proposition: A postmortem

Why Michigan voters wisely rejected the crazy idea of 25% electricity from renewables by 2025

The Michigan Energy-Michigan Jobs (MEMJ) Proposal 3 – its 25 by 25 gambit – would have forced Michigan taxpayers and ratepayers to produce 25 percent of the Wolverine State’s electricity via expensive, unreliable, parasitic wind and solar projects by 2025.

The misguided program has now been laid to rest by the wisdom of Michigan’s voters. What can we learn by autopsying its corpse?

This initiative was hardly local. It was driven by out-of-state pressure groups like the Sierra Club that were backed by the League of Conservation Voters, natural gas company Chesapeake Energy, and a number of deep-pocketed elites. MEMJ itself was funded largely by the Green Tech Action Fund of San Francisco; the Natural Resources Defense Fund of New York, whose president is multi-millionaire Frances Beinecke; and San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer.

These carpetbagger activists placed a bull’s-eye on Michigan ratepayers with Proposal 3. Sierra Club was blunt: “If successful, the [Michigan] 25×25 initiative will send an important signal to the nation that public desire to move toward green energy remains strong.”

The grassroots activists who defeated this proposal had no billionaire largesse to draw upon. They were united under the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition, a bipartisan renewable energy consumers watchdog group dependent on small contributions to support its work and committed to advancing sensible science-based energy policies and free market land use policies.

Compelled by the principle that industrial renewable energy schemes like Proposal 3 bring far more benefit to their invisible corporate cronies than to the environment, IICC members traveled the state on their own dime to speak out, protest, educate and inform. Their reward was sweet: they took their message of science-based energy policy to the people, who responded at the ballot box, soundly defeating Proposal 3 by 64-36 percent.

Using Sierra’s own test, Michigan ratepayers have shouted there is no such “public desire.”

In fact, there is widespread opposition to mandating forest-denuding biomass and massively expensive solar. But the hottest conflict focused on industrial wind. Michigan wind projects have lost at the ballot box virtually every time they have been put to the vote in a fair manner – and by similar margins.

At the township level, opposition to wind cronyism is just as strong. In Lenawee County, Riga Township rejected wind-friendly zoning by 64-36 percent. Two more Lenawee Townships followed suit. In Huron County, Lake Township removed a wind friendly ordinance by a similar 61-39 percent. And in Clinton County townships are intent on adopting police power regulations for wind energy installations, in defiance of too-permissive county level zoning.

This opposition is strongly bipartisan. Proposal 3 and its miles of wind turbines were opposed by both the free market Americans for Prosperity and Michael Moore movie producer Jeff Gibbs.

The ballot box evidence is clear. Michigan ratepayers from left to right are emphatic that there is no “desire” for mandated and subsidized industrial wind projects, in their backyard or anywhere in the State.

The push for Prop 3 also broke the big utilities’ code of silence on wind inefficacy. MEMJ unwittingly exposed CMS Energy’s duplicity on this issue – observing that CMS praised its new Ludington area wind plant for furnishing “reliable and affordable energy,” even as its public relations surrogate Care for Michigan was calling wind “expensive and unreliable.” Unfortunately for MEMJ, the Care for Michigan version was the truth.

Opponents of renewable energy have long pointed out that wind energy is parasitic – totally dependent on fossil fuels for backup power, with every megawatt of wind power supported by a megawatt of redundant coal or natural gas generating plants. So wind cannot possibly or meaningfully reduce emissions.

But the utilities stood silent. Their beloved existing 10 percent renewable mandate, PA295, restored their monopoly status and guaranteed them nice profits, in exchange for a small number of renewable projects. They were not interested in biting the legislative hand that was (and is) feeding them.

But Prop 3 brought all stick and no carrot for the utilities. They could no longer remain silent. Out came the truth. Wind cannot replace fossil fuel plants. Wind is not getting inexorably cheaper, but is far more expensive than current generation and, minus the huge hidden subsidies, more expensive than new coal. Wind cannot increase employment without costing employment in other industries that get stuck with soaring electricity bills. Wind energy cannot liberate us from foreign oil or from out-of-state coal imports.

What then did our autopsy discover? Michigan renewable energy mandates – including PA295 – are doomed. Because of gluttonous overreach, they will die by their own hand. Politicians need not fear public reprisal for opposing and repealing renewable energy mandates. It is now safe for lawmakers to acknowledge and act on the fact that renewables mandates like PA 295 are of no benefit to ratepayers, employers or employees, and are of dubious benefit to the environment.

Through the failure of Proposal 3, Michigan wind has been dissected and eviscerated by public opinion. The sooner our elected officials zip the death bag shut and send the corpse out for burial, the sooner Michigan can protect its rural areas from needless industrialization and our energy intensive industries from rising electricity costs that compromise their competitive edge.

Other states, and our federal government, should take note.

Kevon Martis is Senior Policy Analyst for the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition (www.iiccusa.org) in Blissfield, Michigan.

Clipper Windpower’s California HQ to close

A California business journal is reporting that Clipper Windpower, which has a wind turbine servicing operation in Cedar Rapids, plans to close its Caprinteria, Calif. headquarters.

The closing plan was announced at an all-employees meeting on Nov. 7, according to a Nov. 16 report in the Pacific Coast Business Times, quoting an unnamed “person who was present.”

The report said that by February, Clipper will consist of “somewhere under 100 employees,” all of them in Cedar Rapids. It said the remaining employees will likely focus on servicing the proprietary gearboxes on the fleet of 739 Clipper turbines already in service.

Clipper Windpower was acquired earlier this year from United Technologies Corp. by Platinum Equity, a private equity firm based in Beverly Hills.

A lawsuit filed recently by a major customer in Linn District Court documents Clipper’s financial difficulties, which it linked to massive warranty claims resulting from problems with Clipper’s turbines.

Source

First Wind goes to arbitration in $60m Clipper claim

First Wind has gone to arbitration to recover almost $60 million from Clipper Windpower, claiming in court documents that the wind turbine manufacturer "appears on the verge of imploding".

 

First Wind also petitioned the New York Supreme Court, in an effort to ensure Clipper puts aside the $59,521,000 being claimed. The developer said the money represented advance payments made as part of a 2007 turbine deal.

The arbritration is going through the America Arbitration Association in Chicago. Clipper maintained it had access funds if the judgement went against it.

The arbitration hearing follows Clipper's acquisition by private equity company Platinum Equity from United Technologies Corporation. First Wind states that Clipper has effectively stopped manufacturing wind turbines, which the company denies.

The supreme court judge rejected First Wind's petition on the grounds that Clipper said it was willing and able to manufacture the turbines if First Wind placed a firm order and made the "required deposit". The judge also said that taking such a sum of money out of the company could bankrupt it.

Clipper has admitted it has ceased wind turbine manufacturing due to lack of orders. First Wind has also claimed Clipper has stopped its warranty obligations to it and other customers and that Platinum is planning to close down the majority of its operations.

A recent report in the Pacific Coast Business Times claimed Clipper was making around 200 cuts to its Carpinteria head office. It said employees were informed of the plan on 7 November.

The report claimed that Clipper's new CEO Michael Reed - who was installed by Platinum earlier this year - will take the company's head count down to 100 by February next year. All of these will be based at its Cedar Rapids plant.

It said the only part of the company that was likely to continue was its servicing operations, which handled the Clipper-developed gearbox for the 2.5MW Liberty turbine.
Source

HECO says Kahuku Wind Farm's battery storage system will cost at least $8M to replace

Hawaiian Electric Co. says its interconnection facility inside the battery energy storage system warehouse at the Kahuku Wind Farm on Oahu's North Shore, which was destroyed by fire in August, will cost at least $8 million to rebuild and take about a year to complete.

The 15-megawatt system, which helps stabilize the wind energy output for the grid, houses both HECO's interconnection facility and Kahuku Wind Farm's control rooms.

The Hawaiian Electric Industries' subsidiary also noted in a letter sent last week to the state Public Utilities Commission that the scheduled completion date for its interconnection facility is late 2013. That means that Boston-based First Wind won't have its Oahu wind farm up and running until the latter part of next year.

Additionally, HECO says that First Wind will replace its battery energy storage system with a D-Var System, a voltage regulation device made by American Superconductor that has proven wind farm experience.

Source

Clipper chops South Coast jobs, operations

Read the article

60 Herkimer Co. residents file lawsuit against wind farm owner

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

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

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.

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

How Green Energy Works

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

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.