Eagle death at Nevada wind farm brings federal scrutiny

A single dead eagle could spell trouble for a White Pine County wind farm that sells power to NV Energy.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an investigation after a golden eagle was killed in late February at the Spring Valley Wind Farm, about 300 miles north of Las Vegas.

San Francisco-based Pattern Energy, which owns the 152-megawatt wind energy project, reported the dead bird and turned it over to federal authorities within 36 hours of its discovery.

“They did all the things they were supposed to because of an eagle death,” said Jeannie Stafford, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Nevada.

Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000 because it does not hold a federal “take” permit that would allow the incidental death of a golden or bald eagle.

Stafford said the matter is under investigation by the service’s Office of Law Enforcement.

The $225 million facility went online in August as the first utility-scale wind farm in Nevada and the first to be built on federal land anywhere in the United States.

It features 66 turbines, each roughly 400 feet tall, scattered over 7,500 acres at the heart of the vast Spring Valley, which runs north-south for about 110 miles between the Schell Creek and Snake mountain ranges in eastern Nevada.

Stafford said Spring Valley is not a breeding ground for golden eagles, but the large birds of prey do migrate through the area and forage for food there.

Few bald eagles, if any, are known to pass through Spring Valley during migration, she said.

Those two species receive special protection under federal law dating to 1940.

Scott Flaherty, spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s southwestern regional office in Sacramento, Calif., said wind energy projects are not required to get take permits, but those that don’t open themselves up to investigation and possible prosecution under federal law.

Applying for a permit and engaging with the service before any eagles are killed “provides the best possible outcomes for the companies and the wildlife,” Flaherty said.

“We really prefer that wind developers work with the service early on in the process” to identify the best site for a farm and its individual turbines to reduce bird strikes, he said.

The incident in Spring Valley comes as the service considers extending the length of its take permits to up to 30 years, a move that could cut down on some of the red tape facing wind energy projects.

Flaherty said the current take permits are good for up to five years.

“It is not like a license to just go out and kill eagles,” he said. “The goal is no net loss. The service looks at populations, regional and national populations over time.”

NV Energy has agreed to buy wind energy from Spring Valley for the next 20 years.

The state’s largest electric utility is already delivering power from the wind farm to customers in Northern Nevada. The wind farm will start lighting lights and running air conditioners in the Las Vegas Valley with the completion of a new transmission line being built from Ely to Apex.

In a statement late Monday, Pattern CEO Mike Garland called the bird’s death “unfortunate” but noted that it is “the one eagle incident” since the start of operations on Aug. 8.

“We reported the incident to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other local agencies and continue to work with these organizations on this matter,” he said.

In December, when the Spring Valley facility won Wind Project of the Year at an international power-sector conference, Garland touted the company’s “environmental leadership.”

That included such “groundbreaking mitigation measures” as “modified electrical lines to reduce risks to birds and an advanced radar system designed to protect birds and bats,” he said.

Environmental groups initially tried to block construction of the wind farm over concerns about birds and bats dying in collisions with the turbines, among other issues.

The Western Watersheds Project and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in January 2011 accusing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management of skirting environmental regulations to fast-track the project.

The two sides settled their differences last year, after a federal judge refused to stop ork at the wind farm to allow more study of how it might affect bats and sage grouse in the area.

Under the settlement, Pattern agreed to expand its program for tracking bird and bat deaths associated with the project. The company also agreed to pay $50,000 for a study of nearby Rose Cave, where more than 1 million Mexican free-tailed bats roost during their fall migration.

In 2010, the developers of the wind farm said they expected fewer than 203 birds and 193 bats to die each year from turbine encounters.

Source

BP Announces their intent to file a Preliminary Scoping Statement For Their Cape Vincent Wind Complex

Today in Section B6 of the Watertown Times British Petroleum has posted the following  full page announcement 

Cape Vincent Wind Farm – Preliminary Scoping Statement Public Notice

on March 29, 2013 Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC (“ CVWP") will file a preliminary scoping statement(" PSS") for the proposed Cape Vincent wind farm pursuant to article 10 of the New York public service law(16 and why CRR – 1000.5 ). APS S is a written document intended to inform the New York State board on electric generation and siting(the “siting board”), other public agencies, and the public that CVWP is contemplating making an article 10 application parentheses the" application") to the siting board.

CVWP is proposing to build a 200 – 285 MW wind energy facility with up to 124 turbines to be cited in the town of Cape Vincent and the associated overhead generation interconnection line and related equipment to be cited in the towns of Cape Vincent and line and potentially the village of Chaumont (" Project").

The PSS will contain:

I. a brief description of the proposed Cape Vincent wind farm and its environmental setting;

II. potentially significant adverse environmental and health impacts related to the construction and operation of the project including impacts related to:

• Statewide electrical system
• Ecology, air, ground and surface water, wildlife, and habitat
• Public health and safety
• Cultural, historical and recreational resources
• Transportation, communication, utilities
• Noise and vibration
• Socioeconomic effects
• Visual impacts
• Electric magnetic fields
• Wetlands
• Cumulative Impact of Emissions on the Local Community
• Environmental Justice Communities 

the PSS will contain measures proposed to minimize environmental impacts in the identification of all other state and federal permits, certifications, or other authorization is needed for construction, operation or maintenance of the project. PSS will contain a list of local laws, rules, or regulations that the project will be seeking the siding board to supplant or override.

The PSS will also contain a description of the proposed studies or program of studies designed to evaluate potential environmental and health impacts that the CVWP intends to include in its application for an article 10 certificate. The description of the studies will include the extent and quality of information needed for the application to adequately address and evaluate each potentially significant adverse environmental and health impact, including existing and new information where required, and the methodologies and procedures for obtaining the new information. The PSS will also include an identification of any other material issues raised by the public and affected agencies to date and the response to the CVWP in those issues.

Within 21 days after the filing of the PSS, any person, agency or municipality may submit comments to the PSS by serving such comments on CVWP and filing a copy with the secretary to the Department of Public Service. Within 21 days after the closing of the comment period, CVWP shall prepare a summary of the material comments and its responses to those comments.

CVWP will provide $99,750 of Intervenor funds available for municipal and local parties that may be used to defray certain expenses associated with participating in the article 10 proceeding during the pre-application phase. Fifty percent (50%) of these Intervenor funds are reserved for municipalities. An application for Intervenor funds and more information on eligibility and how to apply for Intervenor funds is available at the DPS website at http://www.dps.ny.gov.

An application for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the project may be filed by CVWP 90 days after the filing of the PSS. The application will be accompanied by additional funding for intervenors. The application will build upon the school agreed upon in the ecological, seismic, biological, water supply, population and load sensor data as well as an evaluation of the expected environmental and health impacts and safety implications of the project, both during its construction and operation, including any studies, identifying the author and date thereof.

Once application is filed and determined to beat complete, the siting board will set a date for a public hearing. The presiding examiner will conduct a prehearing conference to identify intervenors, award Intervenor funds, identify issues for hearing and establish a case schedule for discovery to be followed by hearings. After hearings, stakeholders may brief their positions and the presiding examiner will issue a recommended decision upon which the siding board will base its decision. Stakeholders will also have an opportunity to submit briefs on the completed within 12 months from the date that the application is determined to comply with all filing requirements.

Information about the project is available from the applicant, the DPS public information coordinator, the project website (www.CapeVincentwindfarm.com) and the siting board's webpage at (http://ww.dps.ny.gov.SitingBoard).

Any member of the public wishing to receive all it formal notices, including but not limited to notices regarding a pre-application stipulations, concerning the proposed facility can file a request with the secretary. A written request may be e-mailed to the secretary at secretary@dps.ny.gov  or sent by mail to the following address: Hon Jeffrey Cohen, acting secretary,NYS  Department of Public Service, Three Empire state Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 – 1350.

Electronic documents concerning the proposed Cape Vincent wind farm can be accessed on the DPS website http://ww.dps.ny.gov, see the link on the left side of the webpage  under" Most Popular Page" to access the " Commission Documents" page, search for the Cape Vincent wind farm documents using the case number 12 – F – 0410. Alternatively, go directly to the siting board's webpage at http://www.dps.ny.gov/siting board to access documents and notices.

 

Source

Residents' interests have been neglected in Orangeville

Dear Editor:
I was struck by the extent of social havoc caused to the Town of Orangeville, by an uncontested proposal from a big company located outside of our area.  Additionally, it is unsettling that this social unrest is fueled, in large part, by our tax money acting in the form of federal and state subsidies that increase the profitability of large companies like Invenergy and General Electric and their investors, like Goldman-Sachs.

In the face of the Big Wind juggernaut, one simply must ask who the Town Board is representing: the tax-paying residents or big business?

It is hard to imagine how the interests of residents could have been so completely trampled by their elected representatives. How was this situation allowed to happen? What role might the Wyoming County Board of Supervisors played in sticking up for citizen’s rights?

What does the situation say about the future? What comfort can taxpayers take from the realization that state and local organizations do not seem to represent them – organizations that exist solely because of the tax revenue they collect?

LINDA AND PAUL MAKSON
ORANGEVILLE

Source

Orangeville residents issue intent to sue

Approximately 80 Orangeville residents are preparing for possible legal action against wind-turbine leaseholders, if the coming windmills adversely affect the landowners.
Buffalo attorney Richard Lippes, who represented homeowners during the 1970s Love Canal disaster, recently sent a notice of intent to sue to approximately 40 lease holders, if the turbines damage his clients’ health, quality of life or property.

David Bassett, one of the landowners represented by Lippes, said the lease holders notified should not be concerned because Invenergy and Orangeville have stated the Stony Creek Wind Farm will not cause problems.

“The (Orangeville) Town Board and Invenergy have assured everyone that there’s going to be no problems – no problems whatsoever – in which case, you’ll have no trouble from us,” he said. “The problem is we don’t believe any of that stuff. We just want to hedge our bets just in case we’re right and they’re wrong (and) give you guys a heads up that we’re not going to go down quietly.”

The group said low-frequency noise called infrasound produced by wind turbines near houses can cause negative health effects, and they have also raised concerns over the proximity of the turbines to houses and other buildings.

That distance between the turbines and buildings, or setback, ties into additional measures being taken. Last month, Bassett, along with fellow Orangeville residents Steven Moultrup and Lynn Lomanto, filed a joint petition to the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) to amend its December 2011 decision that gave Invenergy a conditional go-ahead for the Stony Creek project.

The trio is hoping that new public health information, including two separate 2012 studies commissioned by Health Canada and the Wisconsin PSC investigating human health effects of infrasound, will force the PSC to reconsider their ruling.

In addition, the petition to amend seeks a status report on and an extension of three compliance requirements included in the original PSC ruling. If the extension is granted, all turbines would be subject to a third-party review and Type Certification, and the PSC would ensure insurance levels could cover dismantling and relocation costs should health problems arise.

Lomanto stressed neither the petition to amend nor the potential lawsuit are related to Clear Skies Over Orangeville, a formal group of Orangeville landowners opposed to Stony Creek Wind Farm.

The petition to amend was not on the March 14 agenda, and it is not clear when the PSC will consider the petition.

Source

AWED Energy & Environmental Newsletter: 3/11/13

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy & environmental policies. Our basic position is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science.

Instead of a science-based approach, our energy and environmental policies are typically written by those who stand to economically or politically profit from them. As a result, anything genuinely science-based in these policies is usually inadvertent and accidental.

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. To this end, every three weeks or so a newsletter is put together to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and environmental matters. We very much appreciate MasterResource for its assistance in publishing this information (for the two most recent reports, see here and here).

—————————

A sordid story of wind energy in Rhode Island. This is very representative of what is going on everywhere. Watch this video carefully!

Reports about greed energy economics:

Very significant: How AWEA’s Job Claims are Bogus.

More evidence of extra costs required by wind energy.

Phony wind prices harming nuclear industry.

NREL — secret “lab” wasting your money.

Germany’s Unaffordable Wind Energy.

Germany’s “Green revolution” may cost Taxpayers well over $1 Trillion.

Sequester is a Manufactured Crisis.

Sequestration might hamper development of unreliables.

Sequestration results in 8.7% cut in wind 1603 grants.

More good commentary re sequestration and energy impacts.

Wind project’s $30 million in subsidies to be reviewed.

Despite high wind development, Texas has had a net loss in green jobs since 2010!

Ontario may “solve” wind’s intermittency with a Battery Five Times the Size of Niagara Falls. The cost — who cares?

MPs on the Pay of Subsidized Eco-firms…

BC Hydro’s Billion Dollar Climate Bill.

Investors may sue when handouts stop.

Maryland’s Offshore Wind Fiasco.

The latest in the removal of the Falmouth Turbines.

Reports about turbine health matters:

An excellent list where health professionals have expressed turbine concerns.

Health Effects of Infrasound can Cause Death.

Sleep duration predicts cardiovascular outcomes. (Peer reviewed.)

Deaths from various Energy Forms Compared.

Turbine Noise at Fairhaven Massachusetts.

More evidence of Green Energy Pollution.

Health Effects part of WindRush movie.

Reports about turbine wildlife matters:

USF&WS and 30 year Eagle killing permits.

Sierra Club Promotes Industry Over Wildlife.

John Muir and Wind Turbines.

Miscellaneous energy reports:

A superb summary of wind’s deficiencies by an economics PhD.

Wind Running from Demand.

Winds of Change — how communities are destroyed.

Wind Power’s Role Overestimated.

Wind Industry Should be Prosecuted for Fraud

Ten Ways to Kill Big Wind

Power Density Separates Wheat from the Chaff.

Offshore Wind Turbines Can Break Like Matches.

Wind Facts from a Different Angle.

No Wind, No Sun, No Power.

Wind Permits revoked in NYS.

NY State Judge dismisses lawsuit by wind developer.

Renewable Energy’s Big Secret.

Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists.

Grass Roots Revolt on Green Energy.

Is Your Church Bowing to the Green Dragon?

An Ill Wind Blows in New Hampshire.

Germany “Reaches the Pain Threshold”.

Peak Oil vs Peak Government —> please follow.

Keystone Pipeline — Pyrrhic Victory Ahead?

Solar energy can be a large consumer of water: see here and here.

An article about the new head of DOE.

Manmade global warming articles of interest:

A new solution to global warming, that might actually make sense!

Climate Change Poised to Enter Classrooms.

Survey says: Decades of climate alarmism have had little effect on attitudes.

Normative Science (really good) by Dr. Judith Curry.

Some scientists conclude that CO2 follows global warming.

IPCC head acknowledges 17-year pause in global warming.

Latest Research: EU & Russian Scientists Confirm Medieval Period Warmer Than Modern Global Warming

Time To Jail The Climate Scamsters?

It’s the Sun, Stupid.

Keystone Pipeline Will Not Affect Climate.

Sierra Club resorts to civil disobedience to promote their religion.

Our Real Manmade Climate Crisis.

Can Global Warmists Get Their Story Straight?

You’ve probably heard that environmentalists (and their media associates) were making dire warnings about global cooling in the 1970’s. This is a fascinating list of dozens of such claims.

Other articles of general interest —

An excellent article on the situation with flood insurance.

A superior short video about Obamacare and morality.

Our proposed national energy slogan is “All of the Sensible” (in contrast to the absurd “All of the Above”). Please pass it on. US citizens should make sure to get up-to-speed with what is on our PTCFacts.Info pages, as this is still a political issue.

Please pass this information on to other open-minded, science-oriented people.

Source

State justice dismisses suit by wind power developer

A State Supreme Court justice has dismissed a lawsuit brought against the Town of Allegany Planning Board by a wind power development company.

The decision by Justice Michael Nenno against Everpower Wind Holdings was brought to the attention of Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County by the group’s lawyer, Gary Abraham.

In December, Everpower sued both the Town of Allegany and the Allegany Planning Board, claiming the board’s request for a supplemental review of noise impacts, in light of the wind power company’s request to use larger turbine blades, was arbitrary.

Nenno threw out the lawsuit against the Planning Board, citing Everpower’s conduct as willfully obstinate.  

Source

No cause, no answers 7 months after Kahuku wind farm fire

It was a first of it's kind technology - that went up in smoke.

Seven months after they started spinning, the Kahuku wind mills stopped because of a fire.

The fact that they're sitting idle is having an ripple effect that reaches your electric bill.

For seven months they were spinning in the wind.

"First seven months of operation it put about 52k megawatts of energy into the system," said Hawaiian Electric Company spokesperson Darren Pai.

A productive project - capable of powering 7,800 homes.

But these last seven months have been a different story.

Since August, the 12 turbines at Kahuku are at a standstill after a fire inside the facility's battery storage system shut the wind farm down.

Turns out it was the third blaze to break-out inside the building.

"And those we did an extensive investigation and determined the cause of those that was related to the capacitors in the converters," said Wren Wescoatt of First Wind. "We took several steps to remedy that and the new investigation looked into that as one of the possibilities but hasn't yet determined what the cause of the final fire was."

Sen. Gabbard who chairs the Committee on Energy says - no cause is no good.

"I'm a little surprised they haven't found out the cause of the fire, we're still waiting to get results of the investigation, because I think that's a key part of it," said Senator Mike Gabbard (D).

The battery-storage technology was the first of its kind to regulate the flow of power when trade winds aren't blowing.

A system First Wind may decide to ditch.

"We've been working with HECO to remove the battery building, to re-build the control equipment and to get back online and producing as soon as possible," said Wescoatt.

In operation the wind farm was a win-win. HECO saw oil savings to the tune of $11 million and First Wind was working its way to meeting annual mega-watt goals.

Now HECO is back to buying up barrels of oil, and passing that cost onto customers, while First Wind is facing financial setbacks.

"They only get paid for the energy that's actually produced and fed into the grid, so when the wind farm is not in operation first wind does not get paid," said Pai.

And there's a potential for much worse under a 20-year contract First Wind could face sanctions if the project doesn't get going again.

"There is a possibility that the contract could be terminated somewhere down the road , but our focus in on first wind to get it back in operation," shared Pai.

Source

Judge Deals Blow To Galloo Island Wind Farm Project

It's another setback for a proposed wind farm on Galloo Island.

Administrative Law Judge Kevin Casutto says there's no public need for a transmission line between the wind farm project and the mainland.

The judge recommends the State Public Service Commission dismiss the application by Upstate NY Power, citing long delays in the project and the effect on potentially affected landowners.

As originally envisioned in 2009, the electricity from Galloo Island would be sold to the state Power Authority, which abandoned the idea in late 2011.

Since then, Upstate talked about selling electricity to Fort Drum, but that idea was apparently pre-empted by a plant on post that will burn wood waste to generate power.

See the ruling

Source

Cape Cod community considers taking down wind turbines after illness, noise

Two wind turbines towering above the Cape Cod community of Falmouth, Mass., were intended to produce green energy and savings -- but they've created angst and division, and may now be removed at a high cost as neighbors complain of noise and illness.

 

"It gets to be jet-engine loud," said Falmouth resident Neil Andersen. He and his wife Betsy live just a quarter mile from one of the turbines. They say the impact on their health has been devastating. They're suffering headaches, dizziness and sleep deprivation and often seek to escape the property where they've lived for more than 20 years.

 

"Every time the blade has a downward motion it gives off a tremendous energy, gives off a pulse," said Andersen. "And that pulse, it gets into your tubular organs, chest cavity, mimics a heartbeat, gives you headaches. It's extremely disturbing and it gets to the point where you have to leave."

 

The first turbine went up in 2010 and by the time both were in place on the industrial site of the town's water treatment facility, the price was $10 million. Town officials say taking them down will cost an estimated $5 million to $15 million, but that is just what Falmouth's five selectmen have decided to move toward doing.

 

"The selectmen unanimously voted to remove them. We think it's the right thing to do, absolutely," Selectman David Braga said. "You can't put a monetary value on people's health and that's what's happened here. A lot of people are sick because of these."

 

Now the matter will go to a town meeting vote in April and could ultimately end up on the ballot during the municipal elections in May.

 

"It's highly likely that what the voters will be determining is are they willing to tax themselves at an appropriate amount to cover the cost and dismantle and shut down the turbines?" Falmouth Town Manager Julian Suso said.
 

In the meantime, the turbines are being run on a limited schedule as the selectmen respond to the concerns of nearby neighbors. The turbines only run during the day -- from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. -- which means they're operating at a loss.
 

The dispute has been a bitter three-year battle in the seaside town where officials argue the project was thoroughly vetted, researched and put to public vote multiple times.

 

"To say 'let's let the voters decide' -- it sort of flies in the face of what we went through all these years," said Megan Amsler of the Falmouth Energy Committee.

 

"We never tell somebody 'hey, you're going to have to take that coal plant down or you're going to have to stop mining the mountain tops.' These are very visible and a lot of other ways that we get our energy are invisible to the average American," Amsler argued. "People don't even know how much energy they consume on a yearly basis so I think it's good for people to be able to see where their energy comes from and know that it's coming from a clean source."
 

"I think if we end up taking these turbines down it will be a shame. It will be an embarrassment for the Town of Falmouth," said Amsler.

 

Town leaders say the state bears some monetary responsibility for the situation because Falmouth was granted renewable energy credits and received advice from state level energy officials through an ongoing partnership.
 

"They certainly have been involved and have a tremendous stake in this process," said Assistant Town Manager Heather Harper. Harper said the Mass Clean Energy Center "provided the technical assistance to conduct all of the feasibility studies."

 

"I feel the state is responsible because they were really pushing for more wind power which, believe me, the whole board of selectmen are supportive of renewable energy. I am. Maybe wind, but not in this location," said Braga.
 

Ultimately, town leaders are hoping the controversy will be resolved and the community will find a way to move forward together.

 

"It's imperative to the community that we do have a coming together and a healing and find a resolution one way or the other," said Suso. His advice to communities considering a similar project to the one causing strife in Falmouth is "move cautiously, communicate well, have extreme public dialogue and listen well."

Source

Yet Another Storm Brewing Over Wind Production Tax Credit

Wow, talk about taking the wind out of a guy’s sails. Just minutes after President Obama urged the nation to support more wind power in his State of the Union address, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) sure put a damper on things. He announced that his House subcommittee intends to challenge the new one-year extension for the production tax credit for wind power. That comes on the heels of a similar announcement last month by Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA), who complained that the new wind tax credit extension is a “dramatic” change from previous versions.

The investigation threatens to throw yet another monkey wrench in the path of the wind industry, which is just coming off a banner year for wind production in 2012.

Trouble Ahead for the Wind Production Tax Credit

As Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Subcommittee, Lankford isn’t just blowing smoke. According to our friends over at The Hill, Lankford said that the wind production tax credit will be “the subject of increased oversight.”

That sounds pretty tame until you consider the way Issa, who chairs the Since Issa chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, framed his views on the new extension:

“In 24 hours the heavily subsidized wind industry has gone from the verge of collapse to a modern-day Gold Rush. H.R. 8 seems to create a perverse incentive to rush production of additional facilities…”

Why is This Even an Issue?

At issue, for those of you new to the subject, is a 1990′s-era temporary tax credit for wind power, which normally gets a routine extension every few years. It is intended to level the playing field between wind power and conventional energy, which has long benefited from enormous taxpayer subsidies.

Nothing being normal under Republican leadership in the House, this year the Obama Administration had to fight tooth and nail to win a one-year extension.

That would appear to be a hollow victory. Modern wind farms take at least 18 months to finish construction, and previous versions of the tax credit only applied to projects that were completed within the designated time frame.

So, why was the wind industry so happy with the new extension?

As it turns out, the new extension contains new language, making the tax credit apply to any project begun within the designated time frame, whether it’s completed or not.

That’s the sore point for Issa and Lankford, and now the game is to see how many projects they can exclude from the tax credit, by restricting the way the federal government considers that a project has actually begun.

Return of the Department of Energy

The Obama Administration hasn’t exactly been sitting on its hands while all this has been going on.

On Monday, the day before the State of the Union Address, the Energy Department released a glowing report on a wind project in Wisconsin, consisting of a single wind turbine at the Port of Milwaukee.

To highlight the interest of U.S. businesses in wind power, the Energy Department points out that ten different companies contributed to the project, which generates enough electricity to power the Port’s administrative headquarters with plenty left over to sell to the local utility.

That sounds like small potatoes, and it is. In the second phase of the one-two punch, on Tuesday morning the Energy Department released a report on Oregon’s Caithness Shepherds Flat wind farm. The massive, 845 megawatt wind farm (the equivalent of power for 260,000 homes) started up last fall and is credited with creating 400 construction jobs and 45 direct, permanent operating jobs without disrupting the ranch economy in its rural host community.

The choice of Shepherds flat was no accident, since it highlights the interest of major U.S. companies in alternative energy. In addition to federal support it was partly funded by a couple of U.S. wind power enthusiasts, namely Google and GE.

Source

Italy makes 'Mafia' arrests over Sicily wind farms

Police have arrested five people in eastern Sicily suspected of involvement in Mafia corruption over contracts to build wind farms, Italian media report.

The mayor and a councillor in the small town of Fondachelli Fantina, in Messina province, were among those detained.

The five face charges including extortion, fraud and Mafia association.

The investigation, which began in 2009, is linked to sub-contracts awarded to build energy farms near Agrigento, Palermo and Trapani.

A total of 11 people were under investigation, including two managers from a firm that won the main contract to build one of the wind farms, installing 63 turbines.

The contract was worth some 120bn euros (£103bn).

In December, police arrested six people and seized 10bn euros (£8.6bn) in assets in an investigation into suspected Mafia infiltration of other renewable energy facilities in western Sicily, Ansa reports.

The proceeds from contracts are believed to have been channelled to the fugitive head of the Sicilian Cosa Nostra, Matteo Messina Denaro.

The Cosa Nostra has been trying to get into the renewable energy sector for many years, Italian investigators say.

Source

The Wind Power Tax

Should businesses and families have to pay higher electricity rates to underwrite the cost of wind energy they don't even use?

That is the issue as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission takes up a complaint by Interstate Power and Light Co. (IPL) that 500,000 rate payers in Iowa and Minnesota will have to pay $170.5 million from 2008-2016 for transmission lines and upgrades to connect wind farms to the electric grid.

The utility provides compelling evidence that "the burden of these huge costs is unrelated to any benefits that may accrue to IPL and its customers." And they are paying even though they "have not experienced any material improvements to reliability or lower energy prices."

The case has ramifications nationwide because the price tag for upgrading and expanding power lines to reach offshore and remote wind turbines could reach $150 billion. The green energy lobby and Obama Administration want to socialize these costs on the backs of all rate payers.

We criticized this stealth consumer tax two years ago ("The Great Transmission Heist," Review and Outlook, November 8, 2010). Michigan rate payers were asked to subsidize about 20% of the $16 billion cost to build wind-based power lines outside the state even though those customers received little benefit. These cost-shifting schemes would seem to violate the Federal Power Act, which says FERC should establish "just and reasonable" rates to cover transmission costs.

Yet in 2011 FERC issued new guidelines called "Order 1000" stating that pricing to cover transmission costs need only be "roughly commensurate" with benefits received—whatever that means. When we challenged FERC for straying from the user-pays principle, FERC chairman Jon Wellinghoff responded that his agency's pricing proposal "makes clear that only those who benefit from transmission facilities will be allocated the costs of such transmission investments."

Well, now we'll see. The dispute is over what constitutes a "commensurate" benefit. Interstate Power and Light says it doesn't use the wind power, so it shouldn't pay for it. The green lobby and FERC counter that rate payers benefit from the overall "reliability" of the electric grid.

But this is like arguing that Oklahomans should pay to fix potholes in Manhattan because this enhances the national transportation system. In any case, wind power is one of the least reliable sources of electricity due to its intermittency. In states like Colorado, wind has to be backed up by coal or natural gas plants, not the opposite.

It's no secret why FERC is likely to rule against the homeowners in Iowa and Minnesota. The Obama Administration's green vision is to make wind and solar an ever-larger share of U.S. electricity production, regardless of costs. Think high-speed rail for the electric power network. The only way to make that happen without a political backlash is to spread the costs far and wide.

Wind and solar power are too expensive to compete with natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower without government help. The wind lobby already won an extension of its $12 billion production tax credit as part of the recent tax increase. More than half the states also have renewable energy standards forcing residents to purchase wind power. And now the greens want another subsidy for transmission lines.

In the Interstate Power and Light case, FERC has an opportunity to reinstate the user-pays principle. If FERC won't do that, Congress should step in for consumers and define "just" and "reasonable" pricing for the windy Mr. Wellinghoff.

Source

Citing Wisconsin turbine noise study, Cape councilman calls for statewide wind moratorium

CAPE VINCENT — Town officials are urging the Association of Towns of the State of New York to support a resolution calling for a ban on industrial wind development, pointing to a similar movement in Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin Towns Association last month adopted a resolution advising the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to enact a moratorium on wind farms after several noise consultants recommended to the PSC that more in-depth impact studies be conducted.

One of the four consultants who produced the report on low-frequency noise and infrasound for the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wis., was Hessler Associates Inc. — a Haymarket, Va., firm also hired by wind developers in Cape Vincent for a noise assessment.

In the report submitted to the Wisconsin PSC on Dec. 28, Hessler Associates suggests a limit of 39.5 dBA — A-weighted, audible spectrum noise — at neighboring homes on properties not leased for wind development rights.

John L. Byrne, a Cape Vincent councilman who is advocating a wind moratorium in New York state, said Cape Vincent Wind Farm’s former project manager, James H. Madden, a few years ago provided the town with several development scenarios, all of which exceed Hessler’s recommended noise limit.

“BP’s business developer Jim Madden told the Cape Planning Board that creating a project with a noise limit of 42 dBA — which would exceed Hessler’s suggested maximum threshold — would not be economically feasible,” Mr. Byrne said.

BP’s current director of business development for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm, Richard Chandler, did not return calls and emails seeking comment.

In 2010, two years before Cape Vincent Wind Farm’s merger with Acciona Wind Energy USA’s St. Lawrence Wind Farm, BP submitted to the local Planning Board an analysis showing the correlation among noise levels, project size and financial benefits.

The largest array scenario BP had considered at that time was projected to produce 124 megawatts of electricity and meet a noise limit of 50 dBA at non-participating property lines. The smallest configuration, which would meet a noise limit of 42 dBA, would have produced only 36 megawatts.

BP is seeking a state Article X siting process for a 124-turbine project of up to 285 megawatts in Cape Vincent.

Following in the footsteps of the Wisconsin Towns Association, Mr. Byrne said, he hopes the Association of Towns of the State of New York would call on the state PSC to halt the Article X certification process for industrial wind developments through a formal resolution so that long-term studies on potentially adverse health and environmental effects due to wind farms can be properly conducted.

“In the case of wind power development, I think it’s important that our people have a good understanding of what adverse health effects, if any, are caused by turbine noise, the spinning of the blades or the transmission of power,” Mr. Byrne said. “We should learn how our soil, water and land may be impacted by the installation of turbines and if any steps need to be taken to mitigate or eliminate negative impacts.”   Source

Kahuku Windfarm Loan Timed to Boost IPO, Avoid Jail

Kahuku Wind Power, LLC, a project of First Wind in Kahuku Oahu, HI, was granted a $117 million loan in July 2010, estimated to create a whopping 200 jobs. And then on February 3, 2012 this same project received a 1603 grant­ for over $35 million [docket #2594 –- $35,148,839].

Sadly, in August 2012 a fire that destroyed First Wind’s battery storage facility and sent toxic fumes into the air, left ratepayers in the dark over costs and safety. We should keep an eye on that one, however, there is more corruption to expose...

The First Wind plan was to secure taxpayer money and then go public. Now they achieved their first objective from the Bank of Obama –– since he took office (and as of 7/18/12), First Wind's projects have received over $452 million in grants through the Stimulus' 1603 Program.

First Wind's Stetson Wind Farm in Maine –– $40,441,471

Cohocton Wind Farm in New York, $52,352,334

Dutch Hill Wind Farm In New York, $22,296,494

Milford Wind Corridor Phase I In Utah; $120,147,809

Milford Wind Corridor Phase II In Utah, $80,436,803

Rollins Wind Farm In Maine; $53,246,347

Sheffield Wind Farm In Vermont, $35,914,864

Kahuku Wind Farm In Hawaii, $35,148,839

Steel Winds II Wind Farm In New York, $12,778,75

However, in November 2010, Bloomberg announced, “First Wind Holdings Inc., the operator of wind-energy projects backed by D.E. Shaw & Co. and Madison Dearborn Partners LLC, said it withdrew its initial public offering because of unfavorable market conditions” that’s code for “weak demand.”

Speaking of IPO's...

Within the House Oversight leaked emails that were unleashed late October 2012, you'll discover that these correspondences basically prove that the White House, Secretary Chu, and certain DOE officials lied about how they handled the green energy loans on various fronts –– a story I have emphasized in many of my recent green corruption posts.

In the 350+ page Appendix II, I discovered a series of intriguing emails dated in May 2010, where the DOE staff was discussing the Kahuku loan, just months prior to the final approval in July 2010. It seems that on May 12, 2012, LPO Credit Advisor James McCrea was concerned about the Loan Guarantee Program Office's "credit policies and procedures" –– so much so that he intensely clarified the importance of order, "...everyone needs to understand is all that has to go in order to put the transaction into the Federal accounting system which requires collaborating among OMB, Treasury, and parts of DOE with which you do not normally interact. To be clear, one of the reasons this is so carefully handled is that there are several penalties for a violation of the Antideficiency Act including jail time..." Later McCrea writes, "I know the processing is frustrating for First Wind. The deal will close when it is time."

Five days later, McCrea writes, "To fill Brian in, we have a pretty good mess on First Wind and it is looking like it is going to get a lot worse and quickly at that. Someone is pressing Jonathan [Jonathan Silver is the former Executive Director of the Loan Program Office] who is now pressing hard on the everyone as the sponsor has an IPO in the works. I have told Jonathan that the deal has huge issues and the sponsor's overriding is not helping at all and that further, the sponsor's pending IPO is irrelevant."

While there's no mention of where that pressure came from, the first-rate, high-powered political ties to First Wind are vast, starting with D.E. Shaw & Co, a New York-based investment firm –– "a $39 Billion Hedge Fund Giant" (also a First Solar investor), which so happens to be one of the three top contributors to Democrats –– is a backer of First Wind Holdings Inc. The founder David Shaw, is a two-time Obama bundler, who employed Larry Summers, and before heading to the Obama White House, as the top economic advisor, "Lawrence Summers received about $5.2 million over the past year in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw,” as revealed by the Wall Street Journal, noting his "frequent appearances before Wall Street firms including J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers." Towards the end of 2011, Summers left the Obama administration and rejoined the firm as a consultant.

As revealed by Peter Schweizer, “another 42 percent of First Wind is owned by Madison Dearborn Partners, an investment firm with close ties [and friend of] to then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The founder of the firm, David Canning, had been a bundler for George W. Bush. But he switched sides in 2008 and gave heavily to Obama. Madison Dearborn gave more to Emanuel's congressional campaigns than did any other business.”

While the GOP found that "Julia Bovey, First Wind's Director of External Affairs, was formerly Director of External Affairs for Obama's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (June 2009 to June 2010)," there is much bigger fish here. All government backed green comes with a slew of lobbyists, and First Wind is no different –– enter in Larry Rasky's Lobbying Firm with ties to the top.

Larry Rasky, "a longtime confidant and campaign strategist" of Vice President Joe Biden, was also a 2012 Obama bundler, and since Obama took office, "Rasky has visited the White House at least 21 Times," half of which were during the course of the DOE loan review process (Data.gov, Accessed 7/18/12). Moreover, we know that in 2009, about the time the 2009-Recovery Act passed, First Wind retained lobbyists Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications as well as Brownstein, Hyatt et al, who is primarily a Democrat donor, with some Republicans in the mix –– and as of 2012, maintains the work of Rasky.

Source

First Wind Optimistic, Expects to Expand Thanks to the PTC Extension