EverPower trying to work big developers’ playbook

Kevin Sheen of EverPower continues to willfully disobey the wishes of the Allegany Town Board in what Judge Michael L. Nenno called “contumacious” conduct.
His company brought not one but two lawsuits against the town, one against the planning board that Judge Nenno threw out, the other against the town board, which EverPower has now scheduled for a hearing before Judge Nenno in December. The company and its principle, Mr. Sheen, want to stretch this out so the town and the Carrollton Town Board will believe there is some sort of sword hanging over their heads.

The reality is, EverPower will likely get thrown out of court again and this story will be over. But by delaying judgment, EverPower hopes to line up a road-use agreement and maybe a few more landowners through whose land it needs to haul its 400-ton crane and some very long wind turbine blades, and make the town boards think this is a done deal. This page out of the big developers’ playbook is classic.

Let's not talk this time about how intrusive wind farms are for the communities asked to host them. Let's talk instead about why wind farms don't achieve their only mission: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. We are well on the way to achieving fossil-fuel independence, and now we are focused on addressing climate change.

The first thing to note is that despite hundreds of thousands of wind turbines installed all over the world, there appears to be no affect on climate change. Whether climate is our fault or not, wind farms were supposed to slow down the pace of extreme storms and global warming, but that hasn't happened.

Most power plants are designed to generate about 100 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and most operate at 90 percent or better of their design capacity. Wind farms are designed to generate 50 MW 0r less, and, according to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, they operate at 10 percent of that.

Wind farms are not viable without lots of money from taxpayers. The price paid for electricity fluctuates widely during the day, and season by season, according to demand. When demand for electricity is high, during the daytime and during the summer months, the grid operator calls up quick ramp-up power plants like Indeck in Olean and pays about $90 per MW hour.

Conventional power plants that operate all the time get the same price. Wind farms generate intermittently, mostly during the winter and at night. That's when the wholesale market price for electricity averages about $25 per MWh, and can dip below $1. A generous federal tax credit makes up the difference for wind farms, paying another $25 or so per MWh for 10 years.

Wind farms operating in New York are now getting in the range of $5 million to $10 million in federal tax credits per year. These tax credits force consumers and taxpayers to pay billions of dollars each year for electricity that has little economic value and, in many hours, has negative value.

Because they have so little taxable income because they generate so much less electricity than conventional power plants, wind farms sell the credits to other companies, often oil and gas companies.

In addition to tax credits, most of the monthly "SBC" item on your electric bill (system benefit charge) goes to wind farms in the form of outright grants by NYSERDA.

Wind farms also benefit from selling "renewable energy credits," which are suppose to represent one ton of carbon emissions avoided. But there is no way to determine whether carbon emissions were avoided by the electricity generated by a wind farm. Wind farms often bid negative prices for power generated in the winter, when the wholesale price can be less than a penny per kilowatt hour, just to qualify for the production tax credit. That electricity then gets generated and connected to the grid, regardless of whether the power is needed.

Where in all this is the displacement of greenhouse gas emissions from conventional power plants? No conventional power plant has ever been shut down because of the availability of wind power, because we rely on 24/7 electricity generators. Maybe someday most us will be driving all-electric cars, and we'll all agree to charge them only at night; and maybe someday massive flywheels or water storage reservoirs will be utilized to capture wind power generated during the winter and at night so it can be released during the daytime and in summer.

But that's not today, nor in our lifetime.

Until then we keep throwing public money at a technology that still hasn't proved very useful. Maybe we should return all that public money to households and businesses, to make their own choices about how to reduce their electricity usage.

(Mr. Abraham, an attorney, lives in Allegany.)

Source

Take a hard look at wind-farm windfalls

I can’t help but be amused at periodic news stories of some Northern New York town representatives gushing about a proposed wind energy deal. As they regurgitate the sales pitch they’ve been fed, it’s clear that the developer has succeeded in appealing to the second oldest human frailty: greed. “We will be getting $10 million over 10 years” is a frequent rationale. Their tactic is clear, since they have been easily duped by the allure of money, they believe that most of their constituents should be likewise susceptible.

How many of our legislators convey the true picture to citizens? Haven’t they ever heard that there’s no free lunch? Yes, they have been offered a financial deal, but the rest of the story includes numerous other aspects like:

■ The “windfall” money is coming from local taxpayers and ratepayers.

■ The deal is premised on an enormous property tax giveaway that no other citizen gets.

■ None of the figures conveyed to the public are net — why not?

■ Property values near this development will depreciate: who will compensate those citizens for their loss?

■ Some proximate residents will experience negative health effects: who will compensate them for their illnesses?

■ It’s proven that there will be agricultural losses up to 15 miles away: who will pay for those?

■ There are several adverse environmental impacts, yet these people say they are helping the environment.

■ The claim that this project “will power 10,000 homes” is a totally dishonest statement.

■ The claims that this project will replace imported oil, or some polluting coal facility, are also false.

■ In fact there are zero scientifically proven NET societal benefits for wind energy. Zero.

So listen carefully when your town representatives explain the pros and cons of a proposed wind project. In many instances they are assuming that you are too dumb to understand the details, that you don’t care anyway, and that the inducement of some unguaranteed future payoffs will insure that you start drooling (so you won’t pay attention to the big picture).

On the other hand, real representatives will give you an honest, complete, and objective explanation about the whole situation. You decide which is acceptable.

John Droz Jr.

Brantingham Lake

Source

Kibby Mountain turbine fire prompts DEP to scrutinize wind farm proposals

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is raising more questions about fire safety standards at wind farms proposed in the state.

The increased scrutiny is in part a reaction to a fire in January that destroyed a $4-million turbine at TransCanada’s wind farm on Kibby Mountain in northern Franklin County, according to Mark Bergeron, director of the DEP’s Division of Land Resource Regulation.

The blaze, which was first reported in the Bangor Daily News on April 23, has raised questions about fire safety standards at wind farms and whether sufficient response plans have been coordinated between wind farm developers and local and state emergency responders.

“Certainly since the Kibby fire we have taken a second look at the issue and that’s what’s raised some of these questions,” Bergeron said Monday.

On May 29, the DEP reopened the public record on the Bowers Wind farm project so that it could ask the developer, Boston-based First Wind, for additional details on proposed fire safety standards. Bowers is a 16-turbine, 48-megawatt wind power farm that First Wind wants to build in eastern Penobscot County.

The DEP held a public hearing on the Bowers project on April 30 and May 1, just a few days after the BDN published the story about the Kibby Mountain turbine fire.

Bergeron said emails requesting similar information were sent to other developers with wind farm proposals under consideration by the DEP.

The DEP’s additional questions for First Wind on the Bowers project concern the lack of a fire suppression system in one of the turbines being considered by the company, how “regular maintenance and inspection … reduces fire risk in wind turbines,” and how fire safety standards for wind farms developed by the National Fire Protection Association apply to the project.

In addition, the DEP has asked for a copy of the project’s fire protection plan, which First Wind references in its Bowers application, but was not required to provide. The department also wants the company to “provide written notification to the project manager or appropriate Bureau of Land and Water Quality staff within 48 hours of any fire event that causes one or more turbines to not generate electricity,” according to the email.

The DEP doesn’t currently have the ability to require developers to make such a 48-hour notification, Bergeron said, but it’s requesting it. In the case of the Kibby Mountain fire, a DEP spokeswoman said the department wasn’t notified about the fire until seven days after the incident, and even then the department only learned about the fire from an oil and hazardous spill report that the company filed because turbines contain lubricating oil.

John Lamontagne, a spokesman for First Wind, declined to respond to the DEP’s questions in detail before the company filed its official response, which it plans to do later this week.

“First Wind takes safety at our projects incredibly seriously,” Lamontagne said in an email. “Fires in wind turbines are extremely rare in the industry.”

He said the company is considering two turbines — one from Vestas and one from Siemens — at its proposed wind farms in Maine, including the Bowers project, the Bingham Wind Project, and the Hancock Wind Project.

“The turbines each have sophisticated systems in place designed to prevent malfunctions, overheating and fires,” he wrote. “In our response to the DEP, we will provide detail on how those systems work.”

He said once the company decides which turbines would be used at each location, “we will develop an extensive emergency response plan for each site and provide trainings with project staff and local fire responders.”

Applicants such as First Wind have been “fairly receptive” to the DEP’s additional scrutiny of fire safety issues, Bergeron said.

“We haven’t received a lot of negative comments from applicants at this point,” Bergeron said. “They’ve certainly been open to describing how the design, operation and maintenance of these turbines in general keep the risk of fire safety low.”

Gary Campbell, president of the Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, the main opponent of First Wind’s Bowers project, said his group’s chief concern had been with the turbines blocking scenic views. But after the BDN article about the Kibby turbine fire came out, fire safety issues, which surfaced at public hearing on April 30 and in filings with the DEP, came on the radar.

Campbell admits turbine fires may be rare, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an important issue that deserves more attention.

“The opportunity is there for a catastrophic forest fire,” he said. “I’m not saying it’s likely. I have no way of knowing how likely a fire is to begin, but I’m fairly confident that if it started under the right conditions it would be a catastrophe.”

To ensure that consistent fire safety standards are adhered by Maine’s wind farms, Campbell requested in a DEP filing May 17 that the Maine Forest Service’s Forest Protection Branch be required to review the fire safety standards for all wind farms in Maine, and certify that they are adequate and meet a predetermined set of standards.

“That’s certainly something the Forest Protection Branch could review, just like the Army Corps of Engineers and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife review certain sections of the application,” Campbell said. “So why we haven’t we done that with fire danger that can directly impact the lives of Maine citizens?”

Campbell is glad the DEP is asking more questions concerning fire prevention, but whether the increased scrutiny will lead to stiffer regulations governing wind farm proposals remains to be seen, he said.

“It’s gratifying they’re doing this, but as to how they’ll handle this information, I don’t have an inside track on that,” he said. “It’s nice they’re listening, though.”

Source

Turbine blade blown into daycare center

Shocking images of tornado damage in the Oklahoma City area. ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee reports a wind turbine blade slammed into the child care facility at Canadian Valley Technology Center. No one was hurt.

 

Noble ready to take down unfinished wind towers

While work was stalled at the Noble Environmental Power wind park in Bellmont back in 2008, landowners with unfinished remnants of it may soon be able to breathe a sigh of relief.

The company has applied for a decommissioning, which essentially means it will be required to remove all 14 of the concrete bases and service pads and restore the land to the way it was before officials stepped foot on it, according to Bellmont Supervisor Bruce Russell on Wednesday.

"It's a very involved process," he said.

The concrete - above and below the ground - has to be removed as part of what's involved with decommissioning.

"All of that has to be disposed of in a safe manner," Russell said.

He added that the holes where the bases and pads were have to be filled in with the same subsoil that currently exists on the land along with the top soil.

Anyone concerned about the process or who has questions can attend an informational meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. on June 3 at the Bellmont town offices in Brainardsville. Russell said Bellmont officials will be there along with ones from Noble as well.

Work on the proposed wind park came to a halt about five years ago, according to past reports. Russell said Wednesday that it had to do with finances for the project.

What was going to happen with the unfinished park has been up in the air since 2008. In 2010, Chateaugay officials received a letter from Noble that said while it would not be building an additional 13-tower park there to add to the existing 71 turbines, it did plan to continue with the Bellmont park after "the economy improves," according to past reports.

Had the wind park been successfully installed, the town of Bellmont would have received around $125,000 to $140,000 annually for a certain number of years, according to Russell, who said it could have been used for town improvements, such as road work or other projects.

Russell said nearby municipalities have had multiple benefits from collecting funds from completed wind parks within their borders.

He noted that Chateaugay has been able to use some of that money for town hall improvements, including revitalizing the theater there.

Chateaugay Supervisor Don Bilow said Friday that the town will receive about $400,000 each year for 20 years from Noble, which started around five years ago.

He said that with the money, the town has been able to reduce property taxes and eliminate town general fund taxes all together.

"We built a salt and sand building at the [town] garage," Bilow said, adding that new equipment was purchased for the town garage and fund upgrades for the Chateaugay Recreation Park.

"It has been a great benefit," Bilow said.

Bilow added that he's surprised that Noble would spend the money to begin working on a wind turbine farm considering the cost it takes to build one.

Past reports indicate that Noble spent $212 million to build the 71-turbine Chateaugay wind farm.

Source

First Wind Proposes 62-Turbine Farm in Western Maine

First Wind has proposed building what could become the largest wind farm of its kind in New England. If the project is approved, 62 turbines would span Bingham, Mayfield Township and Kingsbury Plantation in Somerset and Piscataquis Counties. In its application, the developer says it spent four years analyzing the potential effects on wildlife habitat and the environment. And while the company says the impacts will be minimal, environmental and conservation organizations say they're still doing their own assessments. Jay Field reports.

The turbines would be built on the ridges and hills around Route 16 and Johnson Mountain.

"We've been measuring the wind there for over three years now, and have found it to be a very viable resource in that area," says David Fowler, who heads up New England development for First Wind.

Fowler says the project would generate 186 megawatts of electrcity - enough to power as many as 87,000 homes. Earlier this month, the company filed an application with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, triggering a 180-day review period. The project also needs local permits and the blessing of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Fowler says the company needs to get state approval by the end of December to take advantege of the federal wind power tax credit. "It did get extended for another year," he says. "So that is a subsidy that we are eligible for - if, in fact, we can qualify within that time period. It is a 30 percent tax credit."

But the project is not likely to be approved without a fight.

"People talk about responsibly-located projects - we really don't think that there's a whole lot of any place good in Maine for these things," says Chris O'Neil, who is with the group Friends of Maine's Mountains.

O'Neil says the Bingham Project is in an especially bad spot, near one of the most beautiful stretches of the entire Applachian Trail, near Monson. O'Neil worries the development would harm the quality of place in the region. He says there's little economic evidence that the energy benefits are worth the potential environmental costs.

"We've addressed all of the concerns," Fowler says, "the local environmental concerns, at least, with wetlands, birds and bats, lynx and all the other aspects we've spent a couple years studying now."

Fowler says the Bingham application lays out all the reseach the company has done, showing that the project won't harm the surrounding environment.

In e-mails to MPBN, the Natural Resources Council of Maine and the state chapter of the Sierra Club say they're still reviewing the First Wind's application. 

Source

Windmills of death

There’s a killer on the loose. Known for murdering in cold blood with a sharp blade, the government has nevertheless turned a blind eye to the killer’s trail of death and destruction. The lucky ones who survive are maimed and left to die. The American taxpayer is forced to subsidize the slaughter.

We’re not taking here about the Tsarnaev brothers and their welfare-fueled electronic benefit cards, or about ravenous and evil blackbirds that feed on robins and their helpless young. Hundreds of America’s greatest birds, many of them protected as endangered species, fall lifeless to the ground after slamming into cruel windmill blades powered by taxpayer dollars.

The Wildlife Society Bulletin estimates the death toll at more than a half-million birds in the United States every year, including falcons, hawks and eagles. None of those responsible for the carnage has been held to account.

Neither the Obama administration nor the George W. Bush administration have prosecuted a single case against Big Wind. Providers of conventional energy sources, on the other hand, have had the book thrown at them. Over the past few years, the Justice Department extracted a $600,000 settlement and $3 million in compliance costs from Exxon-Mobil after 85 birds supposedly died from “exposure to hydrocarbons.” The company agreed to install devices to scare birds away from their equipment in the future. In December, SM Energy Co. was drilled for $300,000 after the firm’s oil reserve pits were found not to be “bird safe.”

PacifiCorp was forced to spend more than $10 million in fines and compliance costs after it was summoned to court over the death of 200 eagles said to have been zapped by the company’s power lines in Wyoming.

Like the Internal Revenue Service’s discriminatory treatment of the Tea Party, the Obama administration does not hold everyone equal before the law. The administration’s favorite green energy companies get a pass, and the firms that make affordable energy are mercilessly prosecuted.

Unlike the oil industry, wind power wouldn’t exist if there were no taxpayer subsidies. The Government Accountability Office counted 39 new benefits for windmill operators on Mr. Obama’s watch, beginning with a tax credit covering up to 30 percent of capital investment in new windmill projects, part of the 2009 stimulus. The biggest giveaway is the production tax credit, worth a cool $12.1 billion.

This unnecessary federal spending buys the death of majestic birds of prey. There’s hardly a peep of outrage from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The Audubon Society callously sacrifices the lives of birds just to chill the planet. “On balance, Audubon strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative-energy source that reduces the threat of global warming,” the society’s former president, John Flicker, wrote in the group’s magazine.

It’s a far, far better thing not to kill two birds with one stone, merely by dropping government subsidies for this hopelessly inefficient source of power. The lives of thousands of our countless feathered friends hang in the balance.

Source

They’re not “wind farms, they’re “tax farms”

Dear Editor,
In the interest of making sure the voting public has all the facts, I am writing in regard to the article in last week’s newspaper, “High Sheldon Wind Farm draws out-of-state visitors.”

Since Sheldon is a town that did sign on to turn itself into an industrial wind factory, it is not surprising that a Big Wind LLC would pay Sheldon Supervisor John Knab to do a speaking tour to try and sell their product in other areas of the country.  No doubt the wind industry has a list of their “go-to” guys that includes all such towns.

Neither is it surprising that these folks did not visit any of the other numerous towns in the area that decided against turning their towns into a wind factory.  They certainly would not want their visitors to get the whole story of what a devastatingly divisive issue this has been in Wyoming County over the past decade.  I truly found it quite sad, however, that the article read as a wind industry advertisement might — as if this whole past decade of conflict had never happened.

The explanation that these folks’ visit was triggered because Sheldon is written up as “one of the most efficient and well-built farms the country has,” highlights was a boatload of pure bunk American citizens have been fed when it comes to industrial wind.

Sheldon’s wind farm again produced a pitiful 25% last year.  And that’s the sorry excuse for “the most efficient and well-built wind farm the country has”? Any other piece of equipment, be it a machine, person or animal, that only operates 25% of the time would have been dubbed a “lemon” and put out to pasture a long time ago.   Which one of you would buy a vehicle that only operated 25% of the time?  You wouldn’t.  You couldn’t afford to.  It’s just that simple.  But when the state and federal government are in charge of spending our money, economic reality doesn’t seem to matter.

Physicist and Malone Town Board member Jack Sullivan recently reported on the reality of wind’s failure to produce in his article “Some Lessons from New York,” that appeared in the Rutland Herald (www.rutlandherald.com online).

He explained, “Both Vesta and GE turbines have a manufacturer’s life expectancy rating of 20 years, yet no New York wind project is on track to sell enough electricity in 20 years to pay for itself.”

Mr. Sullivan used the wind industry’s 20-year life expectancy claim when equating that these giant, property-value-trashing, bird Cuisinarts can never pay for themselves. The inconvenient truth exposed in another report, however, says that, “turbines last only half of what the wind industry originally claimed,” making the fact that they can never pay for themselves even more evident.

(www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9770837).

These things aren’t “wind farms,” they’re “tax farms” — in the business of harvesting our taxpayer and ratepayer dollars, and transferring them into the pockets of rich, multi-national corporations.  All of this enabled because of cronyism in high places, and short-sightedness, willful ignorance, and greed of those willing to suck on the teat of wind welfare at the rest of our expense.

For the sake of all American taxpayers and ratepayers — and our rural communities and the environment — let’s hope those currently being baited by wind salesmen across the nation are wise enough to know better.

Mary Kay Barton, Silver Lake

Source

First Wind acquires development rights to solar projects in three Mass. towns

First Wind is known for developing wind farms. But the firm's first power plant in its home state will most likely end up being solar-powered.

The Boston company has a number of wind turbine projects in northern New England, but it abandoned plans for what would have been its first wind farm in Massachusetts two years ago.

Now, First Wind is getting into the solar business, after buying the development rights to solar projects in three Massachusetts towns earlier this year from Victus Solar. First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne gave me the lineup for what the company has on tap following the Victus Solar acquisition:

• 3.9 megawatts in Millbury
• 6 megawatts in Freetown
• 17 megawatts in Warren, spread among three projects in the town

“We’re excited about the possibility of having a renewable project in our home state,” Lamontagne says. “It’s kind of a natural thing for us. … We’ve developed a lot of utility-scale wind projects. Solar, in many respects, has some similar characteristics as wind.”

Growing wind and solar generation in the state has been a huge priority for Gov. Deval Patrick, almost since he took office in 2007. The progress on wind development has been slower than he had hoped. But solar has easily exceeded his expectations: He set a goal of reaching 250 megawatts of solar generation in the state by 2017, when there were fewer than five megawatts at the time. The state just crossed that threshold this spring — four years early.

The state Department of Energy Resources can certify solar renewable energy credits for up to 400 megawatts of solar projects in the state, essentially creating a way to ensure these projects will have buyers for their power. Now the Patrick administration is working on a way of adjusting that cap. After all, with players such as First Wind in the game now, it probably won’t be long before we cross that threshold as well.

Source

Is Sheffield wind typical?

A recent article in The Times Argus reported the statistics of the first full year’s performance of the wind farm at Sheffield. First Wind Inc. has installed 16 2.5-megawatt turbines that have a maximum capacity of 40 megawatts. The article reported they had an unexpectedly poor production year of 81 million kilowatt-hours, down from their projected 115 million kilowatt-hours, but they reported supplying power to 12,300 homes. Here’s a little more to this story.

The Sheffield project has a maximum capacity of 350 million kilowatt-hours, but the variability of wind and demand means that First Wind rates the expected actual capacity at 115 million kilowatt-hours or about 33 percent efficiency. By comparison, Searsburg has an efficiency of 19.2 percent. In 2012, Sheffield achieved an efficiency of about 23 percent or about 70 percent of its projected production. The U.S. Energy Information Administration rates average household power use at 11,280 kilowatt-hours, meaning Sheffield actually supplied power to about 7,180 homes.

The reasons given for the lowered production were lower than expected winds and the inability to load the distribution grid with the produced power. The unexpected lower winds apparently did not show up in their two-year study of wind conditions performed prior to construction. This may or may not be a long-term trend as a result of global warming.

The distribution grid problem exists when the variable wind causes spikes in power production that exceed demand at that time. These wind-powered surges cannot be matched with rapid response rises and falls in power production from the base load power production facility (nuclear, hydro, coal or gas) so the excess power is simply discarded. This means that even when the wind is blowing, there may be no significant reduction in greenhouse gases produced or any drop in base load production.

Now you have heard the rest of the story, just to keep everything in perspective.

Tom Watkins

Montpelier

Source

First Wind tries again for Bowers Mountain

First Wind is hoping for a second chance at developing a wind farm near Lee. The company has resubmitted an application to place sixteen turbines on top of Bowers Mountain. First Wind retracted the original proposal in 2011 after facing tough opposition.

Vice President of Development for First Wind Matt Kearns said, "What we really focused on with this application is making a smaller, better project that's responsive to some of the issues that were raised by the folks."

Tuesday the Maine Department of Environmental Protection began a two-day public hearing on the project. Members and supporters of First Wind will submit the new proposal and those opposing the wind farm will have the opportunity to ask questions and express concerns.

According to Kearns, the new plan is based on the feedback and concerns voiced in 2011 and will not impact the region's scenery. The current proposal requests the building of sixteen turbine wind farm rather than the original twenty-seven.

Some opponents, like Gary Campbell, remain against the project.

Campbell said, "It's 16 turbines this time, but they've replaced the turbines with taller models and they're placing them on taller land."

Campbell is worried the wind farm could hurt the region's tourism, a industry the area relies heavily on.

"If we have 15% of the tourists decide not to come because there are now turbines on the horizon on what used to be a wilderness type area. A 20% decline in business, a 15% decline in business that's all it takes to go under," said Campbell.

First Wind stands by the new plan. According to Kearns, it would help boost the state's economy.
"We are able to bring new development, new economic opportunities, new jobs, maintain jobs for maine businesses who do this work in this sector. It's really important," said Kearns.

Members of the public will be able to ask questions and offer their concerns Tuesday evening at Lee Academy. The public forum will continue into Wednesday.

It will be up to the Department of Environmental Protection to determine if the project is fit to be built this time around.

Source

Environmentalists fight for $100M Maine wind farm

Professional guides and sporting camp owners are opposing a proposed $100 million wind farm in eastern Maine they say will forever spoil the region's wilderness character. Environmental groups say the project will cut pollution, create jobs and bring clean energy to the state.

The sides will square off when the Department of Environmental Protection holds two days of hearings this week on First Wind's application to build a 16-turbine, 48-megawatt wind farm, known as the Bowers Wind project, in a backcountry area straddling Washington and Penobscot counties.
A year ago, regulators rejected First Wind's application for 27 turbines in Carroll Plantation and Kossuth Township. The company says its revised plan with fewer turbines minimizes the scenic and cultural impacts. 

Project supporters include the Conservation Law Foundation, the Sierra Club, Maine Audubon, Environment Maine and the American Lung Association. Opponents include the Maine Sporting Camp Association, the Maine Professional Guides Association, the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association, the Maine Wilderness Guides Association and the Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed.

Allies and critics will make their arguments Tuesday and Wednesday at hearings being held in Lee, about 10 miles from the project site. There's no timeline on when a decision will be made on the application.

First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said the revised project has fewer turbines that are placed in less visible locations than the first proposal. The turbines will have radar-controlled lighting that will stay off at night unless a plane is flying over, he said.

"We think this is a better project that people can get behind," he said.

But guides, sporting camp owners and property owners on nearby lakes say the presence of 459-foot wind turbines detracts from the backwoods experience that draws people to the area for fishing, hunting, snowmobiling and other outdoor activities. The wind turbines will have an adverse economic impact on businesses that serve those people, they say.

"The windmills just don't fit the outdoor experience. They'll change the wilderness feel of the area," said Louis Cataldo, a guide from Grand Lake Stream and vice president of the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association.

First Wind, which has four other wind farms operating in Maine, says the project will create jobs, boost tax revenues and cut pollution while generating power for up to 25,000 homes. If the project is approved, First Wind plans to create a $300,000 fund for promotion of sporting camps and guides in the area, conservation efforts and restoration of the area deer population.

Carroll Plantation residents overwhelmingly support the project, the town clerk wrote in a letter to the DEP commissioner. The town was once a thriving community with farms and seven schools, but it doesn't have a single business today, Anita Duerr wrote. Two other wind farms are visible from town, she said, but nobody's bothered by them.

People support the project because "we are getting economic benefits that are sorely needed and we have no problems with the view," her letter reads.

The Conservation Law Foundation and the Marine Renewable Energy Association have filed as interveners in support of the project.

Jeremy Payne, executive director of the MREA, said wind power is good for Maine and that people aren't going to stop coming to the area because of some wind turbines, he said. The Stetson wind farm has 55 turbines and is located about 10 miles away.

"I find it hard to believe that people who are taking guide trips up to Maine from Boston, Hartford, New York or wherever are suddenly going to stop coming because there are wind turbines spinning on a mountaintop," he said. "I just don't believe it."

The Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed and registered Maine guide David Corrigan have intervened in opposition to the project.

If the project's built, there'll be clear views of the towers from nine nearby lakes that have been designated as scenic resources of state or national significance, said Gary Campbell, president of the Downeast Lakes group. Campbell, who's from Massachusetts, has a seasonal log cabin not far from the project site.

A wind farm will bring down the inherent and market value of properties, he said, while forever diminishing the wilderness character of the region.

Clients of the area's guides and sporting camps have written letters to the DEP expressing opposition, he said.

"The region is unusual because it's almost 100 percent 'escape tourism,'" he said. "People have written the DEP saying, 'If I want to go to fishing at the foot of some turbines, I can do that in Massachusetts, New Jersey or New York. I don't need to go all the way to Maine to do that.' So they'd probably find another place to go."

Source

Lobbyist for wind power apologizes to Vt. panel

First Wind - Wind Lobbyist's Acoustics Expert Witness Tells Panel Health Concerns are "All Made-up and Make Believe"

A lobbyist for an industry group supporting wind power apologized to a Vermont Senate committee on Wednesday after a witness she brought in called health concerns connected with wind power ‘‘hoo-hah,’’ nonsense and propaganda.

Gabrielle Stebbins, executive director of Renewable Energy Vermont, called the remarks of acoustics expert Geoff Levanthall unhelpful and offered an apology to the Senate Health and Welfare Committee after Leventhall testified at the hearing by phone from England.

 

‘‘There’s no scientific evidence behind what they (critics of wind power) say,’’ Leventhall said. ‘‘It’s all made-up, make-believe, trying to find something to object to, and trying to find something that will be difficult to disprove. It’s a technique, a propaganda technique, and they've been very, very effective.’’

 

Afterward, Stebbins said she regretted Leventhall’s comments. ‘‘I don’t think that’s helpful for the debate and, for the record, I do apologize for that.’’

 

Stebbins’ comments came at the end of the hearing in which two Vermont doctors — one of them critical of a wind power project near his home in Ira and of the industry generally — testified about what they said were ill health effects connected with wind power among people living near the turbines.

 

Leventhall did describe for the committee low-frequency, inaudible ‘‘infrasound,’’ that some blame on problems connected with wind turbines but that he said have less of an impact on people than sounds generated within the body, like the heartbeat.

 

The committee also heard from Luann Therrien, a Sheffield resident who said she and her husband have suffered severe sleep loss leading to depression since 16 turbines operated by First Wind began operating within about two miles of their home, with the closest being about a half mile away.

 

‘‘We did not oppose the project, not until it was up and running and creating noise,’’ Therrien said. ‘‘I have constant ringing in my ears that can be very distracting. My husband has been feeling so bad that he is currently unable to work. His doctor has pulled him from his job.’’

 

Discussion centered on sleep loss due to audible sounds from the turbines and on infrasound, the low-frequency noise inaudible to human ears but which some doctors have linked to ill health effects — sometimes called wind turbine syndrome.

 

Dr. Sandy Reider, a primary care provider practicing in Lyndonville, told the committee he had seen ‘‘a half dozen or so patients who are suffering from living in proximity to these turbines.’’ He told of one particularly tough case of a 33-year-old, healthy man who developed problems after a wind turbine began operation on Burke Mountain near his home.

 

The man ‘‘began to experience increasingly severe insomnia, waking multiple times at night with severe anxiety and heart palpitations, and experiencing during the daytime pressure headaches, nausea, ringing in his ears and difficulty concentrating,’’ Reider said.

 

Source

Italian police seize $1.7 billion from alleged green energy Mafioso

Italian authorities have seized a record $1.7 billion in assets from a Sicilian green energy entrepreneur with alleged ties to the Mafia.

 

Vito Nicastri, called the “king of alternative energy” for his extensive holdings in green-energy companies, stands accused of evading taxes by only declaring a fraction of the value of his businesses. He has been placed under surveillance by police and must remain in Alcamo, Italy for three years.

 

Police seizures included “43 companies, 98 pieces of real-estate including buildings, homes, stores and land; 66 bank accounts, credit cards and investment funds,” according to the Associated Press.

The Washington Post reported that the Mafia has been getting involved in the green energy businesses for the past decade as governments began to pour vast sums of money into renewable energy development.

 

The mob has been shaking down local land permit holders in order to lease their permits to green-energy developers and get a generous subsidy for doing so. The Italian government has been investigating the “eco-corruption” and has seized about 30 wind farms and several solar power plants on the island of Sicily. Italian officials have also frozen more than $2 billion in assets and arrested alleged Mafia crime bosses, along with corrupt local officials and businessmen.

 

However, this phenomenon is not isolated to Italy. Spain has also suffered from “eco-corruption,” with some companies illegally receiving government subsidies.

Source

BP puts U.S. wind farm arm up for sale

BP (BP.L) has put its U.S. wind farm operation, one of the largest in the country, up for sale, marking the continued retreat of big oil companies from renewable energy investments while oil and gas projects offer them better returns.

The British oil company has already sold or earmarked for sale some $38 billion worth of assets, partly to raise funds to pay for its 2010 U.S. oil spill liabilities, but also to reposition itself as a smaller, leaner company with an emphasis on high-margin oil production and exploration. Reports said the sale could raise a further $1.5 billion.

 

BP would not put a value on any sale, but said in a statement it expected "attractive offers" for the assets. They include interests in 16 operating wind farms in nine states with a combined generating capacity of around 2,600 megawatts of renewable power, as well as a portfolio of projects in various stages of development.

Over a decade ago, big oil companies including BP and Shell began to ramp up investment in renewable energy. But the uncertain outlook for government subsidies and prices in solar, wind and other clean energy areas, along with the re-emergence of strong prices for oil and opportunities to develop large gas fields, have since distracted their attention.

BP, which under former chief executive John Browne once named itself "Beyond Petroleum", still has a substantial interest in Brazilian biofuels, but has invested only about $1 billion a year in renewables since 2005 from a total capital spending budget of well over $20 billion annually. It has no specific investment plans for the sector in the years ahead.

Source