Where First Wind is setting up shop

UTILITY COMPANY SENTENCED IN WYOMING FOR KILLING PROTECTED BIRDS AT WIND PROJECTS

 WASHINGTON – Duke Energy Renewables Inc., a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, N.C., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Wyoming today to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in connection with the deaths of protected birds, including golden eagles, at two of the company’s wind projects in Wyoming.  This case represents the first ever criminal enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unpermitted avian takings at wind projects.

          Under a plea agreement with the government, the company was sentenced to pay fines, restitution and community service totaling $1 million and was placed on probation for five years, during which it must implement an environmental compliance plan aimed at preventing bird deaths at the company’s four commercial wind projects in the state.  The company is also required to apply for an Eagle Take Permit which, if granted, will provide a framework for minimizing and mitigating the deaths of golden eagles at the wind projects.

          The charges stem from the discovery of 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected birds, including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows by the company at its “Campbell Hill” and “Top of the World” wind projects in Converse County between 2009 and 2013.  The two wind projects are comprised of 176 large wind turbines sited on private agricultural land. 

          According to the charges and other information presented in court, Duke Energy Renewables Inc. failed to make all reasonable efforts to build the projects in a way that would avoid the risk of avian deaths by collision with turbine blades, despite prior warnings about this issue from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  However, the company cooperated with the USFWS investigation and has already implemented measures aimed at minimizing avian deaths at the sites.

          “This case represents the first criminal conviction under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unlawful avian takings at wind projects,” said Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.  “In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths. To its credit, once the projects came on line and began causing avian deaths, Duke took steps to minimize the hazard, and with this plea agreement has committed to an extensive compliance plan to minimize bird deaths at its Wyoming facilities and to devote resources to eagle preservation and rehabilitation efforts.”

          “The Service works cooperatively with companies that make all reasonable efforts to avoid killing migratory birds during design, construction and operation of industrial facilities,” said William Woody, Assistant Director for Law Enforcement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  “But we will continue to investigate and refer for prosecution cases in which companies - in any sector, including the wind industry - fail to comply with the laws that protect the public’s wildlife resources.”

          More than 1,000 species of birds, including bald and golden eagles, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).  The MBTA, enacted in 1918, implements this country’s commitments under avian protection treaties with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan and Russia.  The MBTA provides a misdemeanor criminal sanction for the unpermitted taking of a listed species by any means and in any manner, regardless of fault.  The maximum penalty for an unpermitted corporate taking under the MBTA is $15,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense, and five years’ probation. 

          According to papers filed with the court, commercial wind power projects can cause the deaths of federally protected birds in four primary ways: collision with wind turbines, collision with associated meteorological towers, collision with, or electrocution by, associated electrical power facilities, and nest abandonment or behavior avoidance from habitat modification.  Collision and electrocution risks from power lines (collisions and electrocutions) and guyed structures (collision) have been known to the utility and communication industries for decades, and specific methods of minimizing and avoiding the risks have been developed, in conjunction with the USFWS. The USFWS issued its first interim guidance about how wind project developers could avoid impacts to wildlife from wind turbines in 2003, and replaced these with a “tiered” approach outlined in the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012 LBWEGs), developed with the wind industry starting in 2007 and released in final form by the USFWS on March 23, 2012.  The Service also released Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance in April 2013 and strongly recommends that companies planning or operating wind power facilities in areas where eagles occur work with the agency to implement that guidance completely.

          For wind projects, due diligence during the pre-construction stage—as described in the 2003 Interim Guidelines and tiers I through III in the 2012 LBWEGs—by surveying the wildlife present in the proposed project area, consulting with agency professionals, determining whether the risk to wildlife is too high to justify proceeding and, if not, carefully siting turbines so as to avoid and minimize the risk as much as possible, is critically important because, unlike electric distribution equipment and guyed towers, at the present time, no post-construction remedies, except “curtailment” (i.e., shut-down), have been developed that can “render safe” a wind turbine placed in a location of high avian collision risk.  Other experimental measures to reduce prey, detect and deter avian proximity to turbines are being tested.  In the western United States, golden eagles may be particularly susceptible to wind turbine blade collision by wind power facilities constructed in areas of high eagle use.

          The $400,000 fine imposed in the case will be directed to the federally-administered North American Wetlands Conservation Fund.  The company will also pay $100,000 in restitution to the State of Wyoming, and perform community service by making a $160,000 payment to the congressionally-chartered National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, designated for projects aimed at preserving golden eagles and increasing the understanding of ways to minimize and monitor interactions between eagles and commercial wind power facilities, as well as enhance eagle rehabilitation and conservation efforts in Wyoming.  Duke Energy Renewables is also required to contribute $340,000 to a conservation fund for the purchase of land, or conservation easements on land, in Wyoming containing high-use golden eagle habitat, which will be preserved and managed for the benefit of that species.  The company must implement a migratory bird compliance plan containing specific measures to avoid and minimize golden eagle and other avian wildlife mortalities at company’s four commercial wind projects in Wyoming. 

          According to papers filed with the court, Duke Energy Renewables will spend approximately $600,000 per year implementing the compliance plan.  Within 24 months, the company must also apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Programmatic Eagle Take Permit at each of the two wind projects cited in the case.  

          The case was investigated by Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and prosecuted by Senior Counsel Robert S. Anderson of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Conder of the District of Wyoming.

Invenergy in New York: blade break

Invenergy's Orangeville Wind Farm (formerly known as the Stony Creek Wind project) experienced a catastrophic blade break. The project, which is still under construction includes 58 GE 1.6-100 wind turbines (94 megawatts). The turbines are scheduled for commission  the second week of December 2013. Witnesses at the site told WindAction that blade debris flew past the 511-foot safety zone set by the town. This setback distance was requested by Eric Miller from Invenergy to get more turbines in a smaller area. General Electric said 1.5 times hub height plus rotor diameter or 885’ would be necessary.

Source

Northeast Wind bags refinancing

A First Wind-Emera joint venture has refinanced its debt with a new corporate credit facility consisting of a $320m term loan B debt facility and a $75m letter of credit facility.

Northeast Wind Partners’ own 419MW of wind power projects in the northeast United States.
Pricing on the new term loan was set at LIBOR plus 400 basis points with a 1% LIBOR floor, with 99% of original issue discount. The proceeds were used to refinance the joint venture’s existing debt.

Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, KeyBank, Union Bank, CIT Group, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China were joint lead arrangers and joint book-runners for the syndication of the term loan B facility.

Northeast Wind tried to refinance its debt this past summer but postponed efforts because of unfavorable market conditions.

Boston-based First Wind retains 51% and Nova Scotia-headquartered Emera owns 49% of Northeast Wind. First Wind is the managing partner, operating the wind energy projects.

Source

Suit Against First Wind Over Noise Pollution Dismissed

 http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/30879/Default.aspx

The summary judgment for First Wind upholds a lower court ruling made earlier this year on a lawsuit brought by Michael Gosselin of Mars Hill.

"I'm feeling terribly disappointed in the justice system because I thought truth and justice would prevail," Gosselin says. "And I'm very disappointed and really, really shocked."

Gosselin, a disabled veteran who suffers from PTSD, claimed in the suit that noise created by the turbines, which are situated about 1.7 miles from his home, have made his life so stressful that he's had to build a noise proof bunker in his garage.

"I'm going to have to continue sleeping in the garage until we can move out of the area I guess," he says.

Gosselin was seeking a buyout of his property for fair market value. While First Wind settled similar disputes with 18 neighboring landowners last year, Gosselin was excluded from that case because he was judged to be too far from the turbines.

First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne says the company is pleased with the ruling, and glad that all parties are spared the ordeal of a trial.

"We work very hard to be good neighbors in the Mars Hill community," Lamontagne says, "and I think we've been very successful when it comes to that."

In the ruling, the justices say the lower court did not err when finding against Gosselin, who claimed the turbines created a nuisance and emotional distress.

Claims of personal and property damage from related activities were also tossed out, and a new claim of breach of contract was not heard. Gosselin says he may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.

Wind turbine demolished as crowd watches

First Wind and Emera re-launch Northeast Wind

First Wind and Emera are again trying to close a seven-year term loan B for the Northeast Wind portfolio. The latest attempt comes just two months after the two pulled a $385 million financing package. Northeast Wind’s latest incarnation is a $315 million term loan B, priced at 400-425bp over Libor, with a Libor floor of 1% and an original issue discount of 1%. Standard & Poor’s (S&P) rates the debt B+....

Source

Cape Wind not worth the price

Brookline — 

 

The Cape Wind project, started by Jim Gordon in 2001, has largely turned into a distraction for renewable energy in New England. The projected construction cost rose from $500 million in 2001, for 168 megawatt annual average (not peak) generating capacity, to $2.6 billion recently for 183 MW.
Comparable conventional electricity is just across the Charles River from us in Cambridge: the Kendall Square station. Opened by Cambridge Light and Power in 1949 burning coal, it was converted to efficient combined-cycle natural gas by Mirant in 2000, and is now run by NRG Energy.

Kendall Square has a year-round (not peak) generating capacity of 218 MW. For the three most recent calendar years, it averaged 68 percent of capacity, selling into a New England bulk electricity market with average wholesale prices per kilowatt-hour of $0.051 in 2010, $0.048 in 2011, and $0.037 in 2012 — per ISO New England.

In 2012, Cape Wind had contracts to sell bulk electricity for $0.187 per kWh that it cannot fulfill because its offshore wind farm remains unbuilt. That’s about five times the actual, average wholesale price of electricity in New England for the year.

In September 2013, Massachusetts and Connecticut state agencies approved long-term agreements by Northeast Utilities, National Grid and other utilities to buy bulk electricity from land-based wind farms run by First Wind, Iberdrola Renewables and Exergy Development at an average wholesale price of less than $0.080 per kWh.

The total capacity of land-based wind power coming under contract in 2013 is nearly twice what was promised by Cape Wind. The price per kWh is less than half the price from Cape Wind. If Cape Wind had built its offshore wind farm at the cost projected in 2001, it too could sell renewable energy at a fair price.

— Craig Bolon, Fuller Street 

Source

Foes file lawsuit to block Aroostook wind project

Opponents of a soon-to-be-started wind farm in the Aroostook County town of Oakfield took legal action Tuesday in a last-minute attempt to stop the project.

They filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bangor, aimed at a 50-turbine wind farm to be erected by First Wind of Boston through its subsidiary, Evergreen Wind II LLC. Initial road construction is set to begin before winter on the 150-megawatt project.

A key focus of the complaint, reviewed by the Portland Press Herald, is that the dredging and filling associated with the 59 miles of transmission lines needed to connect the wind farm to the regional power grid would degrade streams that support Atlantic salmon and violate the federal Clean Water Act. The complaint names the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of the Interior as defendants.

A spokesman for First Wind, John Lamontagne, said the company hadn’t yet reviewed the complaint. But he noted that the Army Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service thoroughly reviewed the $400 million project and its impacts, and concluded that it complied with federal laws.

“We believe this project will be able to deliver significant economic benefits to the region and the town of Oakfield while generating clean renewable energy that will power thousands of homes,” Lamontagne said.

The Oakfield lawsuit mirrors a legal tactic used last year by wind power foes who are trying to block an expansion of the Kibby Mountain wind farm in northwestern Maine. That case is still pending.

Nearly seven years since Maine’s first wind farm went up on Mars Hill, controversy continues over the visual, noise and environmental impacts of power production around the state’s rural lakes and mountains. Opponents have been increasingly frustrated by plans for larger wind farms, a result of changing technology and new, long-term contracts for renewable energy with utilities in southern New England. In Oakfield and at TransCanada’s planned expansion on Sisk Mountain in Franklin County, they see a potential legal path to challenge permits in federal courts.

“Part of this shifts (opposition) from the turbines to the water bodies,” said Lynne Williams, a lawyer representing Oakfield opponents.

Read the entire article

Allegany Wind Farm project dropped

A wind power development company has pulled out of its contract to build wind turbines in the Town of Allegany.

EverPower Holdings, a Pittsburgh-based maker of utility-grade wind turbines, will not file a permit extension to develop the Allegany Wind Farm project, which called for 29 turbines to be built on the hills above Chipmonk Road. The company blamed backing out on delays in the embattled project’s progress and turbine costs that have risen by millions of dollars in the intervening years.

“We’re hoping to make a fresh attempt next year,” Shears said.

The original permit was granted in 2011 by the Allegany Town Planning Board. Cattaraugus County residents raised concerns about quality of life issues associated with noise and visual clutter associated with the turbine project. That and other considerations kept EverPower from beginning construction in 2012.

“We didn’t have certainty of our ability to connect into the grid system at the end of 2012,” said Chris Shears, chief development officer for EverPower.

Earlier this year, EverPower filed a lawsuit against 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. That suit was dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Michael Nenno, who said EverPower’s conduct was willfully obstinate.

Source

APOV: New York wind wars

Congress’s last minute extension of the PTC or Production Tax Credit (aka: “Pork To Cronies”) within the December 31, 2012 fiscal cliff deal was good news for Big Wind corporate welfare profiteers, like Michael Polsky’s Invenergy. It was very bad news for rural/residential towns that are being targeted by industrial wind developers here in New York State, and across the nation.

Even though the Wyoming County, NY Town of Orangeville’s conflicted Town Board approved Invenergy’s “Stony Creek” project in the Fall of 2012, Invenergy admitted it would not go ahead with the project unless the PTC was extended. This again highlights the fact that the only thing Invenergy is interested in “harvesting” via its ‘wind farms’ is taxpayers’ money.  Once Crony-Corruptocrats in DC extended the PTC in that midnight fiscal cliff deal, the once-beautiful rolling hills of the Town of Orangeville were doomed.

 While Michael Polsky enjoys his new mansion, many Orangeville residents are now helplessly looking on in disgust as Invenergy turns their town into a sprawling industrial wind factory – rendering their homes virtually worthless – thanks to the legalized thievery of their own tax dollars for The Wind Farm Scam.

 As Big Wind CEO, Patrick Jenevein candidly pointed out in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Wind power subsidies? No Thanks” and follow-up TV interview, “Wind farms are increasingly being built in less-windy locations,” because the wind industry is focused on reaping the lucrative taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, rather than providing efficient, affordable, reliable electricity.

Nowhere is this proving to be more true than right here in New York State. Orangeville borders the Town of Attica here in the western part of the state. It’s a town that “First Wind LLC” pulled out of a number of years ago, after admitting that the Attica area “was not a good wind area.” It seems Jenevein knew exactly what he was talking about.

Economics 101

According to NYISO’s Goldbook, New York State’s installed wind factories averaged a pathetic 23.5% actual capacity factor in 2012. New York State wind factories are not generating enough electricity to even to pay for themselves over their short life spans.  It’s basic economics, but it’s being ignored by politicians.

Renowned energy analyst Glenn Schleede examined the data on New York State’s wind factories and found that one 450-MW combined cycle generating unit near New York City (where the power is actually needed) would provide more power than all of New York State’s wind farms combined, at one-fourth the capital costs – and would significantly reduce CO2 emissions, while creating far more jobs than all those wind farm – without the added costs and impacts of all the transmission lines to New York City.

It’s no wonder New York has earned the dubious distinction of having the highest electricity rates in the continental United States: 17.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) – a whopping 53% above the national average!  New York residents using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 more per year for their electricity than if the state’s electricity prices were at the national average.

Despite making absolutely no economic sense, and despite the utter civil discord embroiling Towns across New York State for more than a decade, New York State continues to aggressively pursue further industrial wind development – with no effort whatsoever to protect the health, well-being or pocketbooks of New York State citizens, especially those living next to or under the wind turbines.

Governor Cuomo and ‘Article X’

During his tenure as Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo did nothing to protect New York State citizens from the predatory practices and collusion evident among Big Wind developers. Once he became Governor of New York, Cuomo actively began aiding and abetting Big Wind’s efforts to trample rural communities’ Constitutional private property rights in his pursuit of all things “green” (aka: Agenda 21), by signing into law the new “Article X (10)” contained within his 2011 “Power NY Act.”

Cuomo's new Article X put in place an ”Energy Siting Board” comprised of five Albany bureaucrats who now have the final say regarding the siting of “power-generating facilities” in NY – redefined to mean anything generating 25 MW or more.  Cuomo’s intention to clear the way for Big Wind developers could not have been any more obvious had he rolled out a red carpet.

Article X proceedings are already being pursued by British Petroleum (BP) in Cape Vincent, NY, and by Iberdrola in Clayton, NY. These foreign-owned corporations intend to turn our beautiful Thousands Islands, St. Lawrence Seaway area into sprawling industrial wind factories.  Devastating some of the most scenic, historic areas in the nation in pursuit of the “green” energy boondoggle of wind  should have all Americans incensed – especially since they are paying for it!

In Lichtfield, NY, another Big Wind LLC tried to override the town’s restrictive zoning laws, by using Cuomo’s “Article X,” so that they could install 490-foot-tall turbines.  Luckily for Litchfield residents, the FAA struck down Big Wind’s plans there.

Robert Bryce, Senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute, reported on the lawsuit going on in Herkimer County, NY due to the intolerable noise problems associated with industrial wind factories. His article title sums it up: “Backlash against Big Wind continues.” Other wind factories are in the works in New York, with unsuspecting towns yet to recognize the fate that awaits them.

Considering the growing list of problems associated with industrial wind factories in New York State (and worldwide), Governor Cuomo’s actions reflect criminal negligence by a duly-elected “public servant,” as he has not demanded health studies to safeguard those he was elected to serve and protect.

Real Estate 101: “Location, location, location!” 

Adding insult to injury, Ben Hoen and his pals at the NRLB just came out with yet another bogus “report,” claiming industrial wind factories do not hurt property values. They can't really be serious, can they?

Any realtor who is not in bed with the wind industry will tell you, location is the most important factor when considering a home’s worth and value.

If you industrialize a neighborhood (and in the case of industrial wind energy, entire towns, and those neighboring them), you are going to devalue it.

Pretty much a no-brainer, right?  Not according to Hoen and his pals in the ideologically-driven media.

Media Controlling the Message 

After nearly a decade of researching and writing about industrial wind power, I’ve lost count of how many times my comments responding to wind-promoting articles have been rejected, and how many news publications refuse to report all relevant information regarding industrial wind power.

A number of local newspapers serving our area here in Western New York State – which has been targeted by industrial wind developers – have literally cut off all letters to the editor from local citizens regarding the industrial wind issue. These same newspapers continue to publish “Press Releases” and “project updates” on behalf of wind developers, and yet refuse to do any responsible, investigative journalism on the efficacy, effects and economics of wind power.

If “news”papers wonder why their circulation continues to drop, as people choose to get honest news elsewhere, they need look no further than their own refusal to adhere to “The Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics,” which says “Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

If wind enthusiasts actually believe all they claim to about the supposed “wonders of wind,” then why do they need to control the message the way they do? The answer is evident.

Either they are so ideologically driven that facts are not “relevant” to them — or they are getting so rich via the wind scam that they must squelch factual information as much as possible, so that the “Emperor with No Clothes” doesn’t end up being exposed for what he is — a charlatan who is swindling taxpayers and ratepayers out of billions of dollars in the name of being “green.”

Mary Kay Barton lives in Silver Springs.

Source

Google’s Green Energy Brag: $375 Million from Taxpayers (or more)

On September 13, 2013, Google announced that it had signed a contract to buy the entire output of the 239 MW Happy Herford “wind farm” that is being developed by Chermac Energy near Amarillo, Texas. The project is expected to begin operation in late 2014.

Undoubtedly Chermac Energy is pleased to have a 20-year contract (purchased power agreement) for the sale of the electricity that will be produced. The Google deal will provide the developer a guaranteed cash stream that will enable project financing. [1]

Undoubtedly, Google is pleased with all the favorable publicity the company has received for being so environmentally committed even though the wind-generated electricity will not be used in a Google facility. Instead, according to Google, the electricity will be sold in the wholesale market and Google will purchase the electricity it needs from the utilities serving its facilities or a wholesale supplier. Google will “retire” the renewable energy credits (REC) resulting from the deal.

The big losers in the Google transaction will be taxpayers, a point that none of the media stories have mentioned. Specifically, taxpayers will have to pick up the cost of the tax breaks that the “wind farm” owner (currently Chermac) will enjoy.

As explained below, the tax burden that will be shifted from the “wind farm” owner to remaining taxpayers will be at least $170 million and probably more.

The most lucrative federal tax break for the project owners will probably be the federal wind “production tax credit” (PTC). This tax break will provide the owners with a tax credit, currently set at $0.023, for each kilowatt-hour of electricity that the “wind farm” produces during the first 10 years of operation. The $0.023 rate applicable during 2013 is subject to upward adjustment for inflation and undoubtedly will be increased during the next 10 years.

Also, the “wind farm” owners will likely qualify also for another lucrative federal tax break known as “accelerated depreciation” which allows the owners to depreciate for tax purposes the entire capital cost of the wind energy equipment over a five-year period, thus providing a significant cash flow benefit.

The actual cost of the PTC to taxpayers can only be estimated at this time since the amount paid depends on the amount of electricity produced as well as the rate at the time of production. The benefit to the owners and added tax burden to remaining taxpayers can be estimated with a few assumptions.

Specifically:

1. The stated capacity of the planned Happy Hereford “wind farm” is 239.2 megawatts (MW) or 239,200 kilowatts (kW). 

2. Amount of electricity produced each year will only be known after the fact since this will depend on wind conditions at the site and condition of the turbines. Two large existing “wind farms” in the Amarillo areas had capacity factors of about 45% during 2011, among the highest in the U.S.[2] 

3. Assuming that Happy Hereford will achieve a capacity of 45%, the project would produce approximately 942,926,400 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year (that is, 239,200 kW capacity x 8760 hours per year x .45 capacity factor = 942,926,600 kWh). 

4. Production of 942,926,400 kWh x the 2013 rate of $0.023 would produce an annual PTC break for the “wind farm” owners and annual cost to taxpayers of $21,687,307. At this rate, the tax break would be $216,873,070 over 10 years if production continued at the same level. 

5. If the PTC rate is increased due to inflation adjustments to an average of $0.026 during the 10 year operation, the average annual PTC break would be $24,516,086 per year and $245,160,860 over the 10-year period.

Google had earlier announced the purchased the output of two other wind farms:

1. In July 2010, Google announced the purchase of 114 MW of the capacity of NextEra’s Story County II “wind farm” in Iowa. This project began producing electricity in 2009. Assuming a capacity factor of 35%, this project would produce 349,524,000 kWh of electricity per year and earn production tax credits of $8,039,052 in one year at a rate of $0.023 (the 2013 rate) or $80,390,520 in 10 years if the average rate over the 10 years turns out to be $0.023. 

2. In April 2011, Google announced the purchase of the output of NextEra’s 100.8 Minco II “wind farm” in Oklahoma. This project began producing electricity in 2011. Assuming a capacity factor of 40%, this project would produce 353,203,200 kWh of electricity per year and earn production tax credits of $8,123,674 in one year when receiving a rate of $0.023 (the 2013 rate) or $91,832,830 over 10 years if the average rate over that time turns out to be $0.026.

As indicated earlier, the actual 10-year cost of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) tax break for the owners of the three projects will depend on their actual production and the PTC rates that are in effect during each of those 10 years.

Based on the assumptions outlined above, the three projects signed up by Google probably will cost taxpayers between $370 million and $417 million for the production tax credits received by the “wind farm” owners over the first 10 years of each of the projects’ operation.

Summary

One big winner in the Google purchase of wind-generated electricity from three “wind farms” would be Google because of all the favorable press attention. The other big winners will be the project owners because of the lucrative tax breaks.

The big losers will be taxpayers who must pick up the tax burden escaped by the owners or, perhaps more accurately, their children and grandchildren who will inherit the huge and growing national debt, now about $17 trillion—summing to more than $50,000 per U.S. citizen.

Source

Let’s not hand over our community to Everpower/Allegany Wind

As a former wind energy professional, I have personally experienced the ruthlessness of many wind energy developers during my many years in the wind business. Litigation is one of their frequent tools used to force their agendas. They lie, withhold critical information, and turn neighbors against each other. Some wind farm developers and operators seriously wrecked farmers’ properties in the Altamont Pass, Calif., where I was employed.

Wind farm developers and operators, including some in Western New York, have a history of violating worker safety, cutting corners on turbine maintenance, falsely promising employees advancement, and making life miserable for employees who wish to perform their jobs responsibly. Given this, if a wind farm is installed in our community, can we be assured we will be properly informed as to the dangers involved?

The infrastructure of constructing and operating a wind farm is highly technical and must be done with utmost care and meticulousness. If the system is not properly engineered, if the power distribution hardware is installed incorrectly, if the transformers are not correctly specified, there can be serious consequences such as transformer fires AND distribution line failures compromising landowners’ safety. There was an incident in which a local wind farm operator here in New York was required, during a severe blade icing condition, to continue operating the machines even though the site manager warned of serious consequences. This resulted in a blade failure costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was fortunate that the machine did not go into a runaway condition, creating a sizable threat to residents’ safety.

Does the town have the time and expertise to oversee whether the engineering of the infrastructure and the turbine installations are done properly? Can we afford to trust Allegany Wind to be honest and open with their work when reporting on their compliance with the town’s specifications? Will they provide a map of the underground cables? Can we trust that Allegany Wind will not increase the turbine tip speed ratios late at night ramping up the sound far above the advertised levels? (The tips of their proposed turbines reach speeds of about 200 mph.) Can we trust Allegany Wind to install the high voltage underground power cables to the depth required to assure landowners’ safety? Can we trust that Allegany Wind will not run the turbines during icing conditions, posing a threat to residents, hunters, and snowmobilers of Chipmonk and Knapp Creek areas from flying ice chunks? Can we trust that the transformers will be specified and sized to prevent hazardous and destructive transformer fires? Will Allegany Wind maintain turbines correctly without violating the safety of workers and local residents? Of note, most windfarms experience several turbine failures during their lifetime.

Is the Allegany Fire Department capable of handling a fire in a turbine motor hundreds of feet in the air? Is the town prepared to deal with a runaway of a 117 meter, 384-foot-high wind turbine rotor, requiring evacuation of residents within several miles of the machine?

Everpower/Allegany Wind representatives have already violated their contract with the town of Allegany numerous times. Then, rather than completing the required study for the project changes they demanded, they brought not just one, but two costly lawsuits against the town. Do we really want to allow these individuals, already acting as our enemies, to have the contractual right to do large-scale, risky business here?

Is it worth a few local businesses making some money, mostly temporary, on this installation at the expense of the well-being and safety of neighbors living and visiting in proximity of the wind farm for the next 20 years and beyond?

These questions need answers before we even consider Allegany Wind/Everpower’s demands. Otherwise, we must tell them NO.

Those of you sincere people who believe Allegany Wind’s promises need to take a long hard look at what Allegany Wind is pushing on us. Take a look at what happened, and is happening, in Howard, Andover, and other communities who have let these scoundrels in.

The bottom line for supporters of Allegany Wind: Will you be able to comfortably look your fellow community members in the eye if the events I described above occur?

To discuss and act on these issues contact Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County at concernedcitizens.homestead.com, and, Allegany residents, please vote for and support the current board members on election day even if the ballot says they’re unopposed. And please spread the word! Thank you.

Barry K. Miller, P.E.
Hinsdale

Source

'Wind Turbine Syndrome' Blamed for Mysterious Symptoms in Cape Cod Town

Sue Hobart, a bridal florist from Massachusetts, couldn't understand why she suddenly developed headaches, ringing in her ears, insomnia and dizziness to the point of falling "flat on my face" in the driveway.

"I thought I was just getting older and tired," said the 57-year-old from Falmouth.

Months earlier, in the summer of 2010, three wind turbines had been erected in her town, one of which runs around the clock, 1,600 feet from her home.

"I didn't put anything to the turbines -- we heard it and didn't like the thump, thump, thump and didn't like seeing them, but we didn't put it together," she told ABCNews.com.

Hobart said her headaches only got worse, but at Christmas, when she went to San Diego, they disappeared. And she said the same thing happened on an overnight trip to Keene, N.H.

"Sometimes at night, especially in the winter, I wake up with a fluttering in the chest and think, 'What the hell is that,' and the only place it happens is at my house," she said. "That's how you know. When you go away, it doesn't happen."

Read the entire article

Hwy 402 Protest October 19 2013