Thursday, July 26, 2018

Wind Turbines, the Military and National Security

This is about major breaking US national security news — that is almost entirely unreported…

Although it is about a US military-wind energy situation, similar issues exist in other countries.

Please pass this on to other open-minded citizens.

If you have some connections that might publish this information, please let me know.

john droz, jr.

This a well-known, accurate observation: “The person who wishes to keep his respect for laws and sausages should not see how either is made.”

This was very much on display recently with the machinations going on with the annual US federal legislation for our military: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). To understand the disturbing decisions made, some background as to how we got to where we are today is needed. (FYI the guilty parties here want you to skip this part, as they do NOT want citizens to have any real understanding of this issue!)

It would be nice to be able to convey this whole story in a single sound-byte sentence, but that’s not possible. If you care about US national security, it is essential to understand some related information. I’ll summarize it as simply as I can. Let me know any further info needed…

Point #1: There has been several years of conflict between military operations (in the US and elsewhere) and industrial wind energy. This is for multiple reasons, ranging from radar interference, to tall structures obstructing low-level flight paths, to specialized cases (like deteriorating the exceptionally important ROTHR facility).

Point #2: Initially the Commanding Officers (COs) of affected military facilities simply voiced their objections, and in most cases the proposed offending wind project was not approved.

Point #3: As sensible as this might seem, it was totally unacceptable to the powerful wind industry lobbyists, and some of their well-connected supporters. Their plan was to get military base COs basically out of the equation — while giving the public the impression that military concerns were being fully considered. That might seem like a tall order, but we’re dealing with some superior slicksters here. Their ingenious and deceptive end result was to create the DoD Wind Siting Clearinghouse.

Point #4: The Clearinghouse was all about expanding US industrial wind energy, not protecting US military or our national security. To pull this off, the rules and regulations for the Clearinghouse were essentially written by wind lobbyists, and the initial people in charge were unabashed wind energy promoters. (Upon retiring, the first person to head the Clearinghouse was quickly hired as a wind energy lobbyist — you can’t make this stuff up!)

Point #5: Not surprisingly, numerous conflicts continued to exist between wind energy and the US military. The public has little awareness of these due to backroom, classified agreements made. The wind industry took advantage of this lack of knowledge, repeatedly trumpeting that everything was peachy. For those who didn’t bother to closely look behind the curtain, it may well have seemed to be.

Point #6: Effectively what happened was that military defenders had to now look for some protection from state level legislation. Of course the wind lobby has infiltrated state politics as well, so this was no easy solution. That said there have been some major victories — e.g. Texas passing S277 and North Carolina passing a two year statewide moratorium (see here, Part XIII) while they did an investigation of the wind energy interference matter.

Point #7: Ultimately, though, the defense of our military, and our national security, is a federal matter. Towards that end, earlier this year I sent to some key legislators an outline of this problem, which included three (3) simple but effective solutions to this serious matter (at the end). I was hoping that they would be incorporated into the current year NDAA.

Point #8: Both the House and Senate committees involved with the NDAA actually did specifically endorse one of my three recommendations. The current wind industry written Clearinghouse rules basically say that to reject a proposed wind project, that there has to be substantial proof that it is a major national security risk. This has to be then endorsed by the DoD Secretary. Of course this is one of several things intended to fool the public (and legislator not paying close attention): it sounds good, but it’s actually worthless. In other words, the bar was purposefully set absurdly high, so that it was almost impossible to turn down a proposed wind project — and in fact only one has been so terminated via the Clearinghouse process over many years now.

Point #9: One of my three recommendations was to fix the rules so that if a wind project could be reasonably shown to threaten the lives of our military personnel, that this would be an acceptable justification to deny it a permit to be built. It was gratifying to see that BOTH the House and Senate committees reviewing the NDAA, approved changing the Clearinghouse rules, to add words to that effect. Excellent!

Point #10: However, a few days ago, for some inexplicable reason, this extremely important change was extracted from the NDAA legislation! A very experienced DC lobbyist told me that he could not recall a single case ever, where an important provision agreed to by both House and Senate committees, was then removed from the legislation. The question to ask our federal legislators: is promoting wind energy really more important than protecting the lives of our military?

Point #11: Probably due to guilt for this egregious lapse of responsibility, our esteemed legislators then added a new provision to the NDAA: Section 318 (page 179). Basically it authorizes the DoD to engage the National Weather Service (NWS) to do a study about the impact of wind turbines on weather radars and military operations. Once again the intent here seems to be to convey the illusion that we are serious about our military and our national security, and that something meaningful is being done. 

Point #12: Of course the devil is in the details. This amounts to kicking the can into the ditch. Nothing in the study is about protecting the lives of pilots from wind turbine obstructions. Nothing in the study is about assessing the impact of wind turbines on navigation radar. Nothing in the study is about protecting the exceptionally important ROTHR facility. Furthermore, who knows what will happen when the study is finished? In the meantime our military and national security is being compromised.

Point #13: What’s really disturbing is that plenty of good reports have already been generated on this issue. For example, Here is a detailed NWS explanation of the problem. For example, earlier this year the NWS wrote a blistering report about how wind development in upstate NY was compromising FIVE (5) different important NEXRAD radar facilities! For example, Fort Drum issued this official statement about wind energy interference. What else do legislators need to know? Oh, they want more pertinent studies? How about: thisthisthis, this, this, this, and this. We already have studies up the wazoo. We already know what the problems are and what some good solutions are.

Point #14: The reason we are procrastinating, is that the wind industry has done a superior job in creating the hallucination that wind energy is a societal benefit. The fact is that industrial wind energy is a technical, economic and environmental net liability. Once that understanding is fully absorbed, no reasonable legislator would agree to sacrifice our military or national security for such a detriment.

Point #15: The bottom line here is that the protection of our military (and our national security) is being compromised by powerful special-interest lobbyists. Our legislators are talking-the-talk, but not walking-the-walk.

That our legislators would accept a trade-off that wind energy promotion takes precedence over the lives of our military personnel, is a good indication of how badly this situation has deteriorated, and how much special-interest lobbyists are running the government, and our lives. (For more info on that, see here.)

US citizens should contact their federal representatives and insist that the NDAA to be properly fixed, today. 

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

First Article 10 Results

Article 10 source

I just watched the first official Article 10 wind energy decision in NYS (for the proposed Cassadaga wind project). Unfortunately the Article 10 Board approved that project.

In my opinion, there is an extraordinarily important lesson to be learned from the Western NY citizens who were inflicted with this bad news.

Citizens need to be clear that the number one reason for going through the Article 10 process is this: 
to defend a well-written genuinely protective local wind ordinance.

In this situation, there was no such local wind ordinance to defend, so the Article 10 result was effectively pre-determined.

Note that the Article 10 chairman specifically stated that he was supporting the preliminary hearing conclusions as:
“The proposed project is consistent with all local laws.”

For citizens to assume that a Article 10 preliminary hearing judge (or the Article 10 Board) would impose new regulations (i.e. effectively over-ruling an inadequate local wind law), is exceptionally speculative and literally a one-chance-in-a-million shot. 

Remember that we are the very people advocating Home Rule rights, so expecting the state to strengthen (i.e. over-rule) an inadequate local law, is an inconsistent position to take.

There are other lessons to be learned here, but none make any difference if citizens do not make sure that they start with a quality protective local wind ordinance.

In my opinion (as a non-attorney) the bottom line message from today’s Article 10 result: 
without the five (5) regulations properly written into a local wind law, the chances for success in the Article 10 process are essentially nil. (Here is a chart showing how sample NYS communities currently stand in this regard.)

Let me know any questions.


john droz, jr.
physicist & citizen advocate

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Contact Congress on the final Tax Bill

Tax reform means ending credits for big wind.
After 25 years, end big wind tax credits
No more tax credits for big wind. End the scam.

@SenateMajLdr and Anyone else who you know in Congress!


Sunday, December 03, 2017

BlackRock fund to acquire operating assets of EverPower Wind Holdings

EverPower Wind Holdings, a Strip District-based wind power company, has reached a deal to sell off its operating assets to a fund managed by BlackRock (NYSE: BLK).

Financial terms of the deal for EverPower's operating assets weren't disclosed; EverPower, as is EverPower's majority shareholder, Terra Firma Capital Partners, a London-based private equity firm. The deal is subject to approvals and is likely to close in the first quarter.

Terra Firma has owned EverPower since 2009 and announced in March that it intended to sell EverPower. The development assets, which represent about 200 megawatts of electricity if all built, are being sold separately, said EverPower spokesman Kevin Sheen.

EverPower, which was founded by Jim Spencer, has seven wind power projects in four states, including four in Pennsylvania. There are three projects in Cambria County and another in Somerset County.


Friday, November 10, 2017

GOP Tax Plan Resets Big Wind

Big wind’s complaint that the language reneges on a previous deal is entirely unfounded. The so-called ‘deal’  AWEA is trying to preserve … was a backroom negotiation between industry and Obama-era IRS lawyers to craft guidance that went well beyond the statute. Congress is finally taking corrective action. ...[T]he GOP tax bill is headed in the right direction on wind energy development. But if the goal was to simplify tax legislation, the GOP should go further and repeal the PTC altogether.”

The GOP tax bill dropped last week and it sent shock waves through the wind industry. Turbine makers Vestas and Siemens saw notable declines in stock value and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) blasted Republicans for reneging on a “tax reform deal” already in place. The complaining was predictable. Big wind always howls when its subsidies are touched. But Congress is on the right track and frankly could go further.

What the Bill Does

The tax bill addresses the wind PTC in two ways.

First, it repeals the inflation adjustment and retains the PTC phase-out already in place. Any cost-of-living increases accumulated since 1992 will be erased and the subsidy reset back to its introductory value of 1.5¢ per kWh. Today, the PTC stands at 2.4¢ per kWh.

As discussed in last week’s post, these inflation adjustments might have made sense back in 1992 when wind development was still in its early stages and project costs were likely to increase rapidly with inflation. But, over 25 years, the wind market has changed. As  costs dropped and capacity factors increased, the PTC benefit grew to a level where it now represents a significant portion of total installation cost.  This growth was obviously unintended and should have been assessed each time the PTC faced expiration and renewal.

Second, and more significant, the bill provides a critical clarification to the ‘start construction’ definition. In short, it states that construction of any new project will not be considered to have started before any date unless there is a continuous program of construction which begins before such date! This clarification applies to tax years beginning before, on, or after November 2, 2017.

Under current IRS guidance, projects that started construction[1] in 2016 and are placed in service within four years are assured that the IRS will not challenge their PTC-eligibility on grounds that development did not advance in a continuous way. The 4-year clock, an IRS construct not found in the statute, provided developers countless ways to secure the full PTC—and they responded. By the end of 2016, industry reports estimated between 30,000 and 70,000 MW of safe-harbored wind turbines under contract.

The GOP clarification takes direct aim at the IRS’s loose rules by requiring a continuous program of construction. Monetary transactions completed on a date-specific will not meet the test.  For example, projects that start in 2016 and sit dormant for a few years before being completed, will fail the bill’s  test. This change appears to be a positive attempt at reining in the ballooning project pipeline triggered by the IRS safe harbor guidance.

No Tax Deal

Big wind’s complaint that the language reneges on a previous deal is entirely unfounded. The so-called ‘deal’  AWEA is trying to preserve was never with Congress or the American people. Rather, it was a backroom negotiation between big wind and Obama-era IRS lawyers to craft guidance that went well beyond the statute. Congress is finally taking corrective action. Of course, this new plan, if enacted, will require new IRS guidance. Hopefully, under Secretary Mnuchin, the IRS will do a better job.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the GOP bill will save taxpayers $12.3 billion in PTC-subsidies over 2018-2027. We will be looking at this closely to understand this forecast relative to the wind project pipeline; there is no question, however, that the GOP tax bill is headed in the right direction on wind energy development. But if the goal was to simplify tax legislation, the GOP should go further and repeal the PTC altogether.


Thursday, October 05, 2017

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons.

It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.


Monday, August 07, 2017

Goldman Sachs’s ‘Secret’ SunEdison Loan at Center of KKR Suit

First Wind

In January 2015, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank were among five lenders on a margin loan to SunEdison. The $410 million, two-year deal was intended to help fund the $2.4 billion purchase of renewable-energy developer First Wind Holdings, and Goldman was a financial adviser, according to the lawsuits.

While many details about the margin loan were disclosed, a side letter agreement that defined its exact triggers wasn’t, Pyramid said. The TerraForm Power shares pledged to back the loan traded at $32.58 a share when the loan was entered, and had to decline 23 percent before a trigger was exceeded, according to its lawsuit.

The underwriters say enough was disclosed to anticipate when a margin call might be triggered, and that SunEdison didn’t need to give “each and every term” of the loan so investors could know its exact timing or size.

Read the entire article

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

SunEdison Sets Bankruptcy Exit With Nothing for Shareholders

SunEdison Inc. won final approval for a bankruptcy plan that will leave what was once the world’s largest renewable-energy firm as a shell of its former self, with nothing for shareholders whose investment at one point had been worth about $10 billion.

SunEdison, known for gobbling up other companies and expanding at breakneck speed, will now exit Chapter 11 to “continue business operations to administer and maximize the value of the company’s remaining assets,” including intellectual property and fixtures, Chief Financial Officer Philip Gund said in court filings.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein’s approval of the reorganization plan in Manhattan court Tuesday came as he overruled remaining objections from shareholders as well as two investors who had opposed the company’s exit financing. He noted that many shareholders had emailed him to object to the plan, and that he would issue a written ruling explaining his decision to approve the reorganization in despite of their protests.

Bernstein said there was no evidence of bad faith in the negotiation of exit financing, as had been alleged by CNH Partners LLC and AQR Capital Management LLC, holders of second-lien debt. Left out of the exit financing, they had alleged that the company had essentially bought the votes of other second-lien creditors that had agreed to fund it in exchange for stock in the reorganized company.

Bleak Prospects

When SunEdison first sought court protection in April 2016, things looked bleak for creditors and its two companies known as yieldcos created to buy the wind and solar projects it built, TerraForm Power Inc. and TerraForm Global Inc., whose finances were deeply entwined with their parent. The bankruptcy covered $16.1 billion in liabilities and a tangle of 1,500 legal entities, including individual wind and solar projects still in development.

SunEdison managed to settle disputes with the yieldcos and negotiate a sale for some of its more prized projects. Its crowning achievement was the sale of its yieldco stakes to Brookfield Asset Management Inc.

SunEdison’s second-lien debt holders participating in the exit financing will get 90 percent of the company’s new common stock as well as 90 percent of Class A shares in TerraForm Power in exchange for backing a rights offering designed to raise $300 million for the bankruptcy exit, according to court filings.

The reorganized company’s modest agenda also includes completing transactions for remaining assets that are being sold, and maximizing the recovery of tax refunds, court filings show.

Management Actions

The plan also settles some disputes over what caused the company to fail. These included the actions of executives and directors, and how SunEdison created and used the two TerraForms to deliver yield to investors hungry for wind and solar investments. The pacts resolve issues that are all “highly contentious, complex, multi-party issues that would each raise their own risks and factual challenges if litigated,” Chief Executive Officer John Dubel wrote in a court filing.

Those measures helped unsecured creditors, who had once expected to get nothing. They secured $32 million in proceeds of directors and officers’ insurance through settlements, and $18 million through negotiations with the yieldcos. They will be repaid through a trust, seeded with those funds, which also has the rights to pursue lawsuits over the company’s demise. While the settlements limit potential lawsuits, court papers note that some claims related to fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence are still possible.

Secured creditors, including some who rolled over their pre-bankruptcy debt into a new loan at the outset of the Chapter 11 case, will be repaid in full with cash, according to court papers. This group includes banks that provided the company with an operating loan to keep funding projects in bankruptcy.

More Lawsuits

A debtor-in-possession or DIP loan from Deutsche Bank AG as administrative agent at the outset of the case was repaid by a second DIP loan in April. The second DIP was arranged by Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs Lending Partners LLC and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Deutsche, Goldman and other funds were also lenders, according to court papers.

The reorganization doesn’t affect ongoing lawsuits from SunEdison’s common shareholders, who pursued the company’s former management. A spokesman for SunEdison didn’t return a call and email seeking comment.

Even as the reorganization draws to a close, letters from more than 100 disgruntled shareholders continue to roll in for the judge, and a group to represent them continued to object. They questioned how the company ran through $24 billion in financing, leaving nothing for them. They also complained that they were left in the dark about how assets were valued and sold.

“I have significant value in this company which will affect my family,” shareholder Piyush Patel wrote in a July 5 letter to Bernstein, complaining that an independent financial audit of the company was never done.

“SunEdison flew too close to the sun and landed in Manhattan bankruptcy court,” Nathan Serota, a New York-based analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said in an email last week. “During the Chapter 11 process, the company lost nearly all of the the assets and personnel that -- for better or worse – defined it in the first place.”

The case is In re SunEdison Inc., 16-10992, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). The shareholder lawsuits are 16-02742, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

SunEdison sets bankruptcy exit as judge OKs reorganization plan

SunEdison (OTCPK:SUNEQwins final approval for a bankruptcy plan that will leave nothing for shareholders whose investment once had been worth ~$10B.
SUNE will exit Chapter 11 to “continue business operations to administer and maximize the value of the company’s remaining assets,” according to court filings.
SUNE’s second-lien debt holders participating in the exit financing will get 90% of the company’s new common stock as well as 90% of Class A shares in TerraForm Power (NASDAQ:TERP) in exchange for backing a rights offering designed to raise $300M for the bankruptcy exit.
Now read: SunEdison's Confirmation Hearing Is On July 20 - The End To This Saga »

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

TerraForm Power Announces Extensions to Regain Nasdaq Compliance

BETHESDA, Md., June 30, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- TerraForm Power, Inc. (Nasdaq:TERP) ("TerraForm Power" or the "Company"), an owner and operator of clean energy power plants, announced today that the Nasdaq Hearings Panel granted the Company further extensions to regain compliance with Nasdaq's continued listing requirements. Under these extensions, the Company's Class A common stock will remain listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market, subject to the requirement that the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 be filed with the SEC by July 24, 2017, its annual meeting of stockholders be held by August 24, 2017, its Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2017 be filed with the SEC by August 30, 2017 and its Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2017 be filed with the SEC by September 30, 2017.
In addition, the Company is required to provide the Nasdaq Hearings Panel, by July 10, 2017, certain additional information regarding the status of the audit of the Company's financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Nasdaq Hearings Panel may reconsider the terms of the above extensions following its review of this additional information or based on any other relevant event, condition or circumstance.
About TerraForm Power
TerraForm Power is a renewable energy company that is changing how energy is generated, distributed and owned. TerraForm Power creates value for its investors by owning and operating clean energy power plants. For more information about TerraForm Power, please visit:
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This communication contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. These statements involve estimates, expectations, projections, goals, assumptions, known and unknown risks, and uncertainties and typically include words or variations of words such as "expect," "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "plan," "seek," "estimate," "predict," "project," "goal," "guidance," "outlook," "objective," "forecast," "target," "potential," "continue," "would," "will," "should," "could," or "may" or other comparable terms and phrases.
Such statements include, without limitation, statements regarding the additional time that has been granted for the Company to regain compliance with the Nasdaq rules; the Company's ability and time required to regain compliance with the Nasdaq rules; and the progress, outcome and timing of completing the delayed filings and holding the annual meeting. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations as of the date of this press release and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements, including but not limited to: the Nasdaq Hearing Panel's review of the additional information regarding the status of the audit of the Company's financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, the extent and impact of delays in the Company's completion of its financial statements and the filing of its annual and quarterly reports; whether the Nasdaq Hearings Panel will reconsider the terms of the extension granted; whether the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council will determine to review the Panel's decision; the Company's ability to regain compliance with Nasdaq's continued listing requirements; as well as additional factors we have described in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The risks included above are not exhaustive. Other factors that could adversely affect our business and prospects are described in the filings made by us with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by law.

Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.

On June 29, 2017, TerraForm Power, Inc. (the “Company”) received a notification letter from a Hearings Advisor from the Nasdaq Office of General Counsel, informing the Company that the Nasdaq Hearings Panel (the “Panel”) granted the Company further extensions to regain compliance with Nasdaq’s continued listing requirements. Under these extensions, the Company’s Class A common stock will remain listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market, subject to the requirement that the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) by July 24, 2017, its annual meeting of stockholders be held by August 24, 2017, its Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2017 be filed with the SEC by August 30, 2017 and its Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2017 be filed with the SEC by September 30, 2017.

In addition, the Company is required to provide the Panel, by July 10, 2017, certain additional information regarding the status of the audit of the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Panel may reconsider the terms of the above extensions following its review of this additional information or based on any other relevant event, condition or circumstance. The Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council may also determine to review the Panel’s decision.