Cohocton Wind Watch

Riverstone Buys Babcock & Brown's Wind Portfolio

2009-07-02T13:22:00.000-04:00

Private equity group Riverstone Holdings LLC has purchased the wind development portfolio from Babcock & Brown LP to form Pattern Energy Group LP.This is Riverstone's first foray into wind power.

The project pipeline exceeds 4,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power spanning 11 states and 4 countries in addition to several power transmission projects.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Riverstone, which has approximately $17 billion under management across six investment funds, said it is committing $400 million to expand and support Pattern Energy’s renewable energy business.

Pattern Energy is set up as an independent energy company to develop, construct, own, and operate renewable energy and transmission assets across North America and parts of Latin America. It will retain the 80 staff members that put into operation more than 2000 MW of wind for Babcock & Brown's North American group.

“We are highly impressed with the extensive renewable energy and transmission experience of the Pattern Energy team and are fully committed to Pattern,” said Chris Hunt, Managing Director of Riverstone Holdings. “We welcome the Pattern Energy team as an important new part of our renewable energy platform in North America.”

Pattern's first wind project is expected to be the 103-MW Hatchet Ridge Wind Farm in northern California, will begin construction in the next few months.

Australia-based Babcock & Brown, which was founded in 1977, is divesting all assets after failing to renegotiate debt in March 2009 and being declared insolvent.

Website: www.riverstonellc.com

Finger Lakes Preservation Association Court Hearing

2009-07-02T12:58:00.000-04:00

Dear Friends,

The FLPA has filed a petition with the Yates County Supreme Court againts the Italy Town Board contesting Italy's local law #5 of 2009 as having violated several important requirements of New York State's Environmental Quality Reivew Act (SEQRA). The FLPA has also submitted a request for an injunction against the Town Board advancing their review of the Ecogen application during the courts review of this case.

A court date for the a hearing on the injunction has been set for Tuesday July 7, 2009 at 1:30pm at the Yates County Court House, which is located at 415 Liberty Street, Penn Yan. The Honorable W. Patrick Falvey will be presiding. We encourage everyone who can to attend this important hearing. An injuction would prevent the Italy Town Board from approving the Ecogen application before the judge has a chance to fully review the case and determine a ruling.

If you can, please attend this court hearing!

Thank you for your continued support,

The Finger Lakes Preservation Association

New York inches closer to offshore wind farm

2009-07-02T07:52:00.001-04:00

NEW YORK, July 1 (Reuters) - Government agencies and power companies said on Wednesday they are gauging interest from developers and manufacturers about building a wind farm about 13 miles (21 km) off the New York city coast that could end up being the largest such project in the United States.

The Long Island Power Authority, the New York Power Authority, other agencies and Consolidated Edison Inc (ED.N) hope to build the 350 megawatt wind farm off the Rockaway Peninsula in the Atlantic.

Potentially, the project could be expanded to 700 MW, giving it a shot of being the biggest U.S. offshore wind farm. One megawatt powers about 1,000 homes in New York, but wind does not blow all of the time.

Taking stock of the interest of developers is a precursor to issuing a request for proposal for the project which is anticipated for release by the end of the year, the collaboration said.

"There clearly is growing interest in this proposal by many parties," Kevin Burke, chairman and CEO of Con Edison, said in a release.

"If the technical, environmental, economic and social challenges can be met, and we have the support of government, energy and environmental leaders, I am confident this project will be built and produce enormous benefits for our region," he said.

The group did not offer a price estimate for the project, but according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a work that size would cost about $1.35 billion to $2.7 billion.

Also on Wednesday, New York's state power authority said it had selected five firms to study the possibility of building an offshore wind farm on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in western New York.

Such projects are consistent with New York Gov. David Paterson's "45 by 15" program, which establishes the goal for the state to meet 45 percent of its electricity needs through energy efficiency and renewable sources by 2015.
The Rockaway project would not be the first time a large wind farm was planned in the region.

The LIPA proposed the construction of a 40-turbine wind farm that would have produced 140 MW of energy off the shore of Jones Beach on the south shore of Long Island. The project was canceled in 2007 after estimates it would cost $800 million, more than double the initial estimate.

Anneke Radin-Snaith June 30, 2009 Letter to the Editor

2009-07-01T15:13:00.000-04:00

To The Editor:

At the June 29th special meeting, the Prattsburgh Town Board discussed the town’s wind permit law. The meeting was open to the public, but the public was not given copies of the draft of the proposed law, and no public comment was allowed. This was as I expected, and not really an issue, except for the fact that the attorney for Ecogen was provided with a copy of the draft, and was also allowed to comment on and even write portions of the law. Isn’t the town board supposed to be working for its constituents, the taxpayers and people of Prattsburgh, not an outside developer? Why is Ecogen’s attorney being given special treatment?

On another note, shouldn’t the town attorney, whose salary our tax dollars pay, be working on our behalf? Each time Councilman Kula brought up a point in an effort to retain some local control or gain some money for the town, Attorney Leyden put up an argument. Often, when directly asked for an opinion, Mr. Leyden’s response was something to the effect of, “You just tell me what to write and I’ll put it in there.” Well, if that’s the case, what do we pay an attorney for?

Sincerely,
Anneke Radin-Snaith
Prattsburgh, NY

NYSERDA's 6/16/09 Environmental Stakeholders' Meeting - Part II

2009-07-01T10:41:00.002-04:00

Dear Dr. Thorndike,

As one of the attendees of NYSERDA's 6/16/09 Environmental Stakeholders' Meeting specific to wind power, I am writing to thank you for having the meeting, and to follow-up on some remaining issues.

It was acknowledged at the meeting that we would be provided with a copy of the meeting's attendee list, including the various panel members, as we have also received at the previous Environmental Stakeholder meetings. Can you tell me when we can expect to receive a copy of that list? We are hoping to receive it as soon as possible so that we can pursue follow-up questions with the correct individuals.

Mr. Bert Bowers shared the response he received from you in which you suggested he speak to meeting attendees to verify that our concerns had been addressed. As I voiced in my second of only two question opportunities I was allowed at the meeting that day, my questions were not answered and I left the meeting with just as many unanswered questions as when I arrived.

As a matter of fact, the same questions we've been asking for several years now, still remain unanswered - most notably:

What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world demonstrating that wind projects have actually offset significant levels of CO2 throughout an electricity grid system?

With some 60,000 industrial wind turbines in the world today, the proof to verify this claim - which is the very basis for the existence of the industrial wind industry, should be very easy to come by. However, what we received at the meeting that day were "Assumptions" based on studies done by GE - one of the largest wind developers in the world, and presentations from industry promoter, Truewind. This is hardly independent, objective, unbiased information that NYSERDA claims to pride itself on.

When I reitterated to you at the end of the meeting that no PROOF had been provided to back up the claim of CO2 emissions reductions, you assured me that it did indeed exist, and that this information would be included on the website. We anxiously look forward to seeing it.

While some speakers offered commentary on a few of the Citizens' Questions, our questions were by no means "addressed" from the perspective of providing full and unbiased answers. There were a few speakers (i.e.- Dr. Jan Storm, Dan Driscoll & Tom Brown) who acknowledged the numerous existing problems and gross inadequacies with what's going on in NYS relative to industrial wind developement, but no potential solutions were offered to the problems they mentioned by any NYSERDA or attending State agency representatives. Hopefully, NYSERDA's written answers to our questions will solve these omissions.

We very much appreciate your commitment to having all of the Citizens' Questions posted on NYSERDA's newly revamped website, along with complete and technically-accurate answers to each. Since we are now five years into the RPS program, it would seem that answers to all of our Citizens' Questions would be at the tip of NYSERDA's proverbial tongue, and that they could be provided within a very few days.

I hate to dispute the assertions of such an experienced person, Dr. Thorndike, but the "the role of wind energy as a renewable to replace part of fossil fuel use/emissions is one that is now being promoted by every scientific organization," is not a factual statement.

The American Physical Society, which is most certainly a scientific organization (is it not?), released a comprehensive white paper called, Energy = Future: Think Efficiency, addressing what we need to do to fix our energy situation. Industrial wind power was NOT a part of it.

Professor Jack Steinberger, a Nobel prize-winning scientist, stated, "Wind is NOT the future," at the 5/26/09 symposium of Nobel laureates at the Royal Society in Europe. Steinberger said "wind represented an illusory technology -- a cul-de-sac that would prove uneconomic and a waste of resources in the battle against climate change." (Read Link)

Furthermore, there are "multiple perspectives" held by many scientists who are in direct opposition to the political agendas currently being doled out, who argue that the debate on climate change is not over. Here are just a few recent articles addressing this very issue:

1.) The Triumph of DoubleSpeak explains some of the political (i.e. non-scientific) goings-on behind the scenes regarding the IPCC and their Global Warming policy, written by an expert (Dr. Vincent Gray) who was there: (Read Link) ,

2.) A Princeton Physicist’s view about CO2 (note that Al Gore fired him for expressing it) (Read Link) ,

3.) An MIT PhD’s views are stifled by the EPA, as being “against policy”: (Read Report)
- Report itself: (Read Link)

As you said, industrial wind is being heavily promoted as a political solution by NY and Washington politicians. However, we are advocating sound scientific solutions. Doesn't it only stand to reason that proposed ideas to solve our technical problems should be subjected to scientific methodology? Or, does NYSERDA now believe that pursuing corporate-political agendas supercedes the pursuit of sound scientific solutions?

We continue to get obfuscation when asking for the scientific basis for this enormous expenditure of time and money. The best that anyone could do at the meeting was to cite a NAS report that was just released - the value of which is certainly in question for a number of reasons. Independent Energy Expert, Glenn Schleede, was asked to review the draft by the NAS, though he ended up refusing to do so officially. You can read his 12/08 report, "Can the National Academies Produce an Objective Report?", at (Read Link) .

We have written to the Union of Concerned Scientists and Pace, and have received zero scientific information supporting the validity of wind power being a meaningful or cost-effective reducer of CO2 emissions. While we anxiously await the written answers to be posted on NYSERDA's website, if you have this information at your disposal, could you please provide it to us immediately?

Maybe you can also cite for me, with urls, the independent, objective scientific reports that existed to support the RPS program (and wind power) in 2004, or thereabouts? That would very quickly clear up the question as to whether this started out as a political foray, or began as an effort firmly grounded in science.

The people for whom NYSERDA is employed as a "public benefit" agency to serve - ALL NYS citizens, taxpayers, and ratepayers, thank you for your efforts to address all of our Citizens' Questions as soon as possible. (To refresh your memory, I've listed several more of those still-unanswered questions below.)

Sincerely,

Mary Kay Barton, lifelong NYS resident & environmental activist for Sound Scientific Solutions

NYSERDA's 6/16/09 Environmental Stakeholders' Meeting - Part I

2009-07-01T10:32:00.000-04:00

Dr. Thorndike, since you made it clear that you simply did not understand the fact that we felt that most of our questions did NOT receive adequate answers at the 6/16/09 meeting, I am reitterating just a few more of the questions we've been asking for years now, that still have NOT been answered:

1.) How many industrial wind turbines, scattered over how many square miles of permanently disfigured landscapes & fragmented habitats, will it take to collectively deliver a Capacity Value equivalent to any conventional generating system — defining Capacity Value as the ability to produce specified amounts of energy at a specified rate at any time?

As I explained in my first of the only two question opportunities I was allowed that day, Mr. Bailey did not correctly answer the question as it was asked. The question asks for the land mass & number of turbines needed to deliver a "Capacity Value" equivalent to a conventional generating system, not a figure representing an "Installed Capacity" - as he provided. Mr. Bailey also used "30 acres per turbine" to determine his calculation, when, as I cited that day, developers here have been quoted as saying that each turbine requires 100 acres. Instead of an answer, my question was dismissed with the reply, "We'll take that as a comment."

2.) Unbelievably important, but never even touched upon at any of the meetings, or on NYSERDA's website, is the fact that the United States wastes more energy making electricity than it takes to run all of Japan. Considering that it is nearly criminal to be adding new generation given the magnitude of such thermal losses (especially for the inimical, unreliable, volatile source of wind), what is NYSERDA doing to address Waste Heat from electric power plants? (See: http://www.chpcenterpr.org/wasteheat2power07/PDF/TCasten%20presentation.pdf)

3.) Since the U.S. DOE designed and specified that these 400+ foot industrial towers were meant for installation in Texas and on the Great Plains - not in populated areas such as rural/residential NYS, why is NYSERDA totally disregarding the original appropriate placement recomendations for the size and scale of these machines, and any adequate setback recomendations which would ensure that the people they work for, New York State citizens, were being protected?

4.) Since the Attorney General's suggested General Ethics Code of Conduct for industrial wind developers is intended to protect NYS citizens - the very people NYSERDA is employed to serve, why doesn't NYSERDA make signing this Code of Ethics agreement MANDATORY before industrial wind developers are allowed to do business in NYS?

5.) Since Big Wind LLC's are using public money to fund these projects (65%+ with federal tax breaks and subsidies, and another 10% with State incentives), then why are they allowed to withhold output information as "proprietary", when public funds = public information?

6.) Since wind industry LLC's go to great lengths to declare that property values will NOT be affected by industrial wind installations, why doesn't NYSERDA recommend the creation and adoption of "Property Value Protection Plans" to protect NYS citizens?

And finally, in my brief sampling of still unanswered questions, and as I asked at the meeting in my second of only two question opportunities I was allowed that day, while again receiving the reply, "We'll take that as a comment":

7.) Why aren't we looking at, and considering, what has been proven to be an unproductive experience in other countries long-invested in industrial wind before making the same expensive mistake here in the U.S.???

A recent Spanish study by researcher Gabriel Alvarez at King Carlos University in Madrid concluded that Spain's mad rush to meet overly aggressive renewable standards has destroyed jobs. For every job created in the wind industry, 2.2 jobs were lost in the rest of the economy. Even worse is the fact that only one in 10 of those wind energy jobs was permanent. (See: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-jobs-renewables.pdf and http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-renewables-boom-bust.ppt )

Consider the fact that the U.S. Cap & Trade Bill currently being proposed contains a mandate that anyone who loses their 'new' renewable job will get 3 years unemployment, health care, and job re-training - exposing the fact that it is known that this bill will lose jobs in the long run.

The end result in Spain: Investing in wind has driven up Spain's real cost of electricity, while carbon emissions have increased 50% since 2000 according to data from the European Environment Agency.

The irony is that Spain's entire renewable industry was built on the promise of creating millions of new, high-paying "green jobs" while simultaneously meeting requirements for cutting carbon emissions - the same political agendas NYSERDA is now unquestioningly pursuing. Where is the common sense in ignoring the expensive lessons already learned by others???

Dr, Thorndike, if industrial wind power has no significant impact on the problem of CO2 emissions; if wind causes electricity prices to "skyrocket" - costing us two to three times as much as conventional sources of energy; if wind kills at least twice as many jobs as it creates; and, if wind also has extraordinary additional costs due to significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and personal health and property value impacts --

Then why would any person in their right mind agree to this madness?

Please see the Citizens' Questions Document for the complete list of questions we are seeking answers to: tinyurl.com/kkkuqz .

Mary Kay Barton

Wind power can generate headaches for nearby residents

2009-07-01T07:29:00.000-04:00

REACT-ND wants to increase turbine setbacks

Wind turbines located too close to homes and humans can pose a health hazard, a Mars Hill area resident warned New Denmark homeowners during as REACT (Reacts Efforts Against Construction of Turbines in New Denmark) sponsored meeting held in the community recently.

Sam Porter, co-chairperson, of REACT ND said his group was formed because of residential concerns about the possibility of large wind turbines erected beside their New Denmark homes and farms. A group of farmers have joined forces with Prowind Canada to study the possibility of constructing a 60-megawatt wind farm in the community.

"We spent countless hours gathering information and looking at reports and studies. Our concern is the health implications. What we asking the government to do is extend the setback from the present 500 meters to two kilometres. These studies are being dons by doctors and many have recommend a minimum setback at two kilometres."

About 100 people attended the meeting to listen to Wendy Todd, who described herself as a housewife and mother, who lives near several of the 28 turbines that make up the First Wind project on and around Mars Hill. She gave a lengthy and sometimes emotional description of life underneath the wind turbines.

"We tried to do everything the right way. When the developer first came to town most of the town thought, what a great idea. We attended the public meetings and listened to information that was given, we thought we had all the answers. The project was approved and went through the DEP (Maine Department of Environmental Protection). The project went on-line in March two years ago and we have been dealing with the problems ever since."

Todd said as soon as the wind turbines came on-line the complaints started coming in. Landowners were told the turbines would not produce any noises, perhaps a gentle "whoosh" on several days of the year.

"The printed document said we would hear nothing at the bottom of the mountain. Other issues were never mentioned at all like shadow strobes, we would told our property values would go up."

Todd said landowners complained to the First Wind developers, but they provide no response. Complaints to the town of Mars Hill yielded little help, and the Maine DEP is now involved to see if the project meets the compliance. The frustrated landowners have contacted lawyers and are launching legal action.

"Right now the project is running about 50 per cent capacity. We have days the turbines don't run at all in the summer time, but on the days the turbine are off, you drop everything you are doing to go outside to remembers what life was like before the turbines," Todd stated. "I want to make sure you know how this project has affected so many families."

Todd some of the turbine effects have to be experienced to be believed. She talked about shadow flickers, the strobe-like effect of mile-long shadows rolling across the landscape when the sun is either rising or falling before the turbines.

"When people talk about noise from turbine, it is really hard to explain what turbine noise is like. I am hoping that each person's perspective will help you understand."

Todd read numerous experiences of her friends and neighbours about their issues with the wind turbines. Homeowners complained about excessive noise, shadow flicker, negative effects on pets and livestock, complaints that wildlife has moved out after the turbine installation, the landscape changes,

"Many of the residents are struggling to understand how the government could allow these turbines to be put so close to people's home and how it is disturbing the watershed and forests. Each turbine pad is a little over two acres, and the amount of concrete in each slab is anywhere from 15 to 290 feet deep and the anchors can go up to 40 feet deep so these turbines won't topple."

The landowner said the "gentle whooshing sound" heard on a nice sunny day in June is the optimal conditions. She quoted numerous studies that show why the noise from turbines is so disruptive to people in their homes.

"That basically, I hate to say this, is what you people have to look forward to. All of these people were under the impression that what they were inviting into their back yards was a good thing, that it was green, that it was renewable, they are doing something wonderful for our planet, for our children and our grandchildren… When you discover the truth and what you have to sacrifice, it won't be so wonderful anymore."

Todd said many of the homeowners complaining about the wind turbine live between 3,000 to 3,500 feet away from the 1.5-megawatt units. The New Demark project would use proposed turbines that could be two to three megawatts in size.

"You need to be concern about the noise levels from unit that size," she stated. "Once the turbine pick up speed they pick up aerodynamic noise. As they near capacity the blades pick up noise from the tower and inside a house you will hear a rhythmic thumping."

Todd said landowners must also be concerned about ice buildup during the winter months. The DEP shut down the two turbines on top of the ski hill during icy conditions because of safety concerns.

"There are reports of huge chunks of ice hitting the ground. The turbines are supposed to shut down if there is any ice buildup. But if there is a gradual ice buildup, the turbine will not shut down," she told residents.

Todd said if wind turbines setbacks were increased, the negative effects on nearby landowners would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated.

"I would recommend they you have more public hearings and bring in expert testimony to talk about these problems," she said.

Porter told the audience that numerous groups of residents have formed in Canada and around the world in an effort to have new safety and environmental regulations enforced around wind turbines.

"We are not unique in this venture. We are not generating information out of our minds, this is all documentation that can cited."

The co-chairman said the group has contacted numerous wind experts to compile data, and he asked everyone in the room to take time to examine the data and make up their own minds.

"If you have questions talk to a doctor and professional people about some of the problems that have been cited with the establishment of wind turbines. I can't make that decision for you, but I can tell you one thing, once they come here they are her it stay."

Porter said residents who want a larger setback need to make their voices heard to MLAs and politicians.

"You make the judgment on your own. But it is critical to act now," he concluded.

How realistic is 20% wind energy?

2009-06-30T17:39:00.000-04:00

A year ago the US Department of Energy released "20% wind power by 2030", a study that envisioned the US satisfying 20% of its electricity needs through wind power. This February, the Joint Coordinated System Plan 2008 (JCSP'08) proffered a conceptual regional transmission and generation system plan to meet 20% of the Eastern region of the United States' energy needs with wind.

DOE's report called for the deployment of 305,000 MW of wind by the year 2030. The JCSP assumed 229,000 MW of new wind capacity built by 2024. In either scenario, the proposals included the need to build thousands of miles of new transmission lines towering 200-feet tall to deliver the energy from the Midwestern region of the country to points East (and West).

Windaction.org has had several opportunities to publicly debate these scenarios with ranking US energy officials (not politicians) and what we learned, frankly, surprised us:

It is clear that most had not read the DOE report. Many dismissed it as "academic" and unrealistic. Others openly call the JCSP study nothing more than a wind advocacy plan. Both the ISO New England and New York ISO withdrew from the publication of the JCSP report and Ian Bowles, secretary of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts, published an editorial in the New York Times where he discouraged a "national grid system" for renewable energy, arguing for a better, lower cost option.

We agree.

Achieving widespread adoption of renewable (wind) energy is not as easy as the popular catch phrases "25 x 2025" and "20% by 2030" would have us believe. Nor will it be cheap. It is worth revisiting some of the assumptions in the DOE report:

1. Wind energy does not provide capacity; it requires separate redundant and reliable backup generation

Electricity production in the US is predicated on reliability, affordability, and security. The ability to produce capacity -- electricity on demand -- is fundamental, since electricity cannot be stored at bulk levels. Yet, the DOE report states "Wind is an energy resource, not a capacity resource." In other words, while utilities are obligated to provide electricity, instantaneously, when customers demand it, wind does not, nor can it ever, do that.

According to the DOE, as installed wind capacity increases as a percentage of energy on the grid, wind power cannot replace the need for many ‘capacity resources' and that any capacity value for wind is "a bonus, but not a necessity." Put another way, building 305,000 MW of wind to satisfy the 20% wind energy goal will be independent of our need to build additional electric generating plants needed to meet demand.

2. Unrealistic projected rate of growth

The DOE report forecasts 305,000 MW of wind development by 2030 including 54,000 MW of off-shore wind. Assuming a starting point of 28,000 MW of wind now installed in the US (with none offshore), over 13,000 MW of new wind would need to be installed year after year through to 2030 - an amount equivalent to nearly double the capacity installed in 2008, a banner year.

Even if the industry were able to overcome all manufacturing and construction barriers to meet this goal, other barriers still remain including a) the public's resistance to wind turbines sited on publicly-owned lands, national forests and wilderness areas; b) sustained and substantial taxpayer-funded subsidies to ensure project viability; and c) the requirement for expansive and expensive power lines to access remote areas of the country.

3. The numbers don't add up: Optimistic capacity factors will not meet the 20% goal

According to DOE, U.S. demand for electricity will reach 5.8 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) by 2030, with 20% or 1.16-billion MWh satisfied by wind.

Assuming DOE's figure of 305,000 MW of installed wind capacity, the entire fleet of wind turbines would need to operate at an annual average capacity factor of 43.4%. Yet, few existing wind plants in the U.S. today, and none east of the Mississippi, come close to meeting this level of annual average capacity. The fact remains that many U.S. wind projects located in areas touted as having outstanding wind resources now report average capacity factors under 25%.

What's realistic?

The true impact of a national renewable vision based on wind, whether DOE's or the JCSP, is in the public cost, both in dollars and in the impacts wrought by transforming our open spaces into massive industrial power plants with associated transmission and other infrastructure.

Too many people are acting as though the discussion is over and all we need to do is build. In fact, it has barely just begun. While we may need to diversity our nation's energy portfolio with viable alternatives to fossil fuel, we hope it's not too late to step back and establish realistic goals based on validated costs and benefits.

U.S. Senate Summary of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act

2009-06-30T16:41:00.000-04:00

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee cleared by a 15–8 vote a broad energy bill.

The Senate committee has not released a full draft of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, though a summary (PDF) is available for viewing on Committee Chair Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s website. It reflects many of the same proposals as the Waxman-Markey bill that is currently being considered by a handful of House committees, but it steers clear of a cap-and-trade program. The Senate legislation is based on six major bills—all with bipartisan sponsorship—and five other bills with either Republican or Democratic sponsorship that were introduced in this Congress.

NYS’ Two Billion Dollar Energy Swindle

2009-06-30T10:07:00.000-04:00

NYS taxpayers and ratepayers are funding what is likely a $2 Billion fraud.

I was one of a number of citizens representing 33+ NYS grassroots groups who attended the June 16, 2009, NYSERDA Environmental Stakeholder's Meeting on Wind Power in Albany. (See Meeting Summary: http://tinyurl.com/mxa5zf for a more detailed report.)

The reasons for this unique meeting were: 1.) to answer citizens' questions on industrial wind power that we have been asking NYSERDA for years now (See: Citizens' Questions: tinyurl.com/kkkuqz for these, and for more background), and 2.) to see if they could provide scientific proof that the $2+ BILLION dollar Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program is not a complete waste. NYSERDA failed to do either.

The crux of the problem with wind power is the fact that it is the very same businessmen and investors who stand to make "obscene" profits at NYS citizens' expense, who are claiming industrial wind is a solution that will reduce CO2 emissions and thereby reduce Global Warming.

To date, no independent scientific studies have shown evidence to substantiate their self-serving claims.

Our persistent pursuit of NYSERDA for PROOF is the reason this meeting was held.

Unfortunately, NYSERDA's one-sided stacking of the panels for this meeting, the very limited question time citizens were allowed, the wind lobbyists' PR provided on NYSERDA's website, right on down to the intimidation their lawyer used when he told us, "You better watch what you do with that videotape," all fly in the face of NYSERDA's own Mission Statement as a "public benefit corporation" who "places a premium on objective analysis" - "reaching out to solicit multiple perspectives."

NYSERDA officials told us wind energy is “not up for debate,” as this is the political agenda that's been handed down to them. Our view is that as energy experts of the state, NYSERDA should formally object to ineffective political directives in technical areas, and insist on sound scientific solutions. It appears instead, that fear of program cutbacks is guiding their actions as "multiple perspectives" are now being locked out while our government and its' agencies pursue these corporate-political agendas.

DEC's Chief of Engineering Projects, Jack Nasca suggested that NYS towns use some of the PILOT money they receive from these projects to conduct their own studies, so the towns can hold developers accountable if they don't meet set project requirements. Nasca's statements further demonstrate that the State (who is in charge of this whole matter) has no intention of demanding any accountability from Big Wind LLC's, and wants to pass the buck on to rural communities.

NYS Department of Health representative, Dr. Jan Storm, reported that the negative health impacts involving noise associated with industrial wind turbines have been reported worldwide. Yet, she acknowledged NYS still has NOT conducted any studies on these problems, while the "woefully inadequate" siting continues on unchecked across NYS.

Only two of the speakers at the meeting had anything genuinely negative to say about wind power all day. Dan Driscoll, retired noise control engineer for power projects with the PSC, sited the "many adverse health effects" associated with "infrasound" from industrial wind projects. He closed by asking, "What are you going to do about it?" but received no reply from any NYSERDA or other State agency representatives.

Retired DEC Ecologist Tom Brown really called out the State, citing the "inadequate oversite of these projects by the State" in towns who are "ill-prepared to deal with the well-financed industry," as being "tragic". Thank God there are still some highly-principled people who aren't afraid to speak out against the political pandering going on in our government today!

Before we allow the needless spending of billions more of OUR hard-earned money, to line the pockets of corporations who continue to lobby for legislation to suit their bottom lines, we must DEMAND to see independent, objective scientific PROOF to justify what they are doing.

Before we allow further environmental, health, economic and cultural devastation of our beautiful NYS landscapes - all for a scam reminiscent of the economically-devastating subprime fiasco that has harmed us all, we MUST stand up, speak out, DEMAND the TRUTH, and insist on scientifically-sound solutions to our energy issues.

We anxiously await the scientific proof that NYSERDA claims they have, but still has not produced (5 YEARS into this program!), when they post the answers to our Citizens' Questions on their website - as they promised us they would do at the 6/16/09 meeting.

Mary Kay Barton is a lifelong NYS citizen & environmental activist for Sound Scientific Solutions.

Suzlon Energy Net Falls on Cracked Blades, Currency

2009-06-28T14:04:00.000-04:00

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- Suzlon Energy Ltd., India’s biggest maker of wind-turbine generators, said fiscal fourth-quarter profit fell 10 percent because of the replacement of defective blades and losses from currency options.

Net income declined to 4.1 billion rupees ($85 million) in the three months ended March 31 from 4.6 billion rupees a year earlier, the Ahmedabad-based company said in a statement on its Web site today. Revenue rose 86 percent to 92.1 billion rupees.

Suzlon lost sales last year after some blades supplied by the company cracked and customers in the U.S. canceled orders. The replacements for customers will be completed in mid-August, two months behind schedule, the company said today.

“We don’t expect any more provisioning for the blade retrofit program,” Sumant Sinha, chief operating officer, told reporters in Mumbai today. “We had to hedge to protect our inflows. We had based our calculations on the basis of a strengthening rupee but it went the other way.”

Suzlon shares gained 5 percent to 123.50 rupees in Mumbai trading on June 26. The stock fell 84 percent last year on concern its equipment was faulty.

The Indian rupee fell 21 percent against the dollar in the 12 months to March 31, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Cracked Blades

The company had set aside 1 billion rupees on its blade replacement plan and 1.4 billion rupees on mark-to-market losses on foreign exchange contracts in the fiscal fourth quarter. That compares with 1.8 billion rupees for the replacement and a loss of 230 million rupees on foreign-exchange bets a year earlier.

Revenue will remain “flat” this year, Sinha said.

“The company received some orders and expects some more,” Chintan Mewar, an analyst at Finquest Securities who has an “outperform” rating on the stock, said before the earnings announcement. “That doesn’t solve the problem as it needs a substantial order flow. Orders from the U.S. and India are important.”

Suzlon completed the acquisition of Hamburg-based Repower Systems AG on June 6 after the founders, Chairman Tulsi Tanti’s family, sold 4 percent of the company’s equity on May 25 to help raise funds to buy the stake from Portugal’s Martifer SGPS SA. The company now owns 91 percent of Repower.

BP shuts alternative energy HQ

2009-06-28T13:59:00.000-04:00

BP has shut down its alternative energy headquarters in London, accepted the resignation of its clean energy boss and imposed budget cuts in moves likely to be seen by environmental critics as further signs of the oil group moving "back to petroleum".

But Tony Hayward, the group's chief executive, said BP remained as committed as ever to exploring new energy sources and the non-oil division would benefit from the extra focus of being brought back in house.

BP Alternative Energy was given its own headquarters in County Hall opposite the Houses of Parliament two years ago and its managing director, Vivienne Cox, oversaw a small division of 80 staff concentrating on wind and solar power.

But the 49-year-old Cox – BP's most senior female executive, who previously ran renewables as part of a larger gas and power division now dismantled by Hayward – is standing down tomorrow.

This comes alongside huge cuts in the alternative energy budget – from $1.4bn (£850m) last year to between $500m and $1bn this year, although spending is still roughly in line with original plans to invest $8bn by 2015.

The move back to BP's corporate headquarters at St James's Square in London's West End made sense, particularly when the group was sitting on spare office space due to earlier cutbacks, said Hayward.

"We are going through a major restructuring and bringing the alternative energy business headquarters into the head office seems a good idea to me.

"It saves money and brings it closer to home ... you could almost see it as a reinforcement [of our commitment to the business]," he said.

Cox was stepping down to spend more time with her children, Hayward added. "I know you would love to make a story out of all this," he said, "but it's quite hard work."

The reason for the departure of Cox is variously said by industry insiders to be caused by frustration over the business being downgraded in importance or because she really does intend to stay at home more with her young children. Cox had already reduced her working week down to three days and had publicly admitted the difficulty of combining different roles.

She will be replaced by another woman, her former deputy Katrina Landis, but the moves will worry those campaigning for more women in business, especially as Linda Cook, Shell's most senior female executive, has recently left her job too.

BP has gradually given up on plans to enter the UK wind industry and concentrated all its turbine activities on the US, where it can win tax breaks and get cheaper and easier access to land.

In April the company closed a range of solar power manufacturing plants in Spain and the US with the loss of 620 jobs and Hayward has publicly questioned whether solar would ever become competitive with fossil fuels, something that goes against the current thinking inside the renewables sector.

Hayward has also moved BP into more controversial oil areas, such as Canada's tar sands, creating an impression that he has given up on the objectives of his predecessor, Lord Browne, to take the company "Beyond Petroleum".

Babcock & Brown Divestiture Continues

2009-06-27T14:39:00.000-04:00

Hoping to make a big splash with its first wind acquisition, private equity player Riverstone Holdings purchased Babcock & Brown's wind development portfolio this week. The new company will be called Pattern Energy.

Although financial terms were not disclosed, Riverstone Holdings is committing $400 million to the deal. An energy-focused private equity firm, Riverstone has about $17 billion under management across six investment funds.

Mike Garland, who formerly headed Babcock & Brown's infrastructure group, will be the new company's CEO. Pattern Energy retains the Babcock & Brown North American energy development team and also maintains the current Babcock & Brown wind development pipeline - which exceeds 4,000 MW of wind power in 11 states and four countries, in addition to several power transmission projects.

Meanwhile, the dismantling continues for Sydney, Australia-based global investment and advisory firm Babcock & Brown, which was founded in 1977. The company will sell all of its assets in the next two to three years, according to a company spokesperson.

At its height, Babcock's global reach was significant. In addition to wind (including a majority controlling stake in offshore wind developer Bluewater Wind), Babcock's assets included real estate and transportation holdings, among others, and the company had more than $80 billion in assets under management. It is best known in financial markets for structured finance deals.

Upon falling victim to the global credit crisis, the company went into voluntary administration in March 2009 after unsecured bond holders voted down a debt-restructuring plan that would value their claims at 0.1 cents on the dollar. The rejection rendered the company insolvent because it could not meet interest payments.

According to Garland, Pattern's first wind project, the 103 MW Hatchet Ridge Wind Farm in northern California, will begin construction in the next few months.

"In the current market, it's very hard to find capital," says Keith Martin, a partner in Washington, D.C., law office of Chadbourne & Parke. "Right now, private equity is a good source of funding for established groups like the wind team at Babcock."

Riverstone Acquires Babcock & Brown's North American Energy Group

2009-06-27T12:18:00.000-04:00

Ecogen gets new parent ownership

SAN FRANCISCO, June 25, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Riverstone Holdings LLC and the management team of Babcock & Brown's North American Energy Group today jointly announced the purchase of the wind development portfolio from Babcock & Brown LP to form Pattern Energy Group LP ("Pattern Energy"). Pattern Energy is one of the most experienced and best-capitalized development companies in the U.S. renewable energy and transmission industry. Pattern Energy is an independent, fully integrated energy company that develops, constructs, owns, and operates renewable energy and transmission assets across North America and parts of Latin America. Riverstone is providing the capital required to expand and support Pattern Energy's renewable energy business, which will be an important growth platform for Riverstone in North America.

Pattern Energy retains the Babcock & Brown North American energy development team, which has successfully developed, financed and placed into operation 2,000 MW of wind power across 11 states. Pattern Energy also maintains the current Babcock & Brown development pipeline that exceeds 4,000 MW of wind power in 11 states and 4 countries in addition to several power transmission projects.

Riverstone, an energy and power-focused private equity firm with the world's largest renewable energy private equity fund, is committing $400 million to expand and support Pattern Energy's renewable energy business.

"Our team of highly-experienced renewable energy and transmission experts is excited about continuing our business as the new and well capitalized Pattern Energy," said Mike Garland, Chief Executive Officer of Pattern Energy. "Pattern Energy will continue using our in-depth industry experience, combined with innovation and science, to deliver the utmost value for our partners and the communities where we work. The combination of experience, capital, and opportunities create a tremendous outlook for our company."

"Pattern Energy will continue to be on the leading edge of developing efficient financial structures for renewable energy and transmission projects," said Hunter Armistead, Executive Director of Pattern Energy. "It is exciting to be well capitalized in this current market, which puts the company in a terrific position to grow. We look forward to continuing to develop premier renewable energy projects."

"We are highly impressed with the extensive renewable energy and transmission experience of the Pattern Energy team and are fully committed to Pattern," said Chris Hunt, Managing Director of Riverstone Holdings. "We welcome the Pattern Energy team as an important new part of our renewable energy platform in North America."

About Pattern Energy Group LP

Pattern is an independent, fully integrated energy company that develops, constructs, owns and operates renewable and transmission energy assets across North America and parts of Latin America. Formerly Babcock & Brown LP's thriving North American energy group, Pattern employs 80 employees, located in four offices (San Francisco, Houston, San Diego and New York), which successfully developed, financed and placed into operation over 2,000 MW of wind power across 11 states. Pattern has a current development pipeline that exceeds 4,000 MW of wind energy and transmission projects in 11 states and 4 countries. Pattern is dedicated to delivering the highest values for our partners and the communities in which we work, while exhibiting a strong commitment to promoting environmental stewardship and corporate responsibility.

About Riverstone Holdings LLC

Riverstone Holdings LLC, an energy and power-focused private equity firm founded in 2000, has approximately $17 billion under management across six investment funds, including the world's largest renewable energy fund. Riverstone conducts buyout and growth capital investments in the midstream, exploration & production, oilfield services, power and renewable sectors of the energy industry. With offices in New York, London and Houston, the firm has committed over $12 billion to 60 investments in North America, Latin America, Europe and Asia. For more information, visit www.riverstonellc.com.

Assembly Passes Amendments To Article X

2009-06-27T08:26:00.000-04:00

Legislation Expands Energy Production and Strengthens Community Outreach

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Energy Committee Chair Kevin Cahill today announced that the Assembly passed legislation reauthorizing and amending the Article X process for siting power plants. The amendments will provide for enhanced community input into siting decisions and provide additional health-related protections.

The lawmakers stressed the Assembly Majority's continued commitment to provide clean, safe and cost efficient power across New York through the bill (A.8696), sponsored by Cahill. The amendments would reauthorize the expired Article X process, to provide a streamlined approval process to encourage that new electric generation is built to meet the energy and reliability needs of the state's energy consumers.

"Extension of Article X with important changes is an essential step toward meeting the state's long-term energy needs," said Silver (D-Manhattan). "The residents and businesses of New York rely on affordable, reliable and safe electricity sources. This amendment will allow more electric generation to keep up with the growing demand for power while providing additional environmental and health related studies to protect families and local communities throughout the state."

"The renewal of Article X will increase New York's current energy production and bring low-cost power to consumers. By expanding and increasing our energy supply, we can attract new businesses and industry to the state," said Cahill (D-Kingston). "The Assembly Majority recognizes the urgent need for cleaner, better and faster power and this legislation allows for better planning to meet our future energy requirements."

In order to improve environmental conservation and enhance public participation while expediting siting review, the Assembly legislation is designed to collect more information and studies on health impacts, maintain the 12-month application review period for major electric generating facilities and place responsibility on the appropriate state agencies.

The amended Article X passed today includes provisions that:

•Improve local community representation on each siting board by requiring that local appointees be named by locally elected officials;

•Require analyses of health and cumulative impacts of emissions in the affected area and that environmental justice concerns be reviewed by the siting board to protect the health of families in the local community;

•Strengthen the community outreach process by requiring the use of multiple languages as appropriate as well as the use of community newspapers for notice requirements;

•Increase the amount of intervenor funding from a maximum of $400,000 to $825,000 to allow municipalities and community groups more meaningful participation in the siting process;

•Lower the "threshold" for the size of power plants for which Article X applies to 30 megawatts from 80 megawatts and for applying such threshold in cases where multiple plants are separately located but are proposed within the same community;

•Require the applicant to provide a profile of air and water emissions, including micro particulates (of "2.5 microns or smaller") which are shown to cause and/or aggravate respiratory ailments;

•Require the Department of Environmental Conservation, with the participation of the Department of Health, to conduct an examination of cumulative impacts of emissions from existing and potential sources in the community and an environmental justice analysis;

•Require the Energy Research and Development Authority to examine how a proposed facility fits into the current energy plan and conduct a cost analysis of the proposed facility in comparison to alternative sources of energy including renewable and energy efficiency measures;

•Require the Department of State to conduct an analysis of the proposal in light of state coastal zone management laws and policies and require the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to conduct an analysis of impacts on parks and open lands;

•Require the submission of a security plan, to be done in consultation with the state Emergency Management Office;

•Prohibit the Power Authority of the State of New York and the Long Island Power Authority from assuming the lead role in assessing the environmental and health impacts of facilities they either build themselves, or cause to be built; and

•Require enhanced emission reduction requirements for acid rain pollutants and regulate power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL VOTE on Cap and Trade H R 2454

2009-06-27T08:21:00.000-04:00

BILL TITLE: American Clean Energy and Security Act

Democratic 211 44 1
Republican 8 168 2
Independent
TOTALS 219 212 3

---- AYES 219 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

---- NOES 212 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Ortiz
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

---- NOT VOTING 3 ---

Flake
Hastings (FL)
Sullivan

TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2454

2009-06-26T18:07:00.001-04:00

READ the 300 + page amendment added to the Cap and Trade Bill

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2454
OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL BUILDING CODES TO BE IMPOSED OVER STATE CODES

(Click to read the entire text)

Environmental Stakeholder Roundtable

2009-06-26T15:34:00.000-04:00

Dear Dr. Thorndike,

Thank you for your prompt answer to my letter. I was traveling in New England over the weekend and wanted to review the report you referenced from the National Academy of Sciences. In my review of the details of the report, it appears to agree with my own analyses and that of other analysts with whom I have been in contact over the past few years. Therefore, if the National Academy of Sciences supports wind power, that is obviously a political decision not supported by the analyses contained within its own report. I agree with you that wind energy is being promoted as the principal source of renewable energy by many governmental and quasi-scientific/environmental organizations. What is missing is the understanding that wind energy cannot replace base-load generators using fossil fuels, hydro, or nuclear energy.

Any detailed analysis of the performance of wind turbine generators, including my own work and any other analyses I have found leads to the following conclusions:

1. Wind turbines produce relatively small amounts of energy for their rated capacity and the electrical energy produced is highly variable and unpredictable. Another energy source must be kept in spinning reserve to make up for the inherent variability of wind. (Wind turbines effectively magnify the variability of wind speeds as the energy produced varies with the cube of wind velocity.)

2. The wind turbine will not, due to its variability, replace any conventional sources of power, whether hydro, nuclear, coal, gas or other fuels. The true cost of wind generated electricity must include its own high costs, including federal and state tax credits and subsidies, distribution costs, as well as local tax breaks. To this cost must then be added the cost of the necessary spinning reserve power, so that the true cost of wind power is effectively more than double that of any other common power source. (Wind developers sidestep this issue by the use of hyperbole such as "free" or "green.")

3. Wind will not play any significant role in the future of electrical power generation. The only reason for the current emphasis on wind turbines is that lobbyists for the wind industry have been successful in convincing politicians at all levels of government to create financial incentives such as tax credits to create artificial profits for wind installations.

In the meantime, our beautiful natural and scenic areas in the state of New York are being ravaged by the wind developers, intent only on their own profits. They have used corrupt methods, hopelessly divided our small towns and are ruining large areas of the state with no foreseeable benefit except to line their own pockets. I am disappointed that NYSERDA supports this sham. When people realize the amount of public funds that have gone to support wind power and that it does not effectively reduce either our greenhouse gas emissions or our dependence on fossil fuels, will NYSERDA want to be on the side of the wind developers?

Regards,

Bert Bowers
Chaumont, NY

Together we can Stop Cap-and-Trade

2009-06-26T08:52:00.000-04:00

(Click link and enter your ZIP code)

Thank you for taking action to help stop H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy tax. Enter your zip code and click go to get your representative's phone number and taking points on this issue.

Once you have completed the call, fill out the form at the bottom and tell us how it went. Thank you again for your commitment to stopping the biggest tax increase in history.

$128 Million of RGGI "Cap and Trade" Revenue Unspent Due to Legal Challenge

2009-06-25T10:44:00.000-04:00

In a prior PULP Network blog post, we discussed the pending legal challenge to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program now being implemented by New York and nine other states in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants, in advance of any national program.

New York is the only state where a Governor, through executive action and action through a agency and a state authority (DEC and NYSERDA), attempted to implement RGGI without specific enabling legislation. As a result, NYSERDA is receiving substantial auction revenue from the sale of allowances and allocation of the revenue -- $128 million to date -- is underway without any specific enabling legislation or budget appropriation.

As with any "cap and trade" program to reduce C02 emissions, the RGGI program is raising electric rates for all electricity sold at spot market rates in New York, even that which is produced with wind, water, or nuclear rather than by burning fossil fuels like natural gas or oil. See

•"Cap and Trade" Market System for CO2 Reduction Likely to Raise New York Electricity Prices, and

•CO2 Cap and Trade Programs Inflate Electric Rates in Restructured States.

Also, all sellers offering to enter into long term bilateral contracts are likely to consider what they could receive in the spot markets, even if they are non fossil producers whose own costs do not rise. Litigation was commenced by a power producer with a long term contract who could not raise its prices to the buyer due to the added cost of allowances it is now required to buy under the DEC RGGI regulations.

The Petition and Complaint in the court proceeding contends, inter alia, that the Governor, DEC, NYSERDA and the PSC acted beyond the authority delegated to them by the Legislature, and that RGGI is an interstate compact not approved by Congress.

As a result of the court case and uncertainty over legal authority to operate the program, the $128 million received to date in new revenue from the auctions of CO2 allowances is not being spent by NYSERDA. See Brian Nearing, Energy Efficiency Pool Hits $128m - Lawsuit from Corinth Operator Bars State from Spending Funds, Albany Times Union, June 20, 2009.

PULP recommends -- without success to date -- that a significant portion of revenue from the sale of RGGI allowances be specifically allocated to provide energy efficiency measures to help low-income customers reduce their rising energy bills.

Low-income households typically live in older, less efficient housing with older heating systems, controls, appliances, and energy consuming fixtures. Due to their lack of income and savings, there is a chronic market failure because they cannot afford the initial cost of investments in energy efficiency measures that will reduce usage and bills over time. Thus, providing assistance to low-income households may have significant payoffs in terms of reduced energy usage and improved living standards with less distortion of markets in which affluent customers can make cost effective energy efficiency investments without the need for subsidy. See PULP Urges NYSERDA to Use RGGI Auction Revenue to Support Low Income Energy Efficiency Programs, PULP Network, January 7, 2008.

See also, NYSERDA Concept Paper - Operating Plan for Investments in New York under the CO2 Budget Trading Program and the CO2 Allowance Auction Program, which contains a brief mention of low-income energy assistance as a possible use of RGGI revenue, but there is no quantification or any proposed allocation for the purpose.

Spain Tilts At Windmills And Pays Price by GEORGE F. WILL 06/24/2009

2009-06-25T09:32:00.001-04:00

The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1% — more than doubl e the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs.

But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies. Wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital.

(European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build — to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."

Questioner: "Well, then. (Laughter.)"

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech).

Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.

Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the subcommittee on green jobs and the new economy.

What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive.

Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant.

When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself.

This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate.

The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation — Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading — of what the late Sen. Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."

Infigen buys Babcock & Brown wind assets

2009-06-24T14:46:00.001-04:00

Wind power company Infigen Energy says it will spend $23.5 million to purchase key assets owned by Babcock & Brown International.

In a statement to the stock market on Wednesday, Infigen said it had settled on the terms for acquiring Babcock's Australian and New Zealand wind energy projects and its US wind asset management business.

"The total consideration for these acquisitions is $23.5 million," Infigen said in a statement.

"Additional separation costs are still expected to be approximately $8 million," the company said.

Financial engineers Babcock & Brown was delisted from the Australian Securities Exchange on Friday and is reported to have burned through $5.4 billion in their final year of operation.

In March, Babcock & Brown was placed in receivership, but subsidiary Babcock & Brown International maintained its operations.

"The acquisitions represent high quality assets and significantly add to the growth prospects and value of our operations in Australia and the US over the medium term," said Infigen managing director Miles George.

House To Vote On Energy

2009-06-24T11:35:00.001-04:00

READ the House Bill

In a surprise switch, House Democrats have now decided that they will force a vote this week on a major energy bill - what's known as the cap-and-trade legislation. Late on Monday night, backers submitted the revised bill to the House Rules Committee, which posted the 1,201 page behemoth on the internet.

Please take a minute to leaf through it and find out what's stuffed in all those pages at http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr2454_sub.pdf

This move certainly spices up the last few days of this Congressional work period, as Democrats seem ready to roll the dice on the energy issue.

For months, Republicans have savaged Democrats on the plan, which would allow heavy industry to trade permits for emitting greenhouse gas and other pollutants.

Those permits would be a way to raise money for the federal government, basically penalizing industries that decide not to switch to new technologies to cut down on climate change emissions.

GOP lawmakers have repeatedly charged that the move will result in a huge "tax" on Americans, because the energy industry (utilities) will simply pass the cost of the cap and trade system on to consumers.

But in recent days, Democrats got a gift from the Congressional Budget Office - the same outfit that made their blood run cold with $1 trillion and more cost estimates on health care reform.

On cap and trade, the CBO reported that by 2020, the program would cost consumers $175 per year.

You can read that CBO review at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10327

As of right now, I wouldn't put my money on the Democrats to win this vote - but that CBO cost estimate certainly makes it easier for Speaker Pelosi to argue to her flock that it's a vote they can make and not feel like they are walking the plank.

Stay tuned. This will be an interesting battle in coming days.

Wind farms interfering with Doppler radar

2009-06-24T07:09:00.000-04:00

Maple Ridge Wind Farm is one of several farms in the state causing problems for the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Buffalo.

Maple Ridge in Martinsburg, Harrisburg and Lowville has created interference for the service's Doppler radar in Montague.

"It does pose a problem for the immediate Tug Hill area," said David A. Zaff, meteorologist for the service. "The biggest problem is during a severe weather event."

The service has a Web page about Doppler radar interference. It shows how wind projects in Sheldon, Wethersfield, Eagle and Bliss create the interference with a station in Cheektowaga. The wind projects are about 20 to 35 miles southwest of the radar. Maple Ridge is less than 10 miles from the Montague station.

The turbines cause problems because they are in the radar's line of sight to the sky. They reflect some of the radar's signal, which is then interpreted as wind or precipitation.

Moving the radars is not an option. Turbines would not be a problem if they were placed out of the line of sight — farther away or lower — from the radar.

"We site the radar at the highest location possible to give us a clear view of the sky," Mr. Zaff said. "The problem with that is that people like to site wind turbines in the same place."

Mr. Zaff said adding other wind farms in the Tug Hill area, such as Roaring Brook in Martinsburg, will increase the interference.

"It's not like radar can magically pass through it; you're essentially putting a wall there," he said.

The service cannot force developers to change their plans for turbine placement. But he said that over the past decade, awareness of the problem has grown and the service has talked to towns and developers.

Mr. Zaff said the interference or clutter is noticeable both to meteorologists and to those who look at radar on television or online.

"It's a little difficult to separate the clutter from the wind farm from an actual severe weather event," Mr. Zaff said. "It's usually pretty temporary — five or 10 minutes."

But, he said, the service sometimes has only a few minutes of lead time to put out warnings on severe weather.

ON THE NET

National Weather Service Forecast Office in Buffalo: www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/wind
farm.htm