Cohocton Wind Watch

On PILOTs and wind farms, our motto should be 'be prepared'

2010-02-08T09:09:00.000-05:00

The proposed Galloo Island wind farm and its associated Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement has been one of the most controversial topics in the press for several weeks. On Tuesday, the Jefferson County Board of Legislators voted in favor of the agreement. I am not going to write about this particular PILOT, but I think it might be illuminating to look at PILOTs in general and the role they play in regional economic development.

A PILOT is basically an agreement by some entity to pay fees to a government — Jefferson County and certain townships and school districts — in lieu of property or other taxes.

In some cases, the entity is a not-for-profit agency, such as a church or a school, that would not have paid any taxes at all. Because they occupy land that might otherwise be taxed, and they use municipal services such as fire protection or police, the not-for-profit entity agrees to pay the community some money in consideration. There is not a legal requirement to do this, but it is considered good form among financially sound not-for-profits that want to remain on good terms with their communities.

In the case of Galloo Island, or other wind farm developments in the region, the developers are for-profit corporations and would normally be subject to full property and sales taxes. They ask for relief from those taxes, in return for paying a lesser amount of money in lieu of those taxes. This is effectively a tax reduction for the developer.

The argument from the developer's standpoint is that they cannot afford to make the investment if it is fully taxed — or that they will make the investment elsewhere, where they can get a tax deal. From the standpoint of the county and its economic development specialists at the Jefferson County Job Development Corp. (JCJDC), the argument is that we give up some of our tax revenues to help spur the development of our economy and the creation of jobs.

If the full taxes due would be $8 million across the life of the PILOT, but the developer is given a PILOT that only requires payment of $5 million, the county looks at the deal as being worth $5 million — assuming that they were never going to get the full $8 million because the developer would never make the investment without the PILOT agreement. It is $5 million or nothing.

The developer sees the PILOT as being worth $3 million — the amount it knocks off the full tax bill. In theory, both parties get a valuable deal, something negotiators call "win-win."

Of course, as with any negotiation, there is infinite room for third-party second-guessing and kibitzing. If you have ever bought a used car from a dealership, only to have a friend tell you that he would not have paid that much, you get the idea. Because we do not know exactly what would have happened if a different deal had been proposed, neither side is ever completely sure they got everything they could have, if they had only pushed a little harder.

The situation in a case like wind farms in Jefferson County is exacerbated by something economists call asymmetrical information — the developers know more about the deal than do our economic development officials or legislators. The developers know what their real costs are, as well as the next best opportunities they will have if the deal doesn't go through.

The county does not know when or if other developers will appear, or what they will offer or demand if they do appear. That makes the negotiation very high-risk for us, but relatively easier for the wind farm developers. They know exactly when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. We have to take a deep breath and follow our instincts.

Of course, the developers will always say that they need a generous PILOT to make the deal work. Wouldn't you if you were in their shoes?

And our economic developers, charged with the near-impossible job of generating outside capital investment in the region, have every incentive to be generous with prospective investors.

The county legislature routinely asks the JCJDC to be accountable for the tax money it spends searching for new developers and job-creating deals, so legislators should not be surprised when those economic development folks try extra hard to land a new wind farm.

If we want to avoid repeating this circus over and over again, there are a few things we might try:

■ Decide where we want wind farms and on what terms.

This will let individual towns and villages decide where they want windmills, if they want them at all, before the developers show up and everything gets ugly. Each municipality then needs to pass a local ordinance that limits wind farm development to those areas.

If JCJDC wants to help with this, they can do two things: fund a community survey by the Center for Community Studies at Jefferson Community College to determine prevailing opinions and concerns about wind farms, and develop a draft ordinance that each municipality can use in creating its laws. I am sure the Jefferson County Planning Department or even the Tug Hill Commission could help with those things as well.

■ Approve a proposed standing PILOT agreement for all wind farm developments in the county. County legislators can provide their input to without getting tangled in the specifics of an impending deal. That will avoid having to treat each prospective developer differently. It can also be used to help market the region to wind developers in a rational fashion.

■ Get a lot smarter on the economics and industry dynamics of wind power and wind farming. We need to start comparing notes with other regions that are experiencing or seeking development like ours and we need to start collecting information on the primary actors in the business. That asymmetrical information problem can be licked if we try.

I have to agree with John Droz, whose letter to the Watertown Daily Times last month said that wind developers are here because they can make money. Right now, thanks to tax incentives and public policy, wind power is profitable in New York state. We have exactly what the wind farm investors need — rural land, strong winds and a reasonable proximity to large electricity markets downstate. They have fewer choices than they might want us to believe, and for every deal we lose, another will come to take its place.

If wind farms are coming, or at least prospective wind farm developers, we need to be ready for them and reap the benefits on our terms. To them, it's just money. To us, it's our home.

Greg Gardner is an associate professor of business at SUNY Potsdam. His column on business issues in the north country is published monthly in Money Matters. E-mail him at ggardner@wdt.net.

Wind PILOT

2010-02-07T10:35:00.000-05:00

Approval doesn't answer questions

The irresponsible decision by the Jefferson County Legislature approving a tax abatement plan for the Galloo Island Wind Farm leaves unresolved several issues that will bedevil the county for years to come.

A last-minute offer of another $3.5 million in community benefits by Upstate NY Power Corp. sweetened the deal sufficiently to win the eight votes needed for county approval of a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan for the project. But that does not end the dispute.

The town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor School District have already signed off on the plan. It goes before the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency for final approval this morning with its shortcomings and even new problems raised after Upstate promised to create a $3 million community benefit fund with another $500,000 in scholarship funds over the life of the PILOT.

However, details remain to be ironed out. Who will administer the funds? An existing agency? A new board? Who will be eligible for the money? What criteria will be used to distribute the funds or award scholarships? What guarantees do we have that the money will be paid?

The $3.5 million amounts to $175,000 a year for the next two decades. It is a fraction of the $9 million the county and municipalities could have had in sales taxes over the next two years. Upstate won't have to pay sales taxes under their leaseback agreement with JCIDA.

The deal looks even worse considering the $5 million county residents lose because Upstate's PILOT is five years longer than the standard PILOT other developers receive.

Is this the pattern for future wind PILOTs? The JCIDA failed in the mission assigned it by the Legislature years ago to draft a uniform policy applicable to wind developers looking to take advantage of a county asset. What the Legislature received — and approved — was an exception tailored to the Wall Street-driven interests of the developer. To the county's detriment, the Legislature and JCIDA have opened the door to other developers demanding the same favorable treatment.

County residents still don't know whose property the proposed transmission line will run through. Upstate said it would consider an alternative route to the Coffeen Street substation rather than running the line south through Henderson and Ellisburg to a substation in the town of Mexico. It doesn't solve problems, merely relocates them.

Where will the line come ashore? The alternative route would put likely landfall somewhere in the town of Hounsfield cutting through shoreline and resort properties. Eminent domain looms whether it is seizing farmland in Ellisburg or someone's front yard in Hounsfield.

The long, protracted debate over the PILOT changed little. The Legislature's majority has let down the people of Jefferson County.

A model project

2010-02-07T09:54:00.000-05:00

Galloo PILOT is now the standard

Now that the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the Galloo Island Wind Farm has been approved, the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency has declared a moratorium on accepting tax abatement applications from other wind developers.

That is disingenuous. After setting the template for wind PILOTs with the Galloo deal, the JCIDA board says it will now develop a uniform tax-exempt policy for such projects.

Why was that not done before Jefferson County relinquished its right to have the Galloo developer pay sales, property and mortgage taxes?

The JCIDA board and Jefferson County Legislature have endorsed a sea-change in tax policy for the county. In a rush to judgment, they approved an ad-hoc agreement that exempts the developer, Upstate NY Power Corp., from paying millions of dollars to local taxing jurisdictions.

After approving all this, and deviating from the standard 15-year PILOT to increase it to 20 years, Jefferson County officials want to contemplate how to handle the next wind developer.

But in all fairness, the Galloo PILOT should set the standard for future developers, wind and otherwise. Why should new motels in the county not receive a similar sweetheart deal? Why should any company breaking ground in Jefferson County not expect tax exemptions similar to what Upstate received?

All developers should get a 20-year pilot from Jefferson County, complete with special exemptions afforded the Galloo developer. That should happen without the county bothering to know what the developer's project will cost and what the earnings will be.

After all, that has happened with the Galloo project. Referring to Upstate, JCIDA attorney W. James Heary articulated county policy: "We don't necessarily need to go into the nitty-gritty of their plan."

So far as future wind development is concerned, the Galloo model now serves: approve the site for wind turbines, work out the details for the transmission line later.

What is fair for one is fair for all.

Opinions shift on Rochester-area wind farms

2010-02-06T09:00:00.000-05:00

Wind-energy developers, who have flocked to the breezy hills south of Rochester, now are finding parts of the region a less-than-hospitable one.

A cross-border project has been blocked by local officials in Steuben and Yates counties, prompting aggressive lawsuits by the developer involved.

Another wind-energy company just walked away from a planned project in Steuben County.

And most recently, a Wyoming County citizens group has challenged a town board action that paved the way for a new wind project there.

Some say the shine has worn off an industry that in many communities had been welcomed both for its green image and its ability to pump money into the local economy.

“I’m detecting a shift in the climate of opinion,” said Gary Abraham, a Cattaraugus County lawyer who has represented citizen groups in litigation related to wind projects.

The head of a statewide green-energy advocacy group said the public overwhelmingly supports wind energy, but despite that, discord and litigation in host communities has become an unfortunate fact of life.

“Certainly it sends the message that it’s not going to be easy to get something done in New York. That being said, there are still a number of projects going forward,” said Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

Indeed, the region remains a center of wind-energy development. Wyoming County has four wind farms with 236 turbines, more than any other county in the state. There is a working wind farm in Cohocton, Steuben County, as well.

Those five projects have the capacity to generate up to 470 megawatts, which represents the electricity demand of about 200,000 households.

Those 470 megawatts are a little more than a third of all the wind-generation capacity in the state.

Nearly two dozen other wind-farm proposals in the Finger Lakes and western New York regions remain on the books of the agency that oversees New York’s electric grid, though developers have yet to make formal applications to town boards for many of them.

Of late, though, there has been a spate of controversy over the farms.

A citizens group in Orangeville, Wyoming County, filed suit last month against the Town Board there, asserting it had adopted an inadequate local wind-turbine siting law to make way for a 59-turbine wind project. That case has been assigned to a Supreme Court justice in Buffalo.

•After supporting Ecogen Wind LLC’s 17-turbine proposal for years, the Town Board in Italy, Yates County, acknowledged growing citizen opposition by voting in October to kill the development. Observers said Italy’s board may have been the first in New York state to vote down a wind project. A suit by Ecogen asking a judge to override the Town Board and allow the project to proceed is pending before a state Supreme Court justice in Rochester.

•Ecogen similarly sued the board in neighboring Prattsburgh, Steuben County, where the company has hoped to erect 16 more turbines. Pro-wind board members briefly settled the case in Ecogen’s favor before leaving office in December, but after a series of courtroom skirmishes, the newly seated Town Board canceled the settlement and declared a moratorium on wind-energy development in the town. Ecogen’s suit still is pending.

Another wind project proposed for Prattsburgh that had been in planning stages for years was formally canceled at the end of 2009. John Lamontagne, spokesman for developer First Wind, said the project was deemed expendable in light of the shaky economy.

The Massachusetts company, which was given $75 million in federal stimulus aid in partial compensation for the 50-turbine farm it built in Cohocton, will pursue other projects in Erie County, New England, Utah and Hawaii, Lamontagne said.

Abraham, who represents the citizens group suing the Orangeville board, said he believes public opposition to wind developments is growing.

Residents most often cite concerns about noise and the setback provisions that dictate how close turbines can be to homes and adjoining properties.

He said, though, that he thinks elected officials often pay less attention to those concerns than they do to a project’s financial benefit to friends and family members.

“They’re decided based on the importance the town (board) assigns to the money issue. That’s really the deciding factor. It’s not the environment,” Abraham said.

Murphy disputed the idea that people in host communities are turning against wind farms. “It’s the old adage about the silent majority. It doesn’t take more than a few people to stand up at a town board meeting and make a lot of noise and give people the impression there’s no support for it,” she said.

Murphy cited a 2008 public opinion poll in Lewis County — home to Maple Ridge, which at a 322-megawatt capacity is the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi River — that found 71 percent of residents thought the wind farm had had a positive impact. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they would support more turbines.

“There’s always a lot of apprehension when there’s something new and something people aren’t used to seeing, but once they (turbines) are there we’ve found the level of support continues to grow over the years,” she said.

Cleanup of fallen Fenner windmill progresses as investigation continues

2010-02-05T08:43:00.003-05:00

Fenner, NY -- A month after neighbors, local officials and energy advocates were shocked when one of Fenner’s 20 windmills collapsed, teams of engineers are clearing wreckage and collecting information as the remaining turbines sit eerily dormant.

Earlier this week, work crews removed Turbine 18’s concrete foundation, which weighed in at more than 85 tons. The mangled remains of the windmill, which once stood 212 feet from the ground to the center hub, and 329 feet to the tip of a blade at its full height, are askew on the cornfield where they landed and surrounded by heavy equipment, cranes and Dumpsters.

Officials hope the cleanup itself will further their investigation into the cause of the collapse. Enel spokesman Hank Sennott said the removal of the foundation would give forensic engineers access to more information about the 187-ton tower’s base. The team has been working at the site since the Dec. 27 accident.

“Being able to check the hole where the tower was is obviously an important part of the review,” Sennott said Wednesday.

In the month since the crash, crews have recovered the turbine’s computer, which links to the facility’s monitoring system, and determined that the windmill was operating at reasonable speeds before it collapsed. Both the cleanup and investigation could take several more months, officials said. They had hoped to have more information about the cause of the accident by the end of January.

“We’re going to take as long as it takes to get the right answer,” Sennott said. “The safety of our employees and landowners is our first priority, so there’s not going to be a rush to judgment.”

The Fenner wind farm was built in 2001. At the time, the cluster of 20 turbines on a rural ridge just east of Cazenovia in Madison County was the largest facility of its kind east of the Mississippi River, with the capacity to power up to 10,000 homes. Enel oversees about 260 turbines in the United States and Canada.

(Click to watch the video)

Bert Bowers February 3, 2010 Letter to Jefferson County Legislators

2010-02-04T13:38:00.001-05:00

The Legislators of Jefferson County:

I am deeply disappointed that our legislators chose, on Tuesday, to effectively endorse the wind development scheme proposed by Upstate NY Power and the PILOT developed by the JCIDA. I have tried, both personally and through the Coalition to Preserve the Golden Crescent and the 1000 Islands, to make you aware of the facts that neither the PILOT or wind energy in general deserve our support. There has been no attempt to study the economic impact of this development on our area. There will be significant impacts on our economy from this decision aside from the PILOT payments. The Galloo project if allowed to go forward will have the following consequences:

1. It will increase the level of debt in our federal and state budgets by hundreds of millions of dollars - debt that we, the taxpayers, must ultimately repay.
2. Wind energy from Galloo will not replace any of our current sources of electrical generating power, but will dictate that the entire system will operate in a less efficient manner to accommodate winds variability which will increase overall fuel usage and emissions produced in the production of electricity.
3. The high cost of the wind generated power will increase our already high electrical rates.
4. It will enable a group of investors, who do not live here and who will sell the facility to others to operate, to profit very handsomely at the expense of local residents as well as all taxpayers and electrical rate payers. The investors get paid up front - Jefferson County will get its small payments over twenty years, if the wind lobby can keep the present subsidies in place.
5. The development will destroy one of the last remaining wild areas in Lake Ontario and will convert the island, always a refuge for migrating birds, into a death trap for migrating flocks.
6. The large whirring blades and flashing lights will substantially diminish the qualities of peace, quiet and star-filled skies that have made this area a haven for vacationers, tourists, as well as regular residents. This will reduce tourism, hurt local businesses and reduce property values.
7. The equipment to be used in the development, principally imported from outside the US, will be imported without even paying sales tax. You have forgone the sales tax income that could benefit our area on hundreds of millions of dollars of imported goods.

The local residents who urged you to vote for this PILOT were, disproportionately those who are effectively surrogates for the wind developers or those who expect to profit personally from wind energy. The union workers were paid to attend the hearings. You have been deceived and influenced by them and the rest of us will pay dearly for your failure to protect the majority of residents from such an obvious scam. Wind energy will not save us from global warming and this is a bad deal for most of our residents.

Sincerely,
Bert Bowers

Investigators still looking for cause of wind turbine collapse

2010-02-04T08:37:00.000-05:00

Fenner (WSYR-TV) - Teams of engineers are still trying to figure out what caused one of the huge Fenner wind turbines to collapse in late December.

Piece by piece engineers are going over the wreckage of what was once a 328 foot tall, 187 ton wind turbine. The key section, however, will only be accessible when it's all cut up and removed.

They're anxious to get to the hole left in the foundation where the turbine separated from the base, but so far nobody's been able to access that spot. More than a month after the crash they still have no answers on what caused the giant turbine to come crashing down.

"They have kept us very well informed, I've got to applaud them for that,” said Fenner Town Supervisor Russell Cary. “They had an executive come in all the way from Boston for our Free Center and he also came to my Madison County Energy Committee meeting at Morrisville College just to catch us up, answer questions."

While the cleanup goes on at the site, they have continued to keep the other 19 wind turbines shut down until they get a better idea of what happened. “This is a lesson and we're going to learn. All the engineering in the world, nothing beats hindsight. I think they're doing a good job of really analyzing it and setting up to make the whole process better going forward,” said Cary.

With more and more turbines popping up as wind power becomes more common, there will likely be people from around the world interested in what did cause this collapse.

Enel North America, which operates the wind farm, had hoped to have a determination by the end of last month. Now, it says it’s unclear when the company will have something final.

Bert Bowers' Remarks on Galloo PILOT

2010-02-03T12:16:00.001-05:00

Read this tonight, but the Legislature approved the PILOT:

Important Considerations Re. PILOT for Galloo:

The company that Jefferson County will be partnering with is not a large concern with ample assets to guarantee the payments to Jefferson County and Hounsfield. It is an LLC (limited liability corporation) set up solely for the development of Galloo as a wind factory.

Guarantees of payments promised by this LLC will not be made if current levels of federal and state subsidies are not maintained. If we sue to obtain the promised payments we may ultimately take title to a broken, uneconomically sound wind turbine facility. What then?

Contrary to information put out by the wind industry, wind turbines will not lower fuel use or emissions, but due to winds variability and unpredictability will lower the efficiency of the system so as to actually increase fuel use and emissions.

When it becomes generally known that wind will not help to solve global warming, the huge subsidies now available to wind developers will be curtailed and the developers or subsequent owners will not be able to live up to payments promised in the PILOT. Twenty years is a long time.

The power that will be generated is not for our region of New York State, as is apparent from the plan to transmit it to Oswego, however, it will very likely cause our electrical rates to increase. This will make it more difficult to attract legitimate businesses to Jefferson County.

Jobs were an important consideration to some of the Legislators with whom I have spoken, However, the criteria must be net job creation. How many jobs will be lost in construction and maintenance of cottages, fishing, camps, marinas, etc. with the increased industrialization of the area? Studies of the overall economic impact of the project need to be done before a good decision can be reached.

I have also heard comments to the effect that, “we are not giving up this opportunity for the sake of rich people on the Lake.” The issue of Galloo should not be framed as class warfare. We are fortunate to have many lakefront dwellers return to the area each summer. Some of them may even be wealthy, but most are not. Many are families who have returned to the area for generations. They pay taxes as if they are in residence for 365 days a year, even though many are not. They pay school taxes even though they don’t send their children to our schools. Some of these people may not vote here, but if we choose industrialization, please understand that many of these people will vote with their feet – they will go elsewhere.

The tendency of people to leave the area – not just summer residents, but year round residents as well will depress real estate values. This will also affect assessments and the portion of the tax burden shouldered by those who are affected by industrialization.

As for jobs, these are outside the control of the developer. These are financial people with no particular expertise or capabilities to erect wind turbines. They will hire one or more contractor companies to build the facility and it will be the contractors who will determine how many and what type of workers will be hired from local labor pools.

Galloo is one of the last truly wild and natural areas remaining in Lake Ontario. Let’s do the right thing. Joni Mitchell had it right: “That you don't know what you've got, Till it's gone, They paved paradise, And put up a parking lot.”

Respectfully,

Albert H. Bowers III, Co-Chair, The Coalition for the Golden Crescent and 1,000 Islands

Galloo Wind Farm PILOT approved

2010-02-03T12:14:00.000-05:00

8-7 VOTE: About 200 pack County Office Building for meeting

The proposed payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for Galloo Island Wind Farm passed the Jefferson County Board of Legislators on an 8-7 vote Tuesday night.

The final vote on the PILOT will come Thursday morning from the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency board of directors. After that, the developer will be free to seek financing for the project with a guaranteed reduced amount for property taxes.

The PILOT is worth about $54 million for the county, town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor Central School District.

The close vote by the county board came after more than an hour of public comment on Galloo Island Wind Farm and some last-minute agreements for more community benefits from the project.

"We all took it very seriously," Chairman Kenneth D. Blankenbush told the other legislators at the close of Tuesday's meeting. "Sometimes we were attacked by the public, the media — and the blogs especially."

About 200 people showed up for the meeting, packing the board's chambers and sitting on the first floor of the historic courthouse and in the Department of Motor Vehicles next door. Those in overflow watched the proceedings on a live video feed.

Robert E. Ashodian, Henderson Harbor, asked legislators to wait until an economic impact study is completed.

"Why put at risk the reason for why people are drawn to this area?" he asked. "Why put at risk the basis for our current economy?"

Mr. Ashodian, a leader in the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and Thousand Islands Region, said tourism and waterfront landowners make up a large portion of the tax and business sectors.

Suzann J. Cornell, Chaumont, was one of several members of Voters for Wind who urged the board to approve the PILOT.

"I believe we can no longer ignore our future," she said. "We use more electricity and we need to find more environmentally friendly ways to produce it."

The county was the last of the three taxing jurisdictions to agree to allow the PILOT to vary from a standard PILOT, which is established by state law.

The Galloo Island PILOT will run 20 years instead of the standard 15. And normally, proceeds are based on proportional distribution of property taxes among the jurisdictions. In the proposed PILOT, Sackets Harbor Central School District would receive 50 percent, the county would receive 35 percent and the town of Hounsfield would receive 15 percent. That represents less than the school's proportionate share, and more than the town's.

The PILOT payments from developer Upstate NY Power Corp. would begin at $2.14 million, increasing by 2.5 percent each year, plus supplemental payments if higher electricity costs prevail. That's also different from a standard PILOT, where businesses pay a portion of what their full taxes would be.

"Your PILOT is extremely fair," said Kevin R. McAuliffe, the county's counsel on wind development negotiations from Hiscock & Barclay, Syracuse. "For the size of this project, it's at the top end of what's really out there. I don't think money was left on the table."

Despite those assurances, the board remained tightly divided on the vote.

Legislator Michael J. Docteur, R-Cape Vincent, opposed the PILOT because he wants to see towns receiving a higher percentage of the proceeds.

"The precedent-setting distribution rate in this PILOT won't complement well with the three projects coming in my district," he said. "The PILOT should allow local government to pay down property tax — all of it, if possible."

Legislator Barry M. Ormsby, R-Belleville, said the PILOT has been improved since the board originally considered it.

"I do feel the IDA has done the job we charged them with months ago," he said. "Today this is a tool of public policy we use to compete for businesses and jobs."

Legislator Carolyn D. Fitzpatrick, R-Watertown, said she had received 698 phone calls and e-mails on the vote. But residents in her district overwhelmingly opposed the PILOT, by a ratio of 4:1.

"I'm not against the wind PILOTs but I am in favor of the people who support me," she said.

The board also passed two resolutions that would protect the county in case the project shut down. The first calls for an agreement with JCIDA that the agency will not vacate the PILOT to the property for a year. That keeps the county from paying full property taxes on the wind farm to the town and school district if the developer pulls out.

The second resolution allows Mr. Blankenbush to authorize a decommissioning agreement with the developer and the town of Hounsfield. The decommissioning bond would increase as required by the county to match current costs.

At 8 a.m. Thursday at 800 Starbuck Ave., JCIDA board members will discuss the PILOT, a sale-leaseback agreement and a project development agreement. Passing it will authorize JCIDA staff to finalize the negotiations and agreement.

A sale-leaseback agreement would eliminate mortgage recording and sales tax for the $500 million investment on the island. That represents a savings of about $22.7 million, according to the developer's Oct. 6 application to JCIDA. But the amount in sales tax could be less because the state Department of Taxation and Finance has ruled for other wind farms that the entire turbine structure is exempt.

"The language is still to be massaged and there are questions still to be answered," JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said.

Cleanup has begun at turbine collapse site

2010-02-03T08:46:00.001-05:00

FENNER — It’s been more than a month since a nearly 187-ton wind turbine crashed on Fenner Wind Farm in rural Madison County, but what toppled the structure still remains a mystery, company officials said Tuesday.

This week, a team from wind farm operator Enel North America began removing sections of the fallen turbine from the site. Once the wreckage is removed, the team will be able to get a better look at the hole left in the foundation where the stem of the turbine separated from its base, company spokesman Hank Sennott said.

“It’s the one thing no one’s been able to get close to,” Sennott said. “We’ve got to look at everything before we come to any conclusions.”

The turbine that crashed at about 4 a.m. on Dec. 27 was one of 20 on the wind farm located northeast of Cazenovia. The wind farm has been in operation since 2001 and supplies enough electricity to serve at least 10,000 homes.

Despite predictions from Enel North America that the cause of the crash could be determined by the end of January 2010, Sennott said it’s now unknown when a report will be complete.

The other 19 turbines remain temporarily shut down as a safety precaution, Sennott said.

“Until we’re convinced we know what happened, we will leave them off,” Sennott said. “We want to get this right.”

First Wind eyes Bowers Mountain

2010-02-03T08:40:00.000-05:00

CARROLL PLANTATION, Maine — First Wind of Massachusetts is collecting data on Bowers Mountain wind conditions as a first step toward possibly erecting an industrial wind-to-energy site near the 1,127-foot summit, company officials said Tuesday.

The state’s largest industrial wind power producer placed three test towers on the site, two in November and one in December. Company officials will meet town leaders and residents on Feb. 8 and outline what their plans might be, spokesman John Lamontagne said.

“The data we get from those towers is critical to us deciding whether we want to locate a project there,” Lamontagne said Tuesday. “It is close to the proposed Rollins Mountain project, so that is a plus. We have had good relations with folks in that area.”

Topographical maps place Bowers about two miles south of Route 6, about 10 miles east of Lee and 16 miles east of Lincoln near the boundary line between Penobscot and Washington counties.

The Rollins Mountain project is a proposed $130 million, 40-turbine industrial wind site on nearby Rollins Mountain, a range of ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn that has received Maine Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approvals.

The Friends of Lincoln Lakes residents group has an appeal of the DEP permit pending in the Maine State Supreme Court. The court will hear arguments in Portland at 1:45 p.m. Feb. 10.

The attorney representing the friends, Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor, also represents a group of Bowers Mountain-area residents that might oppose any Bowers Mountain development, she said recently.

“We have the luxury of being witness to this from the very beginning,” Williams said.

Williams and the residents will work to ensure that any Bowers project gets thoroughly reviewed, she said.

Beyond the meeting and data collection, First Wind has no immediate plans for Bowers, Lamontagne said. He said he was unsure how many landowners in the area had agreed to allow wind turbines on their properties if the testing proves successful.

“We haven’t decided, basically, on what we are going to do there, so I don’t have the details as how big a project it might be,” he said. “When you build a project, you have to collect many months of wind data to see whether a project can be sustained. This is fairly early in the process.

“It would not be something we would be building in 2010, that’s for sure,” he added.

With headquarters in Boston, First Wind operates the 42-megawatt Mars Hill and the 57-megawatt Stetson Mountain sites. Construction of the 26-megawatt Stetson II project will be completed this spring, while DEP approved the proposed 51-megawatt Oakfield project on Jan. 22.

Greed is good if you are a wind developer

2010-02-02T09:01:00.001-05:00

Big Foreign Wind Takes Jobs From Jefferson County NY

2010-02-02T08:59:00.002-05:00

The War of Winds

2010-02-02T08:38:00.002-05:00

It is a bright mid-September day. Hal and Judy Graham are sitting in the living room of their restored 19th century farmhouse, which looks out over the still-green rolling hills near Cohocton, a rural community in the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York.

The pastoral view is punctuated by two 420-foot-high structures. The sleek towers, almost alien in appearance, are wind turbines. One of them stands 1,000 feet from the farmhouse, on a neighbor’s property. The second is 2,000 feet away on the Grahams’ own land.

On this afternoon in the late summer of 2009, the twin Goliaths are still. One was shut down last winter after a flurry of attempted repairs, and the other has unaccountably been shut down for just a couple of days. But the Grahams expect it to be only a temporary respite. When the winds are high and the turbines are spinning fast, “it sounds like a jet engine taking off in your backyard,” says Judy Graham. “Only it never stops.”

In 2004, the Grahams signed a contract that permitted a company named UPC Wind (since renamed First Wind) to construct and operate a wind turbine on their property as part of a 50-turbine “farm” that stretches across a number of properties. Later, the town of Cohocton passed an ordinance that effectively exempts leaseholders from any noise controls.

“They told us that the noise at 900 feet would be no louder than the hum of a refrigerator,” says Hal Graham. But he says the reality has been far different. “We can’t sleep. We can’t watch TV. This has been a disaster for us and our neighbors.”

Wind power is one of the current darlings of the movement to find alternative energy sources, and in 2008 the United States surpassed Germany as the world’s leading producer of electricity generated by wind. “With the right government policies, this cost-effective source of energy could provide at least 20 percent of the nation’s electricity by 2030, create thousands of jobs, and revitalize farms and rural communities—without consuming any natural resource or emitting any pollution or greenhouse gases,” says the American Wind Energy Association on its website.

But an increasingly vocal minority says there is another, more sinister, side to wind power. They acknowledge that, from a distance, the towering sentinels seem to spin lightly and noiselessly in the wind. But closer up, they insist, turbines emit stomach-jarring whooshes and rumbles, and an impossible-to-ignore rhythmic hum that disrupts sleep and causes headaches, nausea and fatigue in some people.

Another problem is shadow flicker, caused when the spinning blades chop up sunlight, creating a swooping pattern of shadows that some people say makes them woozy and sick.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., at the north edge of Adirondack Park, has coined the phrase wind turbine syndrome to describe the cluster of symptoms—sleeplessness, headaches, depression, dizziness and nausea—that she has identified in people she has studied who live within a mile of industrial-size wind turbines. In November, Pierpont published a report on some of her research, Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. Pierpont’s findings have been criticized by some in the wind energy industry, partly on grounds that her study looked at fewer than 40 people.

• • •

The growing contentiousness over the health effects of wind turbines already has resulted in some sharp legal fights —with more sure to come—over where turbines should be located and how they should be regulated. And because wind power can be harnessed most efficiently in wide-open spaces—the largest wind farms contain hundreds of turbines—the task of sorting out these issues has fallen primarily on local government bodies representing communities such as Cohocton.

According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce webpage titled “Project No Project,” which tracks energy projects that have been stalled or killed, more than 70 wind farm proposals around the country are bogged down by moratoriums, restrictive ordinances, environmental challenges and lawsuits filed by community groups.

Although the states and even the federal government are inexorably being drawn into the issue, for now it is local government taking the lead to craft ordinances and zoning regulations that try to answer questions like these: When it comes to placing wind turbines near residences, how close is too close? And how loud is too loud?

Under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, land use generally is regulated at the local level through the police power of towns, cities and counties to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their residents, says Glenn M. Stoddard, an attorney in Eau Claire, Wis., who has helped local governments in his state develop wind ordinances.

Generally, a local government can’t just ban an industry outright, Stoddard says. “There’s a zoning doctrine that basically prohibits what we call ‘exclusionary zoning’ in which a local government simply discriminates against a certain type of land use,” he says. There must be a rational reason for restricting an industry that is related to the health, safety or general welfare of the populace.

This is a tricky standard when it comes to regulating noise. “There’s plenty of evidence that noise makes people sick,” says Arline L. Bronzaft, a New York City psychologist who has conducted landmark research linking classroom noise to learning deficits in children. According to the World Health Organization, noise can interfere with sleep, speech, learning and social behavior, as well as cause stress, cardiovascular problems and, at high decibel levels, impaired hearing.

But there are no national standards defining just how much noise is too much. The U.S. Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972 promised to “promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.” But the Office of Noise Abatement and Control created to enforce the law has been defunded since the Reagan administration.

The EPA’s website contains guidelines on acceptable noise levels based on the agency’s 1974 Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety—commonly known as the Noise Levels Document. But Les Blomberg, executive director of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse in Montpelier, Vt., says these guidelines were developed with the residents of noisy urban environments in mind. Too often, he says, the guidelines are applied without making the adjustments suggested by the Noise Levels Document for quieter rural areas or for noise with characteristics that make it particularly troublesome.

• • •

On Sept. 19, the town board of Italy—a tiny hamlet about 15 miles northeast of Cohocton—met to hear comments on a proposal by Ecogen Wind of West Seneca, N.Y., to erect 18 wind turbines on the surrounding hills.

Many opponents of the proposal wore black T-shirts emblazoned with “50 dBA No Way.”

The slogan refers to daytime noise limits measured at property lines near wind turbines. A limit of 50 decibels on the A-weighted scale—the most common measure for sounds perceived by the human ear—is the standard set by most local wind ordinances. Most also require a minimum setback from residences of 1,000 feet.

That would seem to be in line with EPA guidance, which suggests an outdoor noise limit of 55 dBA, though the Noise Levels Document also suggests that, in quiet rural areas, 10 dBA be subtracted from this level.

Some argue that wind turbine noise may be a problem even at this level. “It appears that the noise that comes from wind farms bothers people at lower decibel levels than aircraft noise and road noise,” says Jim Cummings, executive director of the Acoustic Ecology Institute in Santa Fe, N.M.

For one thing, the whirling of the blades causes a rhythmic pulsing that Bronzaft likens to “the drip, drip, drip of the faucet that makes you crazy, crazy, crazy.” Noise that pulses should be adjusted down by 5 dBA, suggests the EPA’s Noise Levels Document.

Then there’s low-frequency noise—sound that vibrates relatively slowly and is pitched low on the scale of sounds audible to the human ear. It travels farther and penetrates walls and windows more efficiently than high-frequency noise, making it hard to block out. Think of the pulsing sound you hear when a car blasting its stereo pulls up next to you at the stoplight—that’s low-frequency sound, stripped of its higher frequency components by the closed car windows.

According to the World Health Organization, low-frequency sound can accentuate the negative health impacts of noise, and even sounds below 30 dBA can disturb sleep.

The American Wind Energy Association and other wind power advocates generally dismiss claims of conditions like wind turbine syndrome. In December, the association and its Canadian counterpart issued a report concluding that, while some people may be “annoyed” by wind turbine noise, there is no reason to believe such noise creates health risks.

Some wind advocates suggest that, in certain cases, claims of health concerns may be a smokescreen for another reason why some people oppose wind turbines: They don’t like the way they look.

“My impression is that a lot of the opponents are people who want to stop the turbine coming into their backyards, and not because they think that it will cause this or that health problem,” says Patricia E. Salkin, director of the Government Law Center at Union University’s Albany Law School. She also is a past chair of the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law.

A study conducted in the Netherlands, for instance, found that people disturbed by the look of wind turbines were more likely to be bothered by the noise, as well.

“What’s clear is that there are people making claims” about the health impact of wind turbines, says Jeff Deyette, a senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a strong advocate of wind power headquartered in Cambridge, Mass. “But there are really not a whole lot of, or hardly any, epidemiological studies to bear them out.”

Trey Cox, an attorney at Lynn Tillotson Pinker and Cox in Dallas, represented a wind farm developer in what he says is the first nuisance claim based on noise impacts to be heard by a jury.

The plaintiffs lived in the vicinity of the Horse Hollow Wind Farm near Abilene, Texas. With 421 turbines spread out over 47,000 acres, Horse Hollow, owned by FPL Energy, is the world’s second-largest wind farm. The nearby property owners sought injunctive relief based on claims of nuisance. At trial, defense sound experts testified that, after logging 675 hours of sound measurements at plaintiffs’ residences, they found that wind turbine noise averaged 28 dBA at a distance of 1.7 miles from the wind turbines, and 44 dBA at 1,700 feet. In an 11-1 verdict, the jury found that these noise levels did not constitute a nuisance.

At trial, Cox was struck by the testimony of a plaintiff he described as “a wonderful woman, a salt-of-the-earth type,” who testified that the sound of the wind turbine on her land was equivalent to the sound of a B-1 bomber.

“Well, I knew that was impossible,” says Cox. “A B-1 bomber makes a sound around 101 decibels. I think that when people don’t like the wind turbine, they become bigger, they become louder and they become uglier in their minds.”

On appeal to the Texas Court of Appeals in Rankin v. FPL Energy, the nearby property owners argued that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury not to consider aesthetics in deciding whether the wind farm was a nuisance to those on nearby properties. The appellate court upheld the trial court, however, on grounds that aesthetics are not a basis for nuisance claims under Texas law.

Cummings says the argument that opposition to wind turbines is primarily a matter of what they look like “drives me crazy.” He acknowledges, however, that there is a strong psychological component to noise perception, as well as a wide variation in individuals’ responses to sound. The same low-frequency pulsing sound that drives one person up a wall can be imperceptible to another, and to a third it is soothing background noise.

“But one of the questions is: How much of the population living around a wind farm is it OK to disturb?” Cummings says. “If 20 percent of the residents are bothered, is that OK?”

• • •

It is clear from the prevalence of pro-wind posters displayed in yards and windows in Cohocton that the wind farm enjoys strong support from many residents. In 2007, town supervisor Jack Zigenfus defeated anti-wind activist Judy Hall by a vote of 506-210, according to local press reports. By 2008, Zigenfus was boasting about a 30 percent reduction in local taxes because of cash incentives First Wind paid to the town.

In neighboring Italy, however, opposition to its proposed wind farm has been fueled by the complaints of people living or working within earshot of the Cohocton wind turbines. At the town board meeting in September, a Cohocton man asked Italy to reject a wind project proposed by Ecogen Wind because “I may need someplace with peace and quiet to move to.”

Others, though, urged the board to approve the project, some because they hoped for lower taxes and some because they feared that the developer would sue if the town didn’t go along with the plan.

“They’ve got a lot more money than we’ll ever have,” said one speaker. Another said, “You have to choose your battles, and I think this battle here, we’re going to lose if we fight it.”

John Servo, a resident of neighboring Prattsburgh, scoffed at giving in. “If people in 1776 had that attitude, we’d still be part of the British empire,” said Servo, who belongs to Advocates for Prattsburgh, which opposes a proposed wind farm outside of that community.

But the fear of being sued is real. In 2006, after Italy repeatedly extended a six-month moratorium that was first imposed in 2004, Ecogen sued the town in federal court. Ecogen argued that the moratorium was facially unconstitutional because it denied the company the use of property without due process.

Judge David G. Larimer of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in Rochester rejected Ecogen’s argument, however, ruling the moratorium, though “suspicious” in its length, could serve a legitimate public purpose. Still, the town had to pay fees and costs of $80,000 when Larimer rejected its claim that they be paid by Ecogen.

And as the issue heated up again during 2009, the town board sent a letter to residents in July expressing fears that if the town didn’t eventually accept Ecogen’s proposal, “because of wind resources in the town of Italy and the push for renewable energy, industrial wind turbines will eventually be forced on the town by either the state or federal government.”

Several states, including Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin, have passed laws restricting local control over wind turbine projects.

A 1982 Wisconsin statute, for instance, allowed local governments to regulate solar power projects only when the health and safety of residents were specifically involved.

Local regulation was prohibited as a matter of the general welfare. The state legislature amended the statute in 1993 to extend the same restrictions on local government bodies regarding wind energy projects.

Still, some local governments, basing their actions on health and safety concerns alone, have passed ordinances blocking or limiting wind energy projects that developers say are equivalent to imposing a ban on the industry. Stoddard helped draft an ordinance adopted by the town of Wilton, about 75 miles northwest of Madison, establishing setbacks of 2,640 feet from residences and noise limits of 40 dBA or 40 dBC (decibels measured on the C-weighted scale, a better assessment of low-frequency noise) within 100 feet of any residence, and no more than 5 dBA or dBC over ambient noise levels.

On Oct. 2, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle signed Senate Bill 185 into law, directing the state’s Public Service Commission to develop standards for siting wind power facilities—including noise levels and setbacks—that local governments will not be permitted to exceed.

“What it really boils down to is a kind of classic legal battle over rights,” says Stoddard. “If someone has enough clout, they can override someone else’s rights.”

A law like Wisconsin Senate Bill 185 would be a tough sell in New York, which has a strong tradition of home rule, says Clifford C. Rohde, an associate at Cooper Erving & Savage in Albany who maintains the Wind Power Law Blog.

Nevertheless, there have been calls for the New York legislature to revive Article X of the New York Public Service Law, which took siting decisions for power facilities out of the hands of local governments. The law expired in 2003.

Salkin says the federal government should step in, as it did with regard to cellular communication towers, which had also faced tough local opposition due to concerns about possible health effects caused by the radio frequency radiation emitted by the towers. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 barred local governments from considering the environmental impact of radio frequency radiation emissions when regulating the placement of cell towers.

Fearing the possibility that federal or state government might force wind farms on them, some local government bodies are seeking to strike the best deals they can get with developers while they still hold some of the cards, says Arthur Giacalone, an attorney in East Aurora, N.Y., near Buffalo, who represents homeowners in disputes relating to wind power.

A town board may, for instance, offer a wind farm a special-use permit instead of requiring the developer to obtain a rezoning. “Once a project has been given a special-use permit, the developer can do pretty much what it wants to do,” Giacalone says.

In some cases, towns skimp on, or even bypass, the environmental review mandated by New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act. The review is supposed to take into account the impact of the project on noise, human health, aesthetic resources and community or neighborhood character.

Giacalone represented a group of residents in a successful bid to overturn a wind ordinance that had been adopted by the town of Hamlin, west of Rochester, on this basis. Upholding the challenge in HPG v. Hamlin Town Board, Justice David Michael Barry of the trial-level New York Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 5, 2009, that the town had failed to take the requisite “hard look” at the environmental impact of wind energy development.

Some members of town boards might have their own reasons not to take a hard look at wind farm proposals. Typically, developers interested in setting up a wind farm first negotiate contracts with local landowners that offer annual payments of $3,000 or more to construct and operate one or more wind turbines on their properties. Then they take their plans to the town board for approval.

But in small agricultural communities, members of the town board often are major landowners as well, says Rohde. By the time the wind project developer approaches the town government, board members or their relatives might have financial stakes in the project. In July 2008 the New York attorney general’s office launched an investigation into alleged improper dealings between wind farm developers and local officials, leading to a voluntary code of conduct by which 16 companies, accounting for 90 percent of wind energy development in the state, have agreed to abide.

• • •

The sense that they were up against a combination of moneyed interests, as well as federal and state policies, left some opponents of the Italy project discouraged. At the town board meeting in September, 119 people spoke in opposition to the project while 20 expressed support, according to a tally kept by an anti-wind group. Still, one opponent said, “I don’t know if anybody is listening.”

But on Oct. 5, the Italy town board surprised both opponents and supporters of the project. Despite being offered a package of amenities—including a one-time cash payment of $1.6 million for a new town hall addition, a salt barn and a new all-wheel-drive truck, as well as additional cash payments estimated at $300,000 to $400,000 per year—the board voted to deny Ecogen’s application.

Dallas attorney Cox says wind project developers would much prefer that such decisions be made higher up the governmental ladder—at least at the state level. “The problem from the energy generators’ point of view,” he says, “is that when you consider how much they invest in a project, it’s a pretty scary thing to turn it over to 12 people to decide if this billion-dollar project is going to be taken down.”

But Cox also says the industry should be flexible about responding to concerns. One approach would be to extend setbacks to keep wind turbines farther away from residences. “I don’t think that turbines are a nuisance by sound or by sight even if you put them 300 or 500 feet from residences,” says Cox, “but if you put them farther away it’ll go a long way toward alleviating people’s complaints.”

In a move that sent shock waves throughout the industry, the minister of energy for the Canadian province of Ontario in September proposed setbacks of about 1,800 feet from any residence, and at least 3,000 feet for wind turbines producing more than 106 dBA of noise at their bases. The Canadian Wind Energy Association estimated that these guidelines would eliminate or require extensive redesign of 79 of the province’s 103 “shovel ready” wind projects.

Others question the value of mandatory setbacks. They may be an oversimplistic solution that would unnecessarily limit the number of sites that can be developed as wind farms, says Dwight H. Merriam, a partner at Robinson & Cole in Hartford, Conn., who is chair-elect of the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law (and the section’s liaison to the ABA Journal). At the very least, he says, setbacks should be rebuttable, allowing developers to go to court and argue that they can be modified in some cases.

Deyette at the Union of Concerned Scientists says regulators should not leap to the assumption that setbacks always will be the answer to complaints about wind turbines. In many cases, he says, the solution may be mitigation measures such as strategically planted trees that muffle low-frequency sound and block shadow flicker.

“Wind is a viable and necessary part of our climate change mitigation strategy,” Deyette says. “And it’s available today, so we should be wrapping it up as quickly as possible. That being said, if it’s not being done appropriately, we’re going to be experiencing increased pushback.”

Cummings of the Acoustic Ecology Institute agrees that the wind energy industry must take opposition into account. “My concern is that if the industry is too aggressive about siting wind farms, it’s going to make the next round of wind farm development more problematic,” he says. “The Internet is already full of people talking about how horrible the wind farms are.”

Backers of wind power decry claims of conflict ; Gov. Baldacci and an ex-PUC chief, now a wind developer, are among those who let industry sway policy

2010-02-01T17:38:00.000-05:00

As Maine rushes to embrace wind power, unnamed critics posting on Internet sites and reader comment pages contend that money and political connections - reaching all the way to the governor's office - are greasing the skids.

A repeated theme, for instance, focuses on Gov. John Baldacci and Kurt Adams, former chairman of the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

Adams served as Baldacci's chief counsel. The governor appointed him chairman of the PUC in 2005. Adams left in 2008 to be a top executive at First Wind, the state's most active wind-power developer. Posters allege that Adams has since benefited from his connections with Baldacci to gain permits and generous taxpayer subsidies for big wind projects.

The charge has become more persistent over the past year, as the pace of energy development has picked up in Maine, fueled by federal stimulus money, efforts to cut reliance on oil and strong support for renewable energy by both Baldacci and President Obama.

(Click to read the entire article)

A recent piece I wrote on the cardiac consequences of sleep deprivation has been accused of fear-mongering on wind turbines

2010-02-01T17:19:00.001-05:00

A recent piece I wrote in Heart Health News on the cardiac consequences of sleep deprivation has been accused of fear-mongering on wind turbines. I wish to address several of the author’s comments and correct them.

First, the work is entirely my own and does not represent an opinion nor position of Rutland Regional Medical Center. I understand that the medical center will host a balanced forum on Health Issues of Wind Turbines in the spring. Additionally, a group of Rutland area physicians have a committee to study the health impacts of wind turbines. This is laudatory, and the people of Rutland County should be proud their institution and area physicians are willing to study difficult issues that affect health.

Personally, I stand by the facts of the article. Sleep deprivation is harmful to one’s health. It imposes psychological, physiological, and health effects that have morbid consequences. I argued in the Heart Health piece that increased morbidity leads to increased risk of mortality. This is a medical axiom that is clearly supported in the cardiology literature.

Preliminary findings in Mars Hill, Maine, conclude that adults living within 1,100 meters of industrial wind turbines suffer higher incidences of chronic sleep disturbance compared to a control group 5,500 meters away. In Japan 90 percent of complaints against wind turbines have been health-related, with insomnia being among the leading concerns.

The AWEA-CANWEA [report] that is cited by the author is said to rebut the “myths” I put forward. This paper barely addresses sleep deprivation and does not deal with the facts I advanced. This industry-financed paper did not study wind turbine health effects, it merely reviewed available literature, and nowhere does it interview one person whose life has been turned asunder living in proximity to industrial wind turbines.

The intersection of health and renewable energy is a brand new area of medical inquiry that must be studied. To say that no further study of the issues is necessary, as the AWEA-CANWEA authors did, is shameful. The precautionary principle must be applied to projects that have the potential of worsening our lives. I and others will continue to work unceasingly on issues we believe in.

I am thankful that RRMC is an institution whose culture encourages dealing with hard, complex issues in a robust and learned manner, and where dissent can be embraced as one of the building blocks of further understanding and growth. RRMC is an organization with integrity. I am hopeful that my studied position on this important issue will be seen for what it is, and not as a position of RRMC.

Stan Shapiro, MD, Rutland Herald (2/1/10)

The only green thing about wind turbines is the cash in the pockets of the rich

2010-01-29T08:27:00.001-05:00

The majority of the money that out-of-state speculators, out-of-country manufacturers and local wind farm lease-signers will receive has been unwillingly donated by American taxpayers and electricity consumers. If the money went instead to inner-city mothers, Appalachian Americans or work-visa-holding immigrants, you folks would be the first to complain. Because the money goes to people in blue suits or people with nice trucks and ball caps, it's just fine. Recipients of this money should get a job.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) funds, renewable energy credits, Cap and Trade, accelerated depreciation and enterprise zones (which allow companies to take private lands by a mechanism similar to eminent domain), are all a part of an inverted Robin Hood scheme. Robin Hood robbed from a rich government to give to an oppressed peasantry. These folks rob from the middle class and poor, and give to the already rich, who in turn contribute to their buddies in government.

Do you have grandchildren? I do not, but in the future when I do they will each be born owing money to China; money that went into the pockets of already-wealthy citizens, oil companies, foreign manufacturers and politicians.

Industrial wind turbine complexes are not green energy. Taking generally from convection currents in the atmosphere has a direct impact on our climate. We are not speaking about some fuzzy computer model, where if we tweak the inputs we can arrive at the desired results. We are talking about each turbine blade removing six-tenths of a megawatt of energy from the convection currents, which are the stabilizers of our planet's temperature. This times three blades to the turbine, 112 turbines to the project, times how many projects?

When the wind blows, coal-fired plants must ramp down to stand-by. When the wind stops, these coal-fired generation plants must immediately ramp up. This has a net harmful effect on emissions.

We will all pay the price for this massive industrial intrusion into our quiet countryside. Let's take some time to count the cost. Big Wind is at your door.

Brett A. Heffner

Shelby

Governor: Wind farm’s in

2010-01-29T08:24:00.000-05:00

Officially, feds must still OK massive Cape project

The fix is in for Cape Wind, the controversial plan to build 400-foot-tall wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, and you can take Gov. Deval Patrick’s word for it.

“We expect to have federal approval in the next few weeks,” Patrick told representatives from major energy and construction firms, including Iberdola, Hunt Oil and Gas and Bechtel Power Corp., a subsidiary of the Big Dig manager.

Patrick was speaking yesterday at a so-called Cape Wind Contractors Convention to businessman who came from as far away as Singapore to hear about how to cash in on the $1.6 billion, publicly subsidized, clean energy project.

The only problem is that, publicly at least, federal approval of Cape Wind is seriously in doubt.

U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar had told all the interested parties that he is weighing the merits of the controversial project, which is opposed by Native Americans as well as many Cape neighbors, and expects to have some sort of resolution by March 1.

In fact, state and federal agencies have recently determined that the 25-mile swath where developer Jim Gordon wants to build 130 wind turbines qualifies as tribal cultural property.

That means the two Wampanoag tribes that oppose Cape Wind are supposed to have a voice in federal deliberations about it.

In an ominous sign to Patrick, Massachusetts voters also just chose Cape Wind critic Scott Brown over Cape Wind supporter Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate.

Brown’s predecessor, interim Sen. Paul D. Kirk - who took over for the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, also a project foe - recently fired off an anti-Cape Wind letter to Salazar.

“What truly offends the principles of good governance is the highly irregular and irresponsible way that (the U.S. Mineral Management Service) has behaved throughout the Cape Wind review,” Kirk wrote, referring to the push for federal approval of the project.

Because Cape Wind could receive as much as $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies, the federal government must make sure that the project complies with the law, Kirk said.

But those subsidies weren’t something Patrick, who has accepted political donations from Gordon and other Cape Wind backers, wanted to discuss yesterday.

In fact, details on project costs and the cost of electricity produced by Cape Wind have been hard to come by.

When asked by the Herald if he’s looking out for the taxpayers’ interests in what some critics say is a developer’s boondoggle, Patrick just walked away.

Eastbrook reviews wind power options

2010-01-28T11:17:00.001-05:00

Jan. 28--EASTBROOK, Maine -- A handful of local municipal officials and a few residents got an advance look Tuesday night at what kind of effect a large-scale wind farm might have on their town, which has fewer than 400 year-round residents.

One scenario floated at the meeting, which included attorneys and planners representing the town and the firm that hopes to erect the turbines on Bull Hill, included the creation of a community benefit fund that could generate more than $2.5 million for the town over a 20-year period. Another suggestion was the creation of a tax-increment financing district that would earmark a certain percentage of the company's property taxes for economic development projects in town, with the rest being returned to the company for the 20-year term of the agreement.

"This is a big deal for such a small town," Charles Yeo, the town's first selectman, said after he and his fellow town officials met with First Wind representatives to discuss what kind of permitting process and planning schedule they would have to go through if the project were to be approved.

First Wind, which already has a 28-turbine wind farm in Mars Hill and a 38-turbine facility on Stetson Mountain in Washington County, is not sure how many turbines could end up on Bull Hill, according to Dave Fowler, senior land manager for the firm. He declined Wednesday to provide a rough preliminary estimate, but said that the Bull Hill development, if it goes forward, likely would be smaller than either Mars Hill or Stetson Mountain.

Joan Fortin, a Portland attorney who is representing the company's interests in drafting a potential TIF district agreement with the town, told selectmen that the company might be willing to donate to a community benefit fund $5,000 for each of the 25.5 megawatts that might be generated by the facility. If the wind farm had a total capacity of 25.5 megawatts, and if each turbine had a 1.5 megawatt capacity, that would suggest that there would be 17 turbines erected in Eastbrook.

Fowler said that the turbines at Mars Hill and at Stetson Mountain each have a 1.5 megawatt capacity, but he said First Wind is considering larger-capacity turbines for Bull Hill. The capacity range under consideration for each turbine, he said, runs from 1.5 megawatts to 3 megawatts. He said the possible height of the turbines ranges from 386 feet to 470 feet.

Fowler stressed, however, that the company and the town are in the very early planning stages for what kind of project might move forward, if any.

He said wind testing done at the site has been promising so far, but that the company also has to make sure whatever project it can get approval for would be financially viable before it moves ahead. And before it can do so, it has to get all the necessary permits required by Maine Department of Environmental Protection and by the town of Eastbrook.
"We need to know that the town is on board with this project," Fowler said.

Planning board member Charlene Bunker urged the developer to carefully study the issue of noise generated by the turbines as it envisions what kind of project it wants to pursue. A nurse by trade, Bunker said sleep deprivation that might result from turbine noise could lead to more serious health problems.

Fowler said First Wind is required by law to meet certain decibel and distance limits for surrounding houses when it erects and operates turbines.

"We take [the noise issue] very seriously when we site these," Fowler assured Bunker.

Yeo said First Wind has estimated that the overall value of the Eastbrook portion of the wind farm, which would extend into neighboring Township 16, could be about $40 million. But Yeo said he thought that was an overly conservative estimate.

"It will be twice that, or maybe even more," he said.

First Wind representatives are expected to reappear before town officials on Feb. 9, when selectmen are expected to appoint a committee of local residents to consider land use ordinance changes that would be needed for any wind farm on Bull Hill to get local approval. At the same meeting, local officials expect to be briefed about the DEP application review and approval process that First Wind would have to go through.

High court to hear wind project case

2010-01-27T17:05:00.001-05:00

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments from a Lincoln-based residents group next month on why First Wind of Massachusetts should not be allowed to build a $130 million industrial wind site on Rollins Mountain, officials said Tuesday.

The court will hear arguments in Portland at 1:45 p.m. Feb. 10 both for and against the Maine Board of Environmental Protection’s decision to support the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s permit approval of the proposed 60-megawatt facility in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn in April.

The Friends of Lincoln Lakes group, which opposes the development, is expected to argue, among other things, that:

— The board’s determination that the project met applicable licensing criteria with respect to noise, and would minimize the impact on wildlife habitats, is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

— The state law allowing appeals of board decisions to go directly to the state supreme court is unconstitutional.

The group’s attorney, Lynne Williams of Bar Harbor, said she wasn’t surprised that the board reaffirmed the DEP permit approval.

“In documents we have gotten, the state has really shown that it has been of a mind that any noise from one of these [projects] is merely an annoyance, and I think they are doing a real disservice to the people of this state when they do that,” Williams said.

In her 27-page brief filed with the court on Nov. 30, Williams cited notes from an internal conference call at DEP in March, which she acquired as she prepared the group’s appeal, in which the DEP’s own peer reviewer stated that he “has issues with [the] model being used.”

The DEP issued the project a permit despite the reviewer never reconciling his expressed concerns with his ultimate approval of the project, Williams said.

Low-decibel sounds or vibrations are allegedly the primary cause of “wind turbine syndrome,” or “acoustic radiation,” in which people have claimed to suffer symptoms — including nausea, back problems, mood disorders, seizures and heart attacks — due to their proximity to turbines. Strobe effects caused by rotating blades cutting sunlight also contribute, opponents say.

First Wind attorneys and other project supporters say that claims regarding the syndrome are scientifically unsupported. Low-level sound or vibration standards and many scientific peer reviews are part of DEP regulations and low-level vibrations have been studied since the 1960s. Other health agencies, including the U.S. Cen-ters for Disease Control and Prevention, also find no harm associated with the low-level vibrations.

DEP regulations are adequate for wind site reviews, agency officials have said.

The Rollins Mountain project is a 40-turbine industrial wind site proposed for the Rollins Mountain ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn.

The friends group contends the turbines would lower land values and threaten human and animal health with light flicker and low-decibel sound; disrupt the pastoral nature of Rollins; and typically generate a fraction of their capacity.

First Wind has argued that its project meets or exceeds all state environmental requirements and that wind turbines have no adverse impact on land values. They say the Lincoln Lakes project would create as much as 60 megawatts of pollution-free electricity in peak winds while helping create many jobs in the area.

Under the state’s fast-track law, Williams has said, the friends group’s appeal must go to the Law Court, a requirement she called unconstitutional, as it denies appellants the opportunity to appeal to lesser courts first.

In October, the Maine Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved awarding a 20-year contract to First Wind Holding LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Evergreen Wind Power III LLC, that would make Rollins Mountain the state’s first wind farm to supply electricity to Central Maine Power Co. and Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., state officials said.

The friends group also has another appeal pending in civil court. The group’s second court action protests the Lincoln Board of Appeals’ refusal to hear the group’s appeal of a permit the Lincoln Planning Board issued to the proposed wind farm.

The 'green' lining developers' pockets

2010-01-26T14:27:00.000-05:00

Donald Alexander and the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency have decided to continue their unseemly push for the Galloo Island wind project, lest the developer and his Wall Street friends lose an opportunity to grab another $150 million of taxpayer's money.

Not being satisfied to walk off with only $150 million, the developer demands further concessions from Jefferson County taxpayers in a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement negotiated with the JCIDA. The developer hides behind the "green" cloak, pretending it is doing something wonderful for the environment, while it is really all about the "green" they stuff in their pockets.

Developers speak of "clean energy." The power produced by wind turbines is, however, unpredictable and highly variable. The power is proportional to the cube of wind speed and, thereby, wind's natural variability is magnified. In order to accept wind power and its variable and unpredictable nature, the electric utility must have generating capacity that can ramp up or down quickly to accommodate the variability of wind power, while supplying uniform power to the grid.

The only commonly utilized generators that can accommodate wind's inherent variability are simple-cycle gas turbines. These machines are flexible in output, but at the sacrifice of efficiency, being only 35 percent to 40 percent efficient. If the utility did not have to accommodate wind and its variability, it could utilize combined-cycle gas turbines with an efficiency approaching 60 percent.

The combined-cycle gas turbine, without wind turbines, produces the same amount of power as the simple-cycle turbine augmented by wind turbines, at a fuel saving of at least 14 percent. The use of wind turbines, with their highly variable and unpredictable output, actually increases the usage of fuel and resulting emissions from the system.

The increased usage of fuel when wind turbines are added to the system, plus the added investment for two underutilized power plants — wind typically produces about 25 percent of its rated power and the necessary gas turbine backup produces the other 75 percent will raise electrical rates for residential and commercial users.

Increased electrical rates will make it more difficult to attract or retain real businesses providing lasting employment. Another benefit of the more efficient combined-cycle gas turbine generator is that it can be located where the power is needed without the need for additional distribution lines.

We must ask our county legislators to vote against this blatant giveaway to Wall Street at the expense of Jefferson County residents and businesses.

Albert H. Bowers III

Chaumont

How stimulus saved renewable energy

2010-01-26T08:29:00.001-05:00

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- On a mountain top 80 miles northeast of Bangor, Maine, in country where houses and gravel pits are mere pinpricks on a map green with forest, Paul Gaynor is making stimulus work.

Gaynor, chief executive of First Wind, is using $40 million in federal funds to help build a wind farm that will produce enough power for 13,000 homes and has created 200construction jobs.

Without stimulus, First Wind's project -- and most renewable energy projects across the country -- may not have happened.

"To us, it's been essential to get through the nuclear winter of financing ability," Gaynor said, referring to the dark days of early 2009 right after the financial collapse. "The recovery act was the bridge that got us from a broken market to one where projects actually get done."

Because of the way tax incentives worked prior to stimulus, few industries were more dependent on Wall Street profits than renewable energy.

Pre-stimulus, renewable energy developments were funded largely by big banks. As an incentive to expand clean, homegrown power, the government offered generous tax credits.

The credit wasn't limited to just big banks, said Ethan Zindler, head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a firm that tracks renewable energy investments. But the banks had the money and understood the rules, so they were by far the biggest financiers.

But tax credits only work when you're paying taxes. When Wall Street profits dried up and their tax bill fell, almost all funding for new renewable energy froze up.

"The market for financing large-scale power projects collapsed," said Zindler. "Stimulus fixed that."

Stimulus fixed it by changing the tax credit to an outright government grant worth roughly the same amount.

There is no limit to the amount that can be spent under the grant program, although it is set to expire at the end of this year. The government originally estimated it would cost taxpayers $5 billion.

The Energy Department said that from the start of the program in July though September, the last month for which data is available, over $1 billion has been paid to finance 32 projects nationwide.

It's hard to say for sure how many projects stimulus saved or what the renewable energy industry would look like without it, said Zindler.

In 2009, some 9,000 megawatts of renewable energy was built in this country, he said. The vast majority of that was wind power.

That's just slightly less than 2008, although without stimulus he estimated that maybe only half the 2009 projects would have been built.

Numbers from the American Wind Energy Association suggest that even fewer projects could have gotten built.

In years when Congress let a previous tax credit lapse, investments in wind energy fell by 75%.

That wouldn't bode well for President Obama's stated goal of doubling the country's renewable energy capacity by 2012.

And it wouldn't bode well for companies like First Wind, or anyone hoping to get a job in renewable energy.

The company's Maine project is actually an expansion of an existing $160-million facility right across the street that was completed last year.

First Wind took that tax credit and rolled it right over into the current expansion. Even on a frigid day in January, Gaynor said more than a hundred people are busy on the mountain constructing the new facility.

"It's a beehive of activity up there," he said.

Before 2010 is out, First Wind hopes to construct another 4 to 6 projects -- all partially paid for with stimulus money.

Impact of State RPS’s and the Prospect of a Federal RPS on What Utilities are Doing in Terms of Purchasing the Output of Wind Farms

2010-01-25T17:30:00.001-05:00

With 3/5 of the States having Renewable Portfolio Standard in place and the prospect of a Federal RPS, many utilities are seeking to become first time purchasers of the output from wind projects. And utilities with a history of purchasing wind are seeking additional resources. In 2009, the presenters collectively worked on over 40 wind power purchase agreements for projects located throughout the United States, enabling them to present a comprehensive overview of the impact of these developments. A number of first time purchasers have been using the RFP process as a vehicle for educating themselves about wind, and often experience difficulty in translating PPA terms that are appropriate for base load resources into PPA terms that work for intermittent resources like wind. Through various PPA terms, utilities are increasingly seeking to place the risk of non-compliance with the RPS on the wind project developer. These developments can result in PPA terms that are very problematic for the financing of the project. This webinar will explore these recent developments, including issues related to output and availability guarantees, allocation of curtailment risk for long-distance transmission to load, wind integration charges, delay damages, conditions precedent, termination rights and the measure of damages.

Just Energy Purchases Local, Green Power From First Wind's Steel Winds Project in New York

2010-01-25T10:20:00.000-05:00

MISSISSAUGA, Ontario, Jan. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Just Energy (JE.UN), one of North America's leading energy retailers, is pleased to announce it will enter into a five year power purchase agreement (PPA) to purchase electricity, capacity and Renewable Energy Certificates ("RECs") from First Wind, an independent North American wind energy company. First Wind is a leading developer of wind energy projects and is focused on the development and operation of wind farms in the northeastern and western United States and Hawaii.

Under the agreement, Just Energy will purchase the entire output of capacity and RECs generated from First Wind's Steel Winds I wind energy project, located in Lackawanna, NY. In addition, as part of the agreement, Just Energy will bid and schedule the energy output from Steel Winds I into the NYISO power market. Built on a former Bethlehem Steel site, Steel Winds I is one of the largest urban wind power developments in the United States. Its eight state-of-the-art wind turbines have the rated capacity to generate over 50 million kWh of electric energy annually: enough to power about 9,000 New York homes.

"In the battle against global climate change and given the growing demand for electricity, wind power is becoming a crucial part of North America's long-term energy solution," said Ken Hartwick, Just Energy's President and Chief Executive Officer. "Our position as a leading energy retailer accords us with the responsibility to provide an increasing number of environmentally-conscious consumers with clean, renewable energy supply options. Our partnership with First Wind enables us to provide New York energy customers with green electric power from local, clean energy sources."

"We are pleased to enter into this power purchase agreement with Just Energy for the electricity, capacity and RECs from our Steel Winds I facility," said Michael Alvarez, President of First Wind. "The transaction with Just Energy is further proof that the demand for clean energy continues to be a driving force behind the energy needs of the future. We are happy to work with Just Energy to deliver green energy solutions to those customers who desire it."

About Just Energy:

Just Energy is one of North America's leading electricity and natural gas retailers with offices in Canada and the U.S. Through its affiliates under its parent, Just Energy Income Fund, a publicly traded Income Trust (TSX: JE.UN), Just Energy provides over 1.6 million residential, small to mid-sized commercial and small industrial customers with the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they are protected from energy price volatility. In addition, through its subsidiary National Home Services, Just Energy sells and rents high efficiency and tankless water heaters, and through its subsidiary Terra Grain Fuels, produces and sells wheat-based ethanol. Just Energy is poised to become an industry leader in providing environmentally responsible energy supply solutions to consumers across North America. Visit Just Energy at www.justenergy.com

Prattsburgh sets hearing on wind farm moratorium

2010-01-25T08:47:00.000-05:00

Prattsburgh, N.Y.

Prattsburgh residents will have an opportunity next month to weigh in on issues surrounding a proposed moratorium on wind development in the town.

Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said the public hearing set for 6 p.m. Feb. 15 is on the town’s comprehensive plan and a proposal made at the regular board meeting last week to set up a zoning board.

A study of the comprehensive plan and possible land use regulations are expected to be the town’s focus during a proposed six-month ban on any wind development-related matters in Prattsburgh. The ban was given preliminary, 4-1 approval by the board during a special meeting Jan. 7.

Wordingham, and councilmen Anneke Radin-Snaith, Chuck Shick and Steve Kula voted for the proposed moratorium. Councilwoman Stacey Bottoni voted against it.

The public hearing will cap a year of increasing tension and lawsuits as wind farm supporters and skeptics argued the merits of allowing wind development in the town. Complicating the issue were claims by wind developer Ecogen their 16-turbine project was ready for construction in Prattsburgh.

Supporters and critics of new board members took three hours last week to air their views, Wordingham said.

“A lot of people I’ve never met say it’s a great idea to be able to have an open forum,” Wordingham said. “So far, it’s worked pretty well, I think.”

Wordingham said the “open forum” extends to Ecogen, which filed a lawsuit in November against the previous town board.

“If they want to sit down with us and discuss things, well, none of us want to shut the door on an economic opportunity for the town,” Wordingham said. “Their big claim is, ‘We want to be your partner.’ Well, my definition of a partnership is where everybody wins.”

The public hearing will be held at the Fire Hall.