I recently found the listing of grants that have been awarded via Section 1603 of ARRA(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009). This program is fortunately ending at the end of 2012, but any wind project that shows a "substantial" start on a project before then (such as beginning construction on an access road beyond just tree clearing) will be grandfathered in to this gift of taxpayer money. The Obama administration used the Recovery Act as a way to boost an industry that can't stand on its own. In lieu of the PTC for ten years, based on output, the Sec. 1603 gave outright cash worth 30% of a project's construction cost when it was accepted.
Here is the list of projects in Maine, the grant amount and the date awarded:
ARRA Sec.1603 Grants Awarded to Maine Wind Projects
Name of ProjectGrant AmountDate
Evergreen Wind Power III, LLC $53,246,347 12/29/2011
Evergreen Wind Power V, LLC $40,441,471 9/1/2009
Stetson Wind II, LLC $19,328,865 5/27/2010
TransCanada Maine Wind Development Inc. $44,591,705 3/24/2011
Notes: Evergreen III is the “Rollins Project" in Lincoln Lakes region; Evergreen V is the original Stetson Mt. project near Prentiss; the TransCanada is the Kibby Mt. project near Chain of Lakes & Eustis.
A few interesting notes. The Rollins Project, shown above, was always quoted as costing "about" $130 million. Yet if the ARRA grant is $53,246,347 and that is 30% of the total cost, then that inflates the total cost to $177,487,823, some $47 million more! What accounts for that? Surely the delay caused by opposition by Friends of Lincoln Lakes shouldn't account for that. Did actual cost exceed projections by that much? Did First Wind pad figures to maximize their cash grant? I believe it is worthy of investigation. In any event, that figure pushes the cost per MW of installed capacity (60 MW) to $2.958 million per MW and with initial capacity factor figures estimated by FERC & ISO-New England at 17%, the actual output cost soars to $17.4 million per MW!
The other point to make here is about Stetson II, which received a paltry $19,328,865 through ARRA. But this is the project that had been mothballed in 2009, with First Wind teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and no sources of financing. The initial round of Economic Stimulus by the Obama administration included cash grants to renewable energy companies. First Wind received $115 million, of which $40.4 million was allocated to finishing Stetson II. So add the two grants together and outright cash grants of taxpayer money to an unworthy company is $59.7 million for a 25.5 MW project less than half the size of Rollins. This is truly an outrage to support something that doesn't work, that does such environmental damage, at a time that we can't balance the Federal budget. It has to stop!
The last point is to remind everyone that the welfare to these companies provided by the taxpayers extends to the local level. Every one of the projects listed above receives Tax Increment Financing (TIF), whereby roughly half (depending on the specifics of the negotiated TIF) of the property taxes that would be owed during the lifetime of a project are rebated back to the developer. Stetson I & II has a TIF with Washington County; Kibby has a TIF with Franklin County; Rollins has TIFs with Lincoln, Lee, Winn, and Burlington. Use of TIF for wind projects is an outrageous mis-application of TIF as an economic development tool.
You may have read some of the fabricated fantasy features by such illustrious outlets as the Guardian — and then picked up by some others in the “You lie and I’ll swear to it” school of journalism. It’s fascinating to see how some "news" is generated and propagated!
The basis for this “conspiracy investigation” is likely explained here: the wind lobbyists are specifically targeting groups who are effectively opposing their efforts to extend their stay at the public trough. That’s us, so this is a badge of honor!
This is a summary of the situation from a DC attendee, and here is another.
In summary, the reality is that:
A cross-section of 20 US citizens (Democrats and Republicans), met for two days in Washington DC in early February, at their own expense. No organizations were invited or were involved. These citizens discussed ideas about how to bring about less expensive, more effective science-based energy policies. For shame!
I have received numerous supportive emails, and only one negative response. This publicity gives us an unprecedented opportunity to publicly discuss what we really are all about: promoting science-based energy and environmental policies.
-----------------------------------------
The final schedule was just published for next week's Heartland Conference. I will be there talking about wind energy (Panel 8).
Please pass this information on to other open-minded, science-oriented people. If anyone would like to be added to or removed from the email list, please let me know.
NEW YORK (May 16, 2012) -- Laura Israel's award-winning documentary, Windfall, has played a powerful role in encouraging viewers to consider the human side of industrial-scale wind energy. The feature-length film tells the story of how residents in Meredith, New York, a small farming community upstate responded upon learning a wind energy plant might be situated in their town.
Since its debut at the Toronto Film Festival in fall, 2010, Windfall has been featured at 35 film festivals worldwide. In February it opened in New York and Chicago with powerful press reviews. But the real excitement surrounding Windfall is not on the big screen but in small towns across North America where thousands of people packed town halls, recreation centers, churches and schools from Maine to California, and Ontario to Florida to see it. Nearly 150 community screenings were arranged in the last year with more than half held in the last three months alone.
"Films like Windfall are not meant to compete with Hollywood blockbusters," explained Laura Israel, who freely admits she was surprised at first by the idea of the grassroots driving Windfall's demand, but after attending numerous community screenings she understood why. "So many people recognize their own community's struggle up on the screen and connect with the characters in Windfall," she said. The film is a valuable tool that has helped people to understand they are not alone, that their concerns about industrial wind turbines are legitimate, and that what is happening in their town is not just a local phenomenon, but happening in communities all over the world.
Windfall's distributors, First Run Features and SnagFilms, recognized early on the film's activism-element and were very supportive in working with non-traditional film venues. They also accelerated the schedule for Windfall's release via digital download as well as DVD (rental or purchase).
"There's been tremendous demand for Windfall on DVD and digital download," said Lisa Linowes outreach coordinator for Windfall. "Laura and I were committed to ensuring that every person in North America who wanted to view Windfall would have an opportunity to do so. We're grateful to First Run Features and SnagFilms for their work in making the roll-out so successful."
There is still more to do on the international front but Israel has made great progress. Windfall is slated to be seen on television in countries like New Zealand, Thailand, and Hong Kong.
Windfall is distributed by First Run Features for theaters, community screenings and on DVD. SnagFilms is the exclusive distributor across all digital platforms including iTunes.
To purchase a DVD for personal home use, please use this link: Purchase Windfall The first 100 DVDs purchased through First Run Features will be signed by Laura Israel!
For distribution or broadcast interest outside North America, please contact Mercury Media HERE.
Honors and acclaim for Windfall
World Premiere at Toronto International Film Festival 2010
WINNER: Grand Prize, Doc NYC 2010
HONORABLE MENTION: Talking Pictures Festival 2010
WINNER: Best Documentary, Woods Hole Film Festival 2011
OFFICIAL SELECTION: IDFA Green Screen Competition 2010
Screened in 35 festivals internationally since TIFF
"Beautifully produced, elegantly structured, edited authoritatively, with unforgettable characters." - Patricia Aufderheide, Center for Social Media
"Fascinating, insightful, and fair. An intimate portrait of one New York community in heavy battle." - Stewart Nusbaumer, Huffington Post
"The film isn't agenda-driven advocacy, but an invitation to think critically about an alternative energy source often presented as a panacea." - Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune
"Never alarmist or patronizing...strung so tightly and effortlessly together that it's hard to believe this is a first-time filmmaker at hand." - Christopher Bell, The Playlist, Indiewire
"Provides a much-needed view of the growing backlash against the rapid expansion of the wind industry."
- Robert Bryce, Energy Tribune
"Emotionally charged human conflict that results in a genuine cliffhanger." - Ann Hornaday, Washington Post
A letter writer from Orleans claims that calling for comprehensive evaluation of solar photovoltaic projects brokered by the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative, or CVEC, as I did in a recent Times article, is inconsistent with advocacy on behalf of a sustainable energy future. Actually, global experience proves that renewable energy initiatives are more likely to be successful if based on critical assessment, rather than mindless cheerleading or ill-informed acceptance.
When the Times interviewed me, I marveled that our wind-rich region could host the state's biggest photovoltaic installation but questioned the life-cycle environmental impacts of clearing forest to deploy solar panels. I emphasized that communities must carefully and quantitatively examine CVEC's proposals, saying "Price alone is not how you evaluate any energy project. You have to look at the terms of the contract."
For years, local consumers have heard the same advice from CVEC's parent organization, Cape Light Compact, or CLC. Proposed contracts for CVEC's latest initiative, which were negotiated by CVEC/CLC officials in partnership with a developer, are structured to grant investors a generous rate of return while diverting value streams to CVEC, delivering savings to municipalities, and disenfranchising CLC consumers.
At issue for municipal officials is whether the energy savings — relative to benefits realized by CVEC and its partner — are commensurate with agreeing to host photovoltaic installations for several decades. Of broader concern is whether CVEC/CLC officials are representing consumer interests or pursuing their own agenda.
For multiparty projects like these, the entity owning the photovoltaic system gains the majority of benefits at any given time. Typically, the developer profits first by exploiting tax credits, selling renewable energy certificates and supplying power to the host at a discounted rate. Eventually, the developer transfers ownership of the depreciated asset — and the rights to power and renewable energy certificates— to the host at an affordable price.
For CVEC-brokered projects, proposed contracts grant the ownership option to CVEC rather than the host. That puts photovoltaic systems — and the majority of benefits — under the long-term control of CVEC/CLC officials, who act as if they are accountable to no one, as members of the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates just concluded in a damning investigation. In fact, CVEC/CLC officials have structured these projects to expand their power while executing a reprehensible bait-and-switch on consumers.
During CVEC's formation, 10 percent of the lower-cost energy generated by its projects was promised to residents and businesses through CLC. Soon after, CVEC/CLC officials quietly imposed a rate increase on CLC consumers, applied funds to support CVEC's continuing operations, and voided the savings due residents and businesses. To date, consumers have contributed millions to CVEC but received no direct benefit from $80 million of solar capacity. For the proposed $200 million initiative, CVEC/CLC officials again conspire to stick ratepayers with the bill while leaving them in the dark and out of the money.
So do I support large-scale solar projects? Certainly, but forest clearing and grid integration represent concerns. Do I support immediate and substantial reductions in municipal energy bills? Of course, but towns need to ensure they are not sacrificing long-term benefits. Do I believe contracts drafted by CVEC/CLC officials should be ratified with no critical evaluation? Absolutely not, and anyone who does is not paying close attention.
Those promoting — or concerned about — regional wastewater management solutions should focus immediate attention on reforming two energy authorities that already exercise rate-setting powers, control a portfolio worth more than $200 million annually, build cozy relationships with corporations, navigate conflicts of interest under questionable judgment, and seek to build an empire on the backs of towns and ratepayers.
Certainly, CLC and CVEC are helping increase energy independence, but CVEC/CLC officials must not be allowed to act without scrutiny and with impunity. Communities should determine whether near-term energy savings merit the reduced benefits and lost opportunities associated with gifting ownership options and other favorable contract terms to CVEC. They should demand that 10 percent of the low-cost solar power be granted to CLC's residential and business consumers, as promised. They also should consider soliciting project proposals from the competitive marketplace.
Most important, any and all negotiations with CVEC/CLC officials should engage citizens, taxpayers, ratepayers and their elected and appointed representatives in weighing tradeoffs and ensuring that fiduciary, consumer and other interests are aggressively protected. This is essential to localize benefits for individual projects. It also is a necessary first step in returning power to the people and accelerating progress toward a sustainable energy future.
Chris Powicki has been an energy consultant and advocate for more than two decades. He teaches renewable energy courses at Cape Cod Community College, is a member of the Brewster Energy Committee and serves on the boards of several nonprofit organizations. The opinions expressed are his own.
One wind turbine in Falmouth will be turned off, officials said, while the other will continue to operate during the day.
The state Department of Environmental Protection, in a long-awaited response to Falmouth residents’ complaints about noise from two turbines, released a report Tuesday finding that one turbine less than 1,500 feet from the nearest home repeatedly exceeded allowable noise levels.
The findings give ammunition to increasingly vocal opponents of wind power, who have sought to slow the Patrick administration’s efforts to produce 2,000 megawatts of wind power - three-quarters of it from offshore sources - by 2020, up from about 45 megawatts available today. The Falmouth turbines produce a total of 3 megawatts of power.
“Obviously, we take these findings extremely seriously,’’ said Kenneth Kimmell, the state environmental protection commissioner. “But I don’t think we should jump to conclusions that the experience here can be generalized to other locations.’’
He said numerous other turbines operate in similar proximity to residential areas, such as those in Fairhaven, Hull, and Kingston. Residents in those areas have also fought vigorously to shut down turbines in their communities.
‘People have been complaining about . . . health effects almost as soon as the first turbine began operating.’
Jeffrey Butts John Jay College of Criminal Justice
“I think [this report] demonstrates that Massachusetts DEP calls balls and strikes in an impartial way and holds wind turbines to the same standards as we apply to other industries,’’ Kimmell said. “But there are other turbines operating in residential areas, which have not led to similar complaints. So these results do not implicate turbines everywhere.’’
The agency recommended that the Falmouth turbine that regularly increased noise by more than 10 decibels at the closest home be turned off immediately, for at least 30 days, while the state conducts further studies. The other turbine will be switched off at night but be allowed to remain in operation during the day, pending the additional studies.
Town officials said they have been working closely with state officials over recent months to assess the complaints. They said they decided to stop the turbines from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. several weeks ago, and that they have agreed to shut down one of the turbines until state officials complete their testing.
“My first reaction to this report is it’s about time,’’ said Eleanor Tillinghast, a steering committee member of Windwise ~ Massachusetts, which has opposed wind projects around the state. “People have been complaining about severe health effects almost as soon as the first turbine began operating. The effects have been severe and chronic. . . . This is happening all over the world.’’
The DEP findings come several months after a panel of independent scientists and doctors convened by the agency found little to no evidence that wind turbines pose a risk to the health of residents living near them.
That panel concluded that there is no rigorous research showing that churning turbines or the resulting flickering light and vibrations produce dizziness, nausea, depression, or anxiety - a set of symptoms that critics of wind power call “wind turbine syndrome.’’
The panel found limited evidence that a “very loud wind turbine could cause disrupted sleep, particularly in vulnerable populations, at a certain distance, while a very quiet wind turbine would not likely disrupt even the lightest of sleepers at that same distance.’’
“But there is not enough evidence to provide particular sound-pressure thresholds at which wind turbines cause sleep disruption,’’ it added.
The wind power critics cite a host of anecdotal evidence of dangers to residents living less than a mile from large turbines, such as those in Falmouth, where the first one was erected three years ago at a local waste treatment facility. They say the whirring of turbines can result in symptoms such as migraines, vertigo, motion sensitivity, and inner-ear damage, particularly in abutters who are 50 years old or older.
In Falmouth, where the wind project cost local residents $5 million and state and federal taxpayers another $10 million, neighbors said they were relieved by the results of the report.
Annie Cool, 53, a real estate broker who lives about 1,600 feet from the turbines, said she has trouble sleeping at night because the whirring sounds like “a boot in a dryer.’’
“This report is a long time in coming,’’ she said. “The town of Falmouth made a quick decision to place those turbines in a residential area, and when they realized it may have not been the best decision, rather than doing the right thing and moving the turbines, they went into a long, exhausted financial exercise to prove that the neighbors were crazy.’’
She added: “Do I feel a little vindicated by the report? Yes, because it shows we’re not crazy. But do I trust that the town and the state will do the right thing? Not on your life.’’
Todd Drummey, 48, a financial planner who lives 3,000 feet from the closest turbine in Falmouth, compared the noise of the turbines to jets and pile drivers, depending on the weather. He said shutting them down, at least temporarily, was a good first step. “But what I would really love to see is that they’re moved,’’ he said, adding he also has trouble sleeping at night.
The turbine being shut down will be turned on occasionally for testing, officials said. The other turbine will continue to operate during the day.
“I absolutely think this makes sense,’’ said Mary Pat Flynn, chairwoman of the Falmouth Board of Selectmen.
She said town officials could move the turbines, provide financial compensation to abutters, or consider ways to blunt the sound. “We have options besides shutting them down,’’ she said.
Kimmell noted that the Falmouth turbines are of an older generation than other turbines being installed around the state. He said their age, as well as their location, may make them louder than other turbines.
In a statement, state Senate President Therese Murray, a Plymouth Democrat, said she hopes the agency’s report brings residents relief, noting that the turbines have divided the community.
“As I’ve said in the past, I believe that industrial-size wind turbines do not belong in residential neighborhoods, but we should not remove wind energy from the renewable energy mix in Massachusetts,’’ she said. “Wind energy has the potential to provide our cities and towns with many environmental and cost-saving benefits. But we need to site these projects responsibly.’’
Ms. Maggie Downey
Compact Administrator
Cape Light Compact
Barnstable, MA
Re: Inappropriate -- and Illegal -- Refusals to Provide Public Documents Upon Request / Inadequate Public Disclosures by CLC
May 15, 2012
Dear Mr. Doherty and Ms. Downey,
Background
As you are aware, the Special Committee of Inquiry on the Cape Light Compact and the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative published the report of its findings on the Barnstable County Assembly webpage on the morning of Wednesday, May 9th.
The report noted that the Special Committee had requested several public records that are basic to the management and reporting of every public body, including copies of budgets and financial statements of CLC, but that their requests for such records had inexplicably been ignored.
Specifically the report noted:
"In response, CLC produced reams of documents, with several rather glaring and unexplained exceptions."
And that:
"Most of the pages of CLC’s voluminous response could have been simply made available to the SubCommittee (Request 4) or were not germane to the SubCommittee’s inquiry, such as Annual Reports on Energy Efficiency Activities, which focus on energy saved by program efforts."
After providing further details of the Special Committee's unsuccessful attempts to acquire these public records from CLC, the Special Committee report noted:
"Whatever the magnitude of the revenues and expenses of the CLC, the organization must have an annual budget for its operations. Likewise, under the statute which permits CLC's existence G.L. c. 40, §4A) (periodic financial statements" must be issued for all participants. These budgets and financial statements are unquestionably "public records" and are within the scope of the SubCommittee's request. That the budget and financial statements have not been provided when requested and are not publicly available causes immediate concern."
Additionally, the Special Committee's report noted:
"CLC is required to issue “periodic financial statements” to all participants. However, the “annual statements that are produced for member communities do not contain statements of income and expense, assets and liabilities or statements of profit and loss."
After noting that CLC had declined to provide any financial accounting of CLC's "Power Supply Reserve Fund" (also known as the "Operating Fund"), the Special Committee made the following statement in a footnote to this discussion:
"The reserve fund is of particular interest to the SubCommittee. The reserve is collected from rate payers, and although a small sum for each ratepayer, the reserve fund appears to accrue millions of dollars annually. These funds are drawn down by CLC, from ConEdSolutions, pursuant to contract. These funds should be audited with the books and accounts of CLC (See: Recommendations, post.) This type of payment back from a contractor to the entity granting the contract has, at the very least, an appearance of improprietry and could, under some circumstances, be characterized as a “kickback”. "
In a section of the report under the heading "Lack of Adequate Corporate Minutes," the report notes that:
"The minutes of the CLC are particularly sparse: the Board routinely passes Motions which endorse a piece of legislation or a conservation measure but rarely, if ever, does the Board debate or act upon Motions which determine the corporate finances or policies of CLC. Minutes were produced from 2005 to the present, and throughout, from the minutes, it does not appear that a single operating budget was ever proposed to , debated by, much less altered or amended or otherwise approved by the Board of Directors."
In the same section, the report notes similar deficiencies in the minutes of the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative (CVEC), the report and provides the following conclusion regarding the financial relationship between CLC and CVEC:
"The CVEC minutes are also sparse as to corporate actions and authorizations, and the Board does not appear to have approved budgets or received regular financial reports. It is clear however that CVEC is functionally a subsidiary of CLC, dependent on CLC for 100% of its revenues and lacks any separate financial solvency."
Most distressing of all is the Special Committee's overall conclusion about the hostile response of CLC and CVEC to legitimate public inquiry and the intervention by the Special Committee on behalf of citizens to obtain public documents and other information that is fundamental to understanding the intertwined affairs of these public bodies:
"Overall, the response to the SubCommittee’s requests for documentation was production of little of relevance while withholding most of the substantive information, particularly by CLC, while expressing indignance at the temerity of the requestors. In this regard the reaction of CLC and CVEC to requests for documents which should be in the public domain mirrors their responses to requests from various members of the public who ultimately brought their complaints to the Assembly.
"Refusing to provide information which should be easily available to the public, without reference to the identity of the requestor or the purpose of the request, a cloud over any public agency which decides to make such a refusal. At the outset, this inquiry could well have been avoided had these two agencies scrupulously adhered to the letter and the spirit of the Public Records Law, the Open Meeting Law and the other acts intended to bring back-room dealing into the light of day. The SubCommittee was left with the choice of reaching its conclusions without full cooperation of the agencies involved, or resorting to the legal process of subpoenas and depositions, as authorized by the Charter, and by the public records law."
The Special Committee could find no justification for the failure of these public bodies to cooperate with the committee's inquiry and to provide the Special Committee, or members of the public, with reasonable access -- or any access -- to the public records that they sought. They noted that the entire inquiry could have been avoided "had these two agencies scrupulously adhered to the letter and the spirit of the Public Records Law, the Open Meeting Law and the other acts intended to bring back-room dealing into the light of day."
They noted that the refusal to provide such information "raises a cloud over any public agency which decides to make such a refusal."
A link to the full text of the Special Committee's report may be found here:
Later in the day on May 9th -- on the same day that the Special Committee released its findings which detailed the Cape Light Compact's failure to comply with numerous public records requests -- the governing board of CLC met at 2 p.m. to discuss and deliberate various agenda items, including the proposed CLC Budget for Fiscal 2013, which had been forwarded to the full governing board by the CLC Executive Committee after its meeting of April 19, 2012.
The public agendas for the relevant meetings of the CLC Executive Committee and governing board can be reviewed on the CLC website here:
http://www.capelightcompact.org/about/agendas-minutes/.
Mr. Preston Ribnick -- one of over 300 petitioners who asked the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates to intervene on their behalf and to form a Special Committee of Inquiry to investigate the serial failures of CLC and CVEC to respond to repeated requests by members of the public for more public disclosure of, among other things, budgets and financial statements -- attended this meeting of the governing board.
Prior to the meeting, Mr. Ribnick asked Ms. Downey for a copy of the budget documents and other exhibits, including the proposed CLC Operating Budget for FY2013, which were to be considered during the open session on that date, in accordance with the published agenda.
Ms. Downey -- who serves as the Compact Administrator and the official records custodian of CLC (and also of CVEC), refused Mr. Ribnick's request, saying that the decision whether or not to provide copies of these documents to Mr. Ribnick would be "up to the Chairman" (Mr. Doherty).
During the meeting, the members of the governing board all had at their disposal -- on the table, in front of them -- a packet of materials which included the proposed CLC FY2013 Operating Budget. As the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law clearly states, any such materials are considered "public records in their entirety and not exempt from disclosure".
Specifically, according to Section 22 (d) of the Open Meeting Law:
"(d) Documents and other exhibits, such as photographs, recordings or maps, used by the body at an open or executive session shall, along with the minutes, be part of the official record of the session. "
For reference, the full text of the Open Meeting Law may be reviewed here:
Ms. Downey's flat refusal to provide Mr. Ribnick with a copy of these Exhibits to the open meeting, in her capacity as the official records custodian of the Cape Light Compact -- regardless of the sentiment or wishes of the CLC Chairman -- was a flagrant violation of both the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Law.
During the meeting, Mr. Doherty made reference to the Budget document that lay before the members of the CLC governing board, saying: "As you can see, the proposed Operating Budget for FY2013 is approximately $500,000 -- exclusive of any grants to the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative" (or words to that effect, as Mr. Ribnick's video record of the meeting will attest).
Mr. Doherty made this statement in full knowledge of the fact that Mr. Ribnick's primary interest in attending the meeting was to obtain further information regarding the Cape Light Compact's ongoing financial support for CVEC.
As has been exhaustively chronicled, Mr. Ribnick has attended many prior meetings of CLC chaired by Mr. Doherty for the express purpose of protesting these transfers of CLC ratepayer funds to CVEC and to protest CLC's prior refusals to provide him with copies of other relevant public records.
The CLC governing board -- with Mr. Doherty presiding -- did not discuss any of the individual line items of their proposed budget and did not reveal the amount of the proposed CVEC "grant" of ratepayer funds for the new fiscal year.
Under the circumstances, there can be no question that the refusal of the CLC Governing Board, under the direction of Mr. Doherty, to discuss, or reveal the proposed additional financial commitment of CLC ratepayer funds to CVEC -- in the presence of Mr. Ribnick and other members of the public in attendance, whose interest in this matter was well known to Mr. Doherty and Ms. Downey -- was a willfull and flagrant violation of the legitimate public interest in full and complete disclosure of pertinent financial information relating to CLC, which is considered a public body under Massachusetts law.
After the adjournment of the meeting -- following the instructions of Ms. Downey, the records custodian -- Mr. Ribnick asked Mr. Doherty for a copy of the "packet" of information -- the Exhibits -- including the FY2013 Operating Budget -- that served as the basis for the deliberations of the governing board during "Open Meeting" on that date.
Mr. Doherty refused to provide Mr. Ribnick with a copy of the documents, stating that he was not obligated to give Mr. Ribnick copies of the documents because "the budget was not voted or approved."
Mr. Doherty informed Mr. Ribnick that a copy of the CLC Operating Budget for FY2013 would be made available "after the next meeting, in June -- if it is approved."
Mr. Doherty's refusal to provide Mr. Ribnick with a copy of the materials that were deliberated and discussed by the CLC governing board on that date was a violation of the Open Meeting Law.
Serial Violations of Open Meeting Law: "Deja Vue All Over Again"
What is even more troubling is that this is not the first time that CLC -- and specifically, Ms. Downey and Mr. Doherty -- have violated the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law in this manner.
In fact, Ms. Downey and Mr. Doherty violated the same provisions of the Open Meeting Law on March 23, 2011 and on May 11, 2011 by refusing the same request by the same member of the public-- Mr. Preston Ribnick -- for copies of virtually the same documents -- i.e. similar Exhibits that were deliberated, and discussed, by the CLC governing board during open session!
--On March 23, 2011, Mr. Ribnick was refused a copy of a "Supplemental Budget" that was actually voted and approved by the CLC governing board on that date.
--On May 11, 2011, Mr. Ribnick was refused a copy of the CLC FY2012 Operating Budget that was voted and approved by the CLC governing board on that date.
--Also, on March 23, 2011, during a secret Executive Session, the CLC governing board voted and approved an additional emergency "grant" of $335,792 in CLC ratepayer funds to CVEC -- for legal expenses related to the Brewster wind project -- in a transaction that Mr. Doherty repeatedly insisted was "not secret" before finally admitting to "an incorrect recollection" of events. Please note that CLC has refused my request for copies of documents relating to this transaction or any deliberations of the CLC board regarding its approval, saying that is secret because it involves unspecified "litigation matters."
As with the most recent refusal of Ms. Downey and Mr. Doherty to provide copies of Exhibits considered by the CLC governing board during open session, we believe that all of these prior episodes involving board approvals of transfers of substantial funds from CLC ratepayers to CVEC constitute flagrant failures to adhere to Open Meeting Law.
As the management of CLC knows, all of these episodes are currently the subject of a formal complaint to the Office of the Attorney General - Open Government Division.
This most recent "lapse" on the part of the records custodian and the chairman of CLC, in which both individuals continued to violate the open meeting law in precisely the manner that was detailed in the findings of the Special Committee's findings, is extremely troubling.
What is even more shocking is -- as both of these individuals are keenly aware -- the prior violations of open meeting law that are detailed above (which occurred on March 23, 2011 and May 11, 2011) are currently the subject of at least one formal complaint filed with the Office of the Attorney General - Open Government Division.
The response of Mr. Doherty, Ms. Downey and the CLC governing board on May 9th to previous formal complaints from members of the public, and to pointed criticism from the Special Committee of their serial violations of open meeting law and public records law, has simply been to violate the same provisions of the same laws, in precisely the same circumstances!
This is regrettable, and constitutes nothing less than a complete abdication by the CLC management of their clearly defined responsibilities as public officials to the citizens of Barnstable County.
What possible justification can Ms. Downey and Chairman Doherty claim for refusing to provide to a member of the public a copy of the CLC Operating Budget and other documents that were duly considered by its board during open session?
What possible public purpose can be served by withholding these documents and by citing "reasons" that are not lawful or legitimate?
Please also note that, notwithstanding numerous repeated requests from members of the public and the Special Committee, the Cape Light Compact has STILL not disclosed the "Supplemental Budget" of March 23, 2011 or any of financial accounting for the "CLC Operating Account" (which is also known as the "Power Supply Reserve Fund" and the "mil adder" revenue from CLC ratepayers) -- notwithstanding the requests by the Special Committee or their complaint that this information was refused to them.
CLC has provided some budget detail on its website for the Operating Account but these documents are incomplete and misleading because they do not include either of the March 23, 2011 allocations -- the $160,000 "Supplemental Budget" or the secret transfer of $335,792 from CLC to CVEC during Executive Session of that date.
Please note that these are budgets and not records of actual receipts and expenditures from the CLC Operating Account -- which is to say that, notwithstanding numerous requests by the public and the Special Committee -- and the provisions of the law that were cited by the Special Committee report that require CLC to provide this information -- CLC has still not provided any public accounting of its Operating Budgets.
Please also note that, notwithstanding reports in the Barnstable Patriot, as confirmed by Ms. Downey (the executive administrator of both CLC and CVEC) that CLC has paid certain direct expenses on behalf of CVEC for "legal and development costs" associated with CVEC projects, no detail has ever been provided regarding the extent of CLC's financial support of CVEC through the mechanism of paying CVEC's bills directly from CLC accounts of ratepayer funds.
This is all the more troubling in light of the fact that there is no record in the published minutes of the CLC governing board that the board ever deliberated and approved these additional expenditures of CLC ratepayer funds for the purpose of propping up CVEC.
--How much of the CLC ratepayer's money has the CLC management spent to pay the direct expenses of CVEC -- in addition to the $2.4 million in "grants" to CVEC that have been verified?
--Did the CLC governing board approve these additional expenditures? If so, when?
--Did the CLC management present these proposed additional expenditures of CLC ratepayer funds -- to pay additional "legal and development" expenses of CVEC directly out of CLC's accounts -- in the budgets that it offered for the consideration and approval of the CLC governing board?
--How much money does the CLC management now propose to transfer to CVEC for FY2013 through additional direct "grants"?
--How much money does the CLC management propose to spend on behalf of CVEC -- by paying additional direct expenses on CVEC's behalf -- during FY2013?
We don't know that answers to any of these questions. The fragmentary CLC "Operating Budgets" that have now been published on the CLC website exclude the two items noted above that were voted and approved by the CLC board on March 23, 2011 -- the "Supplemental Budget" in the amount of $160,000 for additional legal expenses for FY2011 and the secret additional, last minute transfer of $335,792 to CVEC for "legal expenses related to Brewster wind." Clearly, these are substantial missing items, totaling over $495,000.
What is even more alarming is that CLC's annual reported legal expenses for the past three years have risen dramatically, even after excluding these expenses!
According to the CLC minutes of January 2007, CLC's legal expenses for Calendar 2006 were approximately $75,000 -- including some expenses related to the formation of CVEC -- and were somewhat higher than usual. It would appear from this reference that CLC's legal bills should be less than this amount in the normal course of business.
But over the past three years, as can be seen from the incomplete budget documents now posted online, CLC has budgeted a total of $540,000 in legal expenses in the annual budgets of its Operating Fund -- an average of $180,000 per year.
If the emergency appropriations of March 23, 2011 -- for the "Supplemental Budget" for CLC legal expenses and the "grant" to CVEC for legal expenses related to Brewster wind -- are added to these figures, the three year total for legal expenses rises to $1,035,000 (that we know of) -- an average of $345,000 per year for "legal expenses" paid from CLC ratepayer funds!
Clearly, this is an astronomical increase in legal expenses compared to the experience of CLC prior to the formation of CVEC. --How much of this money was actually spent to fulfill CLC's mission as a duly formed "municipal aggregator," under the Intergovernmental Agreement between all of the participating towns, to further the interests of its consumer members?
--Conversely, how much of this money was paid out of CLC ratepayer funds for the express purpose of paying the legal bills compiled by CVEC, the "municipal electric cooperative"?
--Were the members of the CLC governing board -- the representatives appointed by the towns to act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the individual CLC member / consumers -- fully informed of all of these expenditures before, and after, the fact?
--Did the CLC governing board fully understand, and duly approve, all of these expenditures on behalf of CVEC?
To date, CLC has not disclosed any of this information and the minutes of the CLC governing board do not record any such discussion, deliberation or approvals of these expenditures, other than blanket approvals of the annual budgets.
Conclusions and Remedies
According to a recent report from the CLC Treasurer, CLC collects approximately $1 million per year in ratepayer funds through the "mil adder" -- an annual surcharge imposed upon its members.
Over the past three years, CLC has spent $1,035,000 -- an average of $345,000 per year -- on legal expenses (inclusive of the $335,792 "grant" to CVEC to pay for CVEC's legal expenses related to Brewster wind).
Over the same period, CLC has spent an additional $1,408,000 (that we know of) -- an average of $469,333 per year -- on "grants" to CVEC. As can be seen from CVEC's own financial statements, the vast majority of this money was used to pay for legal expenses.
Therefore, over the past three years, out of its receipts of approximately $1 million per year that it collects from CLC ratepayers, CLC has paid out, on average, $814,333 per year for unexplained legal expenses and/or direct payments of "grants" to CVEC -- a total of $2,443,000 over the three year period.
In addition, as we know, CLC also previously "assigned" an additional $520,000 in CLC ratepayer funds to CVEC in August of 2007. If we add in this figure, the total of expenditures in this category rises to $2,963,000 -- nearly $3 million, all told.
Members of the public -- including members of the Cape Light Compact -- would like to know what benefit will ever accrue to the ratepayer members of CLC from these huge expenditures on legal fees and/or "grants" to CVEC?
This question is rendered all the more urgent in view of the fact that:
a) CLC has not disclosed, or explained, many of these expenses;
b) CLC has declined to provide basic public documents that might help to explain some of these expenses; and
c) according to the official minutes of the CLC governing board, the board has never considered -- or even identified -- during any of its deliberations ANY tangible benefit to the CLC ratepayer members that may accrue from these enormous commitments of ratepayer funds.
Under the circumstances, for the purpose of providing complete financial disclosure to the public of such highly unusual -- and highly relevant -- financial transactions; and for the purpose of correcting numerous inexcusable past violations of both the spirit and the letter of the Open Meeting Law. the Public Records Law and the other acts which describe the specific duties and govern the administration of the Cape Light Compact; we respectfully request that CLC immediately publish all of the following information to its website all periods from the Fiscal 2006 to date:
1) All budgets -- including "Supplemental Budgets" -- that have been considered and approved by the CLC governing board or executive committee since FY2006;
2) A full accounting of the actual receipts and expenditures in the CLC "Operating Budget" (the "Power Supply Reserve Fund"), including an interim YTD statement for the current fiscal year;
3) A full accounting of any and all direct transfers of funds to CVEC in the form of "grants" or other money transfers;
4) A full accounting of all expenses paid on behalf of CVEC, including legal and developmental expenses, including expenses related to the legal formation of CVEC prior to its actual incorporation;
5) Minutes of the March 23, 2011 Executive Session relating to the deliberation and approval by the CLC governing board of a "grant" of $335,792 to CVEC to pay legal expenses for CVEC's Brewster wind project for which CLC has inappropriately claimed secrecy on the basis of non-existent "litigation."
6) All minutes and meeting notices of all of CLC's standing public committees during this period, including, but not limited to, the Energy Efficiency Committee, the Power Supply Committee and the Land Based Wind Turbine Committee (or its applicable official title).
7) The "Membership Services Agreement" between CLC and CVEC which CLC management representatives, including Ms. Downey, Mr. Doherty and retired chairman Mr. Robert Mahoney, and CVEC's auditor, Sullivan,Rogers, have repeatedly cited as justification for the "assignment" by Mr. Mahoney to CVEC on August 8, 2007 of a $520,000 "grant" from Con Edison Solutions. This document, which presumably describes the legal relationship between CLC and CVEC, was not provided to the Special Committee. Additionally, as you know, CLC refused to allow me to review a copy of this public document in your offices unless I agreed to pay a fee of over $28 for the privilege.
All available contemporaneous documents -- including the grant application (if any) and relevant correspondence with Con Edison Solutions (CES) prior to the issuance of the "grant" from CES to CLC -- that support the assertions by CLC management that CLC received a formal "grant" from CES "for energy efficiency programs"; that CLC transferred, or "assigned," this money to CVEC; and that the CLC governing board was fully informed of all of these events and duly approved the transfer, or "assignment," of these CLC ratepayer funds to CVEC.
We urge the CLC management -- and particularly the fiduciary members of the CLC governing board -- to take prompt action to rectify these critical deficiencies in your public reporting of substantive information and your repeated willful failure to respond to the legitimate concerns of the public and the elected representatives of the Special Committee of Inquiry on the Cape Light Compact and the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative.
Sincerely,
Eric Bibler
Cc: CLC Governing Board
Cc: CVEC Board of Directors
Cc: Mr. Mark Zielinski, County Administrator and Treasurer of Barnstable County; Fiscal Administrator for CLC; Treasurer of CVEC; Fiscal Administrator of CVEC
Cc: Sullivan, Rogers, Auditors, Barnstable County, CLC and CVEC
Cc: Special Committee of Inquiry on CLC and CVEC
Cc: Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates
Cc: Barnstable County Commissioners
Cc: Office of the Attorney General - Ratepayer Advocacy Division
Cc: Office of the Attorney General - Open Government Division
Cc: Secretary of the Commonwealth - Public Records Division
Cc: Office of the Inspector General - State of MA
I have a friend who is about to become a turbine refugee. I’ll call her Jenny because her peace and privacy have already been violated enough; but I assure you she is very real.
In case you think the term refugee is an exaggeration, look up the definition. It denotes someone who flees their home to avoid danger or to find a place of safety and asylum. If you want to really hear Jenny’s stories with an open heart, ask yourself what could cause you to leave your family, your home and your friends.
Jenny moved to this area over 30 years ago, when she got married and finished school. She dreamed of being an architect; but like so many of us, life had other plans for her. She and her husband ended up buying a home and raising a family. She started a small but successful business, working outdoors with plants and flowers, which she loves. She also grew to love her quiet little, coastal New England town with its cast of quirky but endearing characters, and the peaceful, beautiful vistas of life along the coast.
About nine years ago, Jenny and her husband had a chance to buy a parcel of land in an especially quiet area with plenty of open space between neighbors. Even better, she got the chance to design her own home, one that would fit her and her family’s lifestyle, like hand in glove. Nothing is perfect, but it was a very good home and a good life. As her son grew older, Jenny dreamed that someday he would get married right on this property, at the home she had designed—a summer wedding with enough flowers to remember for a lifetime. That was the dream that was about to turn into a hellish nightmare in just a few short days.
About 2 years ago, one of her neighbors signed a contract with a private wind developer to site a 1.5Mw industrial wind turbine just 1300 feet from her beloved home. Jenny was not fearful at first because she did not know that turbines are intensely toxic for some people; nor did she know that she was a ‘sensitive receptor’. Jenny’s life turned instantly for the worse when the turbine started spinning. The turbine affected her husband, too; but not with same severity as her. It was still just the beginning of a long, steady, irresistible downward spiral to hell.
One sleepless night turned into another. She often awakened with that strange feeling of dizziness that you sometimes get when you are disturbed from a deep sleep, only it didn’t go away after a few minutes. There was the strange feeling of anxiety, too, as though something was terribly wrong but she was unable to put her finger on it. Her energy level sagged from lack of sleep. The strange ‘thrumming’ sensation was all around, like it was inside her head and chest, too. Even when the turbine was not spinning, she was stressed and anxious, wondering when they would start again.
She tried everything to cope, hoping she might gradually get used to it. Noise machines, sleeping pills, nothing seemed to help. She began sleeping in the basement because sometimes the vibrating thrum from the turbine was not quite so bad—sometimes. Naturally, this took its toll on her marriage. The relentless thrum was taking its toll on her business, her health, and her coping mechanisms, as well. Gradually, she began to sink into depression.
As days turned to weeks, and weeks to months, it slowly dawned on Jenny that she was in a fight for her life and stopping the turbine was the only way to win. She tried reasoning with her neighbor, who dismissed here as a crackpot or hypochondriac. After all, it didn’t make him sick. She tried to get help from town officials, but they were too busy putting up turbines of their own to listen to a handful of disgruntled residents. Finally, she tried suing her neighbor. She watched as her rainy-day savings dwindled away. Five, ten, fifteen, then twenty thousand; but the turbine kept spinning. You see, justice turns much more slowly than turbines. In despair, Jenny began to have what psychiatrists call ‘suicidal ideation’. In fact, it was much more that ideation. She was stockpiling her sleeping pills.
Ironically, her mother began to suffer from a debilitating illness that prevented her from living alone any longer. Jenny could not go through with her plans just yet. By putting her mother’s needs first, her own daily existence became an agonizing test of endurance. Then, mercifully, the town decided to curtail the operation of all turbines to consider the impact on public health. But his fragile flame of hope was soon snuffed out. After a couple of months of respite, the town decided to restart the turbines, citing the urgent financial needs of the town.
I had hoped that Jenny would not return to her darkest thoughts, but my hopes were in vain. Deciding to give it one last try, she went to a public meeting in town setup to “build consensus” about what to do about the turbines. It is hard to listen to debate about megawatts, decibels, revenue shortfalls and energy costs being discussed as though they are all just as important as your health, your life. People do not understand or simply refuse to believe that your life is hanging in the balance. To many, you are just collateral damage in the war to save the planet.
Just before arriving home, Jenny took enough pills to end her life. Fortunately, she confessed what she had done before she lost consciousness. She wanted to live. Her husband got her to the hospital in time to save her. She is in counseling now and it must be helping because she told me “We need to get the message out to all turbine sufferers…No location is worth dying for.” She would know, too.
But she is left with only one option. Escape. She had been ready to move to the mid-West, where she knows no one; but it was the only place where she could afford a small place to start over on her own. Her funds are nearly exhausted. Her husband felt he could not leave with her because he is just three years from his retirement benefits, the last financial leg they have to stand on. Luckily, his heart overruled his head after rushing her to the hospital the other night. He is cashing in what little benefits he is eligible for, so they can find a small place together where no turbines can be built. They do not expect to get much for their place—if they can even sell it at all.
It is hardly a Hollywood ending. With no money to retire on, the prospect of finding work when you are approaching retirement in a down economy is grim—but it is still better than the alternative ending they had in store. At least they are together, for better or worse.
When people are forced to leave behind everything they have loved and worked so hard for in order to save their lives, there is no other word for it—they are refugees. There are thousands in the same situation as Jenny, all around the world. Every day, a few more of them are forced to abandon their homes to save themselves. When we build turbines too close to vulnerable people, we exact a terrible price on our neighbors to ease our own conscience about our energy gluttony.
I am deeply saddened to see my friend leave like this and I’m afraid Jenny will not be the last. Unless something is done to stop the turbines, I’m sure I will be saying farewell to more of my friends in Little Bay soon.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found that Falmouth's "Wind 1" turbine exceeds the allowable noise level, according to a study by the agency.
A statement from Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) announced the finding this morning.
“I'm glad that the results of DEP's study will provide residents affected by Wind 1 with some relief. This is an issue that has divided the community," Murray said in a statement. "I believe that industrial size wind turbines do not belong in residential neighborhoods, but we should not remove wind energy from the renewable energy mix in Massachusetts."
The finding comes after a DEP-headed study that measured turbine noise levels in various wind conditions.
DEP Commissioner Ken Kimmell will officially announce the findings later this afternoon, a DEP spokesman said.
Wind turbines loomed heavily at this month's Falmouth Town Meeting, as selectmen and board of health members at separate meetings voted on measures meant to address residents' health concerns.
Selectmen voted in favor of shutting down Wind 1, one of the town's two 1.65-megawatt turbines off Blacksmith Shop Road, from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. each day.
Stopping Wind 1's operation for 12 hours each day represents a compromise between the town and some people who live near the turbines and for more than a year have complained of nausea, vertigo and other health problems.
I would like to add, this is after the preliminay study said it was fine and further studies by the hired wind fixers found it was fine. A hand selected study group put together by Gov Patrick insisted there were no health problems with wind turbines. But somehow once a senior politician gets involved then all of sudden the truth leaks out. Mr. Kimmel should be fired! And they should be FORCED to take it down!
This study has been endorsed by Dr. Sarah Laurie, who directs the Waubra Foundation to publicize the adverse health effects of giant wind turbines and which campaigns for substantial setbacks from homes (e.g., 10 km).
If you know or anyone you know lives near a wind energy development, please consider participating in this research.
My name is Darryl Read, I am a fourth year psychology honours student at the University of New England in Australia. My research project involves recruiting residents who live near a proposed or established wind farm developments worldwide. My interest in this area of research began after speaking with rural residents living near Crookwell, New South Wales, the site of the oldest wind development in Australia. The conversations enabled me to gain an understanding of the range of issues surrounding wind farm developments. Following the conversations I began to read the relevant literature and it became clear that the articles failed to identify the issues and genuine concerns of the residents. My research is a completely independent project and therefore, not funded by government organisations who support developments. The aim of my study is investigate the range of issues surrounding developments and to provide a completely unbiased account of participants attitudes toward wind farm developments. To enable the findings of my research to be taken seriously the study will require around 200 to 300 participants. Residents who live near wind farm developments across the world are invited to participate in the study. Landscape Guardians groups from around Australia and the UK are very supportive of the research. The online questionnaire will take between 15 and 20 minutes to complete and participation will require completing the online survey before the end of August 2012. Participants who wish to complete the survey are required to click the arrow at the bottom of each page to move to the next. If you have any questions in relation to the questionnaire or if you have any comments you believe may assist the research, please send to my email address at darrylread@bigpond.com. Please feel free to distribute the survey link to other residents who are subject to wind farm developments. http://tinyurl.com/windstudyUNE
The von Trapp family came to Vermont, because it reminded them of Austria, where “the hills are alive with the sounds of music”. Those sounds will soon be replaced by the health-damaging infrasound and low frequency noise from 3 MW wind turbines on 2,000-ft high ridge lines, courtesy of GMP/Gaz-Metro-Canada.
GMP's 21 wind turbines of the Lowell Mountain facility will emit various noises, such as:
- machinery noise in the nacelle
- rhythmic/pulsating, trailing-edge noise from the blades (“blade swish”) as they slice through the air at up to 200 mph
- irregular, low frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound from the blades due to in-flow air turbulence
- LFN and infrasound at the blade-tower-passage frequency and its harmonics.
Infrasound consists of air pressure pulsations, less than 20 Hz; not audible, but felt; usually not measured by acoustics engineers; more or less ignored by state regulators and state noise codes, mainly because wind energy promoters (vendors, project developers, financial types with tax-shelter schemes for the top 1% of households, legislators getting “campaign” contributions, etc.) have been saying wind energy is “clean and green” and LFN and infrasound are a non-issue.
At 350 m (1,148 ft) from a utility-scale wind turbine, the audible sound emitted by:
- a well-behaving wind turbine with no in-flow turbulence and low wind shear is about 35 dB(A); often during daytime when the sun is warming the ground and air.
- a badly-behaving wind turbine with in-flow turbulence and/or high wind shear is up to 55 dB(A); often during nighttime when a stable atmosphere forms.
This compares with rural nighttime noise of 20-40 dB(A) and urban residential nighttime noise of 58-62 dB(A).
The wind speeds and directions upstream of a wind turbine vary due to terrain effects, such as hilliness and ridge lines, objects on the surface of the terrain, such as buildings and trees, daytime thermal effects and upwind wind turbines.
During daytime, as the 3-bladed rotor turns, it encounters air at various speeds and directions which produces a combination of sound effects, i.e., rhythmic/pulsating blade swish about 3 dB(A) above the steady aerodynamic noise, and a steady rhythm of LFN and infrasound.
Note: Doubling the sound power, watt, increases the sound power level by 3 dB. Doubling the sound pressure, micropascal, increased the sound pressure level by 6 dB
During nighttime, air speeds and directions, not influenced by daytime thermal effects, become more varied, the atmosphere becomes more stratified and background noise is less causing the various sound effects (aerodynamic noise, rhythmic/pulsating noises, rhythmic LFN and infrasound) to be noticeably more intense than during the daytime. The daytime blade swish noise often becomes a nighttime clapping, beating, or thumping noise.
As the 3-bladed rotor turns at 15 to 20 rpm at greater wind speeds, a blade reaches the top about 45 to 60 times per minute, or 0.75 to 1.0 Hz. At lesser wind speeds the frequencies are less.
The infrasound has audible components (20 to 500 Hz with peak amplitudes at about 200 to 500 Hz) and inaudible components (0 to 20 Hz with peak amplitudes at about 0.75 to 1.0 Hz). The infrasound travels great distances, a mile of more, for large, utility-size wind turbines.
The wind speeds and directions downstream of a wind turbine are similar to the vortices leaving the ends of airplane wings, except they all rotate in the same direction. When the wind direction aligns with the ridge direction of the wind turbines, the downwind turbines will have a degraded performance of up to 20 to 30 percent, i.e., a reduced CF, due to wake turbulence, and they will be noisier, and they will have increased wear and tear.
Government Noise Codes: Traditionally, state and local government codes dealt mostly with measured sound values that are weighed (adjusted) using the A scale which covers most of the audible frequencies. The A scale corrects dB measurements according to the sensitivity of human hearing. It should not be used for frequencies less than 200 HZ, as the low frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound would be “weighed” out.
The following scales should be used to properly weigh all frequencies, especially those less than 20 Hz that are emitted by wind turbines:
Most audible noises in the range of 200 - 20,000 Hz; dB weighed with the A scale, dB(A).
LFN, in the range of 20 - 200 Hz; dB weighed with the C scale, dB(C).
Infrasound less than 20 Hz; dB weighed with the G scale, dB(G)*.
*The instrumentation to quantify infrasound frequencies and amplitudes is expensive and the values obtained vary with the method and instruments used. Applying the G scale to such values may not be meaningful. The human ear can hear LFN at 95 dB(G) levels, the inner ear is sensitive to LFN at 65 dB(G) levels.
oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/windmill.html
Professional acoustical engineers know the government codes, the outcome government regulators are expected to hear and conduct their tests according to standard procedures using mostly the A scale. Wind turbine vendors report sound levels adjusted to the A scale and everyone is satisfied. The LFN and infrasound are usually not covered by government codes.
According to the US EPA, noise levels above 45 dB(A) disturb sleep and most people cannot sleep at noise levels above 70 dB(A).
In Michigan, the Centerville Township, after 4 years of study, developed and approved a zoning ordinance for commercial wind energy systems. It is strict and comprehensive and should serve as a model for other government entities.
In Maine, codes require noise levels not to exceed the one-hour average daytime limit (between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.) of 55 dB(A), and one-hour nighttime limit (between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.) of 42 dB(A), as measured within 500 feet from a residence, seasonal camp or business at “protected locations”, and 55 dB(A) 24 hours of the day at greater than 500 feet from a residence, seasonal camp or business at “protected locations”, and 75 dB(A) at the wind turbine project boundary. The LFN and infrasound are not covered.
In Vermont, codes require nighttime noise levels not to exceed 40 dB(A) as measured at the exterior of a dwelling facade and averaged over a 12-month exposure, the same as the recommendations of the 2009 World Health Organization report that mostly cover road noise, air traffic, and community noise and do not mention wind turbine noise. LFN and infrasound are not covered. The Maine code is stricter and much more explicit than the Vermont code. The Vermont code does not protect the public health, safety and welfare; it is a wind turbine vendor's dream come true.
dB values should be measured "at the property line" to ensure people can enjoy their entire property and should not be "averaged over a 12-month period" which would eliminate higher noise levels at higher wind speeds occurring mostly during nighttimes by averaging them with lower noise levels at lower wind speeds occurring mostly during daytimes.
Wind Turbine Noise Annoyance: On an annoyance scale that is based on interviews of people who live near wind turbines, airports, railroads and highways, wind turbine noise is much more annoying at less than 40 dB(A), than the noise from aircraft, highway and rail traffic at less than 70 dB(A).
This additional annoyance is due to the LFN and infrasound emitted by wind turbines. The measured wind turbine noise appears to be benign and within code, but the annoying/unhealthy LFN and infrasound were filtered out by the A scale weighing.
Health Impacts:At less than 20 Hz (infrasound) and above 20,000 Hz (ultrasound) most people do not “hear” noise, but a person’s ears and body are sensitive to infrasound which cause nausea, headaches, insomnia, elevated blood pressure, palpitations, tinnitus, imbalance, dizziness, lack of concentration, moodiness, irritability, anxiety, etc., in SOME people who live about 1/2 mile or less from large, say 1.0 MW, utility-size wind turbines. Infrasound also has potential to harm wildlife and livestock. Little is known about the issue. But there is anecdotal evidence indicating problems. These symptoms are collectively known as “Wind Turbine Syndrome”.
These symptoms occur because the natural frequencies of the internal human and animal organs are in the same frequency range, i.e., 4 to 8 Hz, as those of house walls and floors. Floor resonance can cause the internal organs of the occupants to resonate resulting in an uneasy, irritating feeling. The infrasound is often amplified indoors due to resonating of house walls and floors.
Most peoples’ heart beat is less than 1.25 Hz, or a 75 pulse rate. People who live close to large wind turbines in Falmouth, MA, Ontario, Australia, etc., have complained about feeling internal pressures and having heart troubles and other symptoms which they did not have before the wind turbines were installed.
The symptoms mostly disappear after people move away and reappear after they move back. After many complaints over a long period of time, the Falmouth ruling council finally slowed down the wind turbines at greater wind speeds by partially feathering the blades.
Larger Wind Turbines, Stronger Vibrations: The symptoms studied up till now typically are from exposure to the LFN and infrasound from smaller wind turbines, say up to 2 MW, with 290 ft diameter rotors, as on Lempster Mountain, NH.
The 3 MW Lowell Mountain wind turbines, with 367.5 ft diameter rotors, on 275.6 ft masts, on 2,600 ft high ridge lines, will have greater impacts over larger areas. See website.
The relative amount of LFN is greater for large turbines (2.3–3.6 MW) than for small turbines (less than 2 MW), i.e., the noise from larger wind turbines affects a larger area than from smaller wind turbines. The difference is statistically significant for one-third-octave bands in the frequency range 63–250 Hz.
During the day, ambient audible noise (background noise) in rural areas is much greater than at night, whereas, because of greater nighttime wind speeds, the wind turbine noise is greater at night than during the day. The result is rural people notice audible wind turbine noise much more at night than during the day. Wind turbine promoters arrange field trips for legislators and the public during the day from May-September when wind speeds and noise are minimal.
Dealing With Complaints: Many people living near wind turbines complain about sleep-disturbing nighttime noises that upset their lives to such an extent that their houses are bought by wind turbine owners after they sign gag orders.
As more and larger wind turbines are built near where people work, study, play, etc., the complaints will just multiply, until political pressures restrict the siting of wind turbine projects without suitable buffer zones, or require siting them offshore.
Dismissing the effects as mostly psychological and saying the physical effects are due to something else is not an option; there are just too many people, in too many geographical areas, living too near large wind turbines, with too many complaints. It is better to deal with the problem.
One way to deal with it is to have sufficient distance between people’s houses and utility-scale wind turbines to ensure people are not disturbed by noise and infrasound. Various studies show people living in flat terrain with wind turbines should be at least 1.25 miles (2 km) from such wind turbines. People living in mountainous terrain with wind turbines on ridge lines should be at least 2 miles (3.2 km) from such wind turbines. Such distance standards are becoming more prevalent in Europe, Australia, etc.
Professional acoustical engineers Rick James and George Kamperman have extensively studied wind turbine noise. They recommend a noise limit AT THE PROPERTY LINE for:
- Audible noise: 35 dB(A) or no more than 5 dB(A) above the pre-construction ambient dB(A) level, whichever is lower
- LFN: 50 dB(C) or no more than 20 dB(C) above the pre-construction ambient dB(C) level, whichever is lower
Vestas is concerned its 3 MW turbine will not meet stricter noise codes and has actively opposed noise code changes in Denmark, because it fears such changes will set a precedent for changing noise codes throughout the world, thereby adversely affecting 3 MW turbine sales. Other wind energy promoters are also actively opposing noise code changes.
After numerous complaints from people near wind turbine facilities, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection has finally adopted by a 5-4 vote new rules that lower the maximum allowable sound levels emitted by wind farms from 45 dB(A) to 42 dB(A), between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., as measured from houses and other “protected locations” within one mile of the turbines; a good step in the right direction, but inadequate for rural settings.
Vermont state officials are rushing to have as many ridge line wind facilities built as possible before various federal subsidies expire.
Because of this rushing, they have not heeded, or played down, or dismissed, the environmental concerns of professional testifiers and the complaints from people who live near the Lowell Mountain wind turbine facility. They likely will also not heed the complaints from the fauna and flora currently inhabiting this pristine ridge line.
Because of them, Vermonters are in danger of losing an international reputation of being preservers of their environment and in danger of losing a part of their soul.
By means of various rigged polls to provide CYA for legislators and by means of PR campaigns by wind energy promoters, including foreign companies selling wind turbines, Vermonters were swayed/bamboozled to be in favor of “clean and green” wind energy on ridge lines. However, after they saw the environmental destruction on the 2,600 ft-high Lowell Mountain ridge line, they quickly sobered up.
What makes wind energy even less attractive is that some recent studies show CO2 emission reductions due to wind energy are not anywhere near to what is claimed by promoters. These studies are based on 1/4-hour and 1-hour grid operations data.
Because wind energy is variable and intermittent, it requires backup by quick-ramping, open cycle gas turbine generators that ramp up when wind energy ebbs and ramp down when wind energy surges which occurs at least 100 times per day. Such part-load-ramping operation is inefficient and requires extra fuel/kWh and emits extra CO2/kWh. The extras mostly offset what wind energy was meant to reduce, as proven by analysis of the Eirgrid, Texas and Colorado grid operations data.
Vermonters may want renewable energy, but NOT AT ANY COST, and they certainly do not like to be rushed, forever ruin parts of their state, to beat arbitrary subsidy deadlines for RE projects that will quickly enrich the politically-well-connected top 1% of households at the expense of already-struggling households and businesses in a nearly zero-growth economy.
Wind power is the chosen energy so OSHA will give it a free pass...just like Killing Eagles.
By Myron Levin, FairWarning.org
Wind power is riding a strong breeze. In the last five years, generating capacity in the U.S. has nearly quadrupled. Clusters of tubular wind towers, rising up to 300 feet above ridgelines and gusty plains, are an increasingly familiar sight.
But in the scramble to expand clean energy and green jobs, the wind industry has fallen short on worker safety.
Thousands of the giant wind machines violate a federal requirement to give technicians who work inside the towers enough maneuvering space to get up and down their ladders safely. The standard says the space near the ladder should be free of permanent obstructions that could cause serious head or back injuries if a climber slips or is moving fast.
There are about 36,000 of the wind towers in the U.S., and more are being added all the time. Most are produced overseas to meet international codes. For reasons they won’t explain, the manufacturers either ignored the U.S. standard, or thought it wouldn’t apply to them.
The companies "evidently didn’t look into U.S. codes and standards, especially safety standards, in doing their designs," said Patrick Bell, a senior safety engineer with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or Cal-OSHA, and a member of a federal OSHA wind energy task force.
OSHA officials say they’re not aware of any serious injuries so far. Still, the violations are so widespread that they have flummoxed safety regulators, who are trying to figure out the extent of the hazard and what to do about it.
"We could conceivably issue citations," said Bell of Cal-OSHA, "but we might end up taking all of our compliance officers off other industries to run from one wind farm to the next."
"We are trying to work with the industry," he said, "because it’s a huge industry with all the wind towers going up."
The manufacturers have been reluctant to talk about the problem. Officials with Vestas Americas, part of Vestas Wind Systems A/S of Denmark, the world’s biggest turbine supplier, declined to be interviewed and would not respond to written questions. GE Energy, the top U.S. wind turbine maker, took the same stance. Both companies referred inquiries to the American Wind Energy Assn., a trade group.
Michele M. Mihelic, the association’s manager of labor, health and safety policy, said in an email to FairWarning that the group "cannot make a blanket statement that all wind turbines comply or not."
"Each wind turbine make and model is different," she said.
The OSHA standard dates to the 1970s, and applies to the use of fixed ladders at work sites generally, not to wind towers specifically. It requires a clearance of 30 inches from the ladder so workers can safely move up and down. If there are permanent obstructions within the climbing space, they must be shielded so workers can squeeze past without getting hurt.
The main issue with tower designs is the use of heavy steel bolts and rims known as flanges to join their long, tubular sections. In the two or three spots where the sections are fastened, the bolts and flanges intrude at least several inches into the safety space.
Two field technicians have sought to draw attention to the issue, saying they were stunned by the prevalence of the problem.
"Between my friends and I … we’ve been in thousands of wind turbines and haven’t found one that’s compliant with this issue," said Ed Oliver, 47, of Dana Point, Calif.
"We can’t believe this exists everywhere we go," said Nick Nichols, 45, of Zephyr Cove, Nev. "The regulations are there for a reason."
The men said they have seen nothing worse than bruised tailbones and minor scrapes from encounters with the flanges. But they said it’s only a matter of time before there are serious injuries. They pointed to the growing use of "climb assists" that use motors and pulleys to support part of the weight of technicians, allowing them to climb faster and basically rappel downward in the descent.
Oliver and Nichols have complained to OSHA. They also took the unusual step of offering the industry their own version of a safety device, called a deflector. The website for their company, Pinnacle Wind USA, shows what looks like a short section of a playground slide covering a flange. "Developed BY tower climbers, FOR tower climbers," it says.
Their efforts haven’t brought any love from the wind industry. In August, they were stunned by an email to Nichols from Mihelic of the wind association.
"You should…be aware that there are people posing as OSHA compliance officers and/or OSHA consultants and are threatening people in the industry with citations if they don’t buy your product," the email said.
Mihelic added that OSHA had been told about the scheme and "has requested that if any of our members are approached in this manner to please report it to them so they can investigate."
The two men immediately suspected it was a bogus claim designed to discredit them. Soon after, Nichols enlisted the help of U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., to see what OSHA knew about it.
David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for Occupational Safety and Health, responded Oct. 11 with a letter to Heller that seemed to contradict Mihelic. OSHA officials were unaware of "any reported cases of OSHA impersonators threatening companies to purchase Pinnacle Wind USA products," the letter said.
Mihelic told FairWarning she stood by her email to Nichols.
Meanwhile, the ladder issue remains up in the air.
OSHA has not yet issued citations for violations of the standard. Brian Sturtecky, OSHA’s area director in Jacksonville, Fla., and chairman of its wind energy task force, said the agency is preparing a "letter of interpretation" to clarify how the standard will be applied
The result could be a mandate for the industry to retrofit thousands of towers. Or, the industry could get a pass if the agency decides the hazard can be controlled by other measures, such as training.
The task force is examining other safety issues in the industry in the wake of some serious accidents.
In August, 2007, a worker was killed and another injured in the collapse of a tower at a wind farm near Wasco, Ore. Also, OSHA fined Outland Energy Services $378,000 for safety violations after an employee suffered serious electrical burns at an Illinois wind farm in October, 2010.
FairWarningis a nonprofit, online investigative news organization focused on public health and safety issues.
Town Administrators
Select Boards
Finance Committees
Energy Committees
Cape Cod & Martha's Vineyard
May 9, 2012
Re: Cape Light Compact and Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative
Dear Cape & Vineyard Town Administrators, Select Boards, Finance Boards and Energy Committees,
After months of meetings and after reviewing thousands of pages of documents, the Special Committee of Inquiry on the Cape Light Compact and Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative empaneled by the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates has released its final report. It is expected that this report will be formally presented to the Barnstable County of Delegates for action sometime in the coming weeks.
In summary, the Special Committee noted numerous substantive concerns and essentially corroborated the complaints of various members of the public who had petitioned the Assembly of Delegates to invoke its powers under the Barnstable County Charter to form the Special Committee and to conduct an inquiry.
--The Special Committee recommended that its concerns and questions regarding the management practices and finances CLC and CVEC be referred to the Inspector General and other appropriate agencies for further investigation and review.
--The Special Committee also recommended a full forensic financial audit of CLC since inception by an independent third party selected by an impartial source.
--The Special Committee identified substantive conflicts of interest and recommended that the managements of the two public bodies be separated. Additionally, the Special Committee criticized the management practices of the organizations, particularly their failures to adhere faithfully to Open Meeting Law and Public Record Law, and recommended that the Bylaws of the respective organizations be revised and that numerous additional reforms to management practices be immediately instituted.
--The Special Committee specifically identified the potential for conflict arising from the "Mutual Legal Representation" of CLC and CVEC by the same law firm and recommended that they employ separate counsel and that, in addition, each organization employ separate counsel for separate functions.
--The Special Committee recommended that CLC stop subsidizing the operating losses of CVEC from CLC ratepayer funds, that CVEC should be "restructured as an independent entity" and that if CVEC cannot survive independently, on the basis of its own revenues and surpluses from its commercial activities as an energy producer, then CVEC should be dissolved.
--The Special Committee recommended mandatory training for all officers and employees of such Intergovernmental agencies in the provisions of Open Meeting Law, Public Records Law, including the proper keeping of minutes of public meetings.
We urge town officials on the Cape and Vineyard to review these findings very carefully.
As you know, every town on Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard has a seat on the Governing Board of the Cape Light Compact. These board members act as the Representatives of the individual consumer members of the Compact within each respective town. In this capacity, the town representatives act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the ratepayer / members.
In addition, most of the towns are members of the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative, a municipal electric cooperative. The member towns of CVEC each pay a one-time fee of $25 to join and each of the municipal members has a seat on the board of directors of the cooperative.
As has been widely reported and as all know, CVEC has proposed a series of ambitious programs for wind and solar generation on Cape Cod.
Regrettably, however, as this report makes clear, CVEC does not have any significant capital, any assets, any revenue or any income except for the money it has received since its inception through a series of cash infusions from the Cape Light Compact.
Based upon the information provided in response to its requests for information, the Special Committee has verified approximately $2.4 million of such transfers of funds from CLC to CVEC.
In addition, as the Barnstable Patriot has reported and as CLC's executive administrator has verified, the Cape Light Compact has apparently paid some of CVEC's "legal and development costs" directly out of its own accounts. The extent of such direct payments of expenses, if any, is unclear, but financial information that has recently been provided by CLC regarding its Operating Budget seem to indicate that legal expenses have risen sharply over the past three years.
Various members of the public, and the Special Committee, have questioned the propriety of such transfers of CLC ratepayer funds to CVEC and whether they were duly authorized and approved by the appropriate bodies, including the governing board of CLC.
As noted, one of the core recommendations of the Special Committee, therefore, is that the Compact should discontinue its subsidies of CVEC's operating losses and that CVEC should be restructured as an independent, self-sustaining entity.
We urge every member of CLC and CVEC to consider the findings of this report and to offer your full support to the Special Committee, and to the full Assembly of Delegates, as it considers appropriate remedies to address the significant structural problems that have been identified.
The report and can be also accessed on the Barnstable County Assembly webpage under "Committees and Reports and Minutes," at the bottom of the page, under the heading for the Special Committee:
For your convenience, the "Conclusions and Recommendations" of the Report to the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates are excerpted below.
Sincerely,
Eric Bibler
-------------------------------
Conclusions and Recommendations
The SubCommittee recommends that the Assembly adopt the following recommendations:
1. Refer this report and its recommendations to the Massachusetts Inspector General’s office with a request that the IG review CLC’s operations and conduct a forensic audit for entire operation from inception to present.
2. Require a forensic audit of Cape Light Compact by an independent CPA, (preferably chosen by some uninvolved entity) from the inception of CLC to the present, including all revenues, all disbursements, all accounts, should be completed as soon as possible, and in any event before 12/31/2012.
3. The two organizations should be separately controlled and each should have a separate CEO. If the present Executive Director continues as CEO of CLC, she should resign her corporate positions as an officer and board member of CVEC. Neither the County Administrator nor the Chief Financial Officer should be an officer or member of either organization. The Executive Committee of each organization, and the Board of each organization should not have over-lapping members. The position of Assistant County Administrator should be restructured, and the incumbent should be assigned to only one position.
4. The Subcommittee recommends that the Bylaws of each of these organizations be revised as necessary to ensure that (1) all budgets and financial reports are reviewed and approved by full Board (not executive committee) and (2) conflicts of interest issues involving counsel, including compensation of counsel’s firm, should be submitted to independent, unaffiliated counsel for review and opinion.
5. The Subcommittee recommends that these organizations have separate legal counsel for separate functions: that is, corporate counsel providing advice and representation of CLC and/or CVEC should not be same attorney providing “general contractor, contract negotiation services”, for energy projects to be funded by CLC or CVEC.
6. The Subcomittee also recommends that CLC limit the use of rate-payer funds to subsidize the operation of CVEC and that CVEC be restructured to become an independent entity, financially solvent with own revenues (independent of CLC).
7. Finally, the Subcommittee recommends that all officers of any organization doing business under an Intermunicipal service agreement with Barnstable County be required to attend training on governmental practices such as Open Meeting Laws, Posting of Meetings, Records Requests and Keeping of Minutes. This requirement should be applied to include all Boards and Committees conducting the business of Barnstable County.
Wind turbines loomed heavily in town Monday night as selectmen and board of health members at separate meetings voted on measures meant to address residents' health concerns.Cape Cod Times/Steve Heaslip
FALMOUTH — Wind turbines loomed heavily in town Monday night as selectmen and board of health members at separate meetings voted on measures meant to address residents' health concerns.
Selectmen voted in favor of shutting down Wind 1, one of the town's two 1.65-megawatt turbines off Blacksmith Shop Road, from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. each day.
Stopping Wind 1's operation for 12 hours each day represents a compromise between the town and some people who live near the turbines and for more than a year have complained of nausea, vertigo and other health problems, said Mary Pat Flynn, chairman of the board of selectmen.
Mitigation efforts began last month when the Cambridge-based Consensus Building Institute, the firm hired by selectmen, began working with stakeholders — abutters, anti- and pro-turbine people and town officials — to gauge opinions of possible solutions. Residents opposed to the turbines wanted them turned off completely, Flynn said.
Next week, the firm will start the process of nominating people to serve on a committee responsible for making recommendations to selectmen. Shutting off Wind 1 for half of each day could begin as early as two weeks from now, Flynn said.
However, this action will further affect the turbines' revenue stream, which already dropped when selectmen ordered they shut off when they reach 23 mph or more, said Falmouth Wastewater Superintendent Gerald Potamis, who oversees the turbines.
"If they run half the time, they only produce ... half the power and only produce half the revenue," Potamis said.
The action does not go far enough, said Falmouth resident Malcolm Donald, a Wind 2 abutter.
"It escapes me why they're not shutting down Wind 2 from 7 (p.m.) to 7 (a.m.)" too, Donald said on Tuesday. "It's a start for entering into the consensus building, (but) the consensus building can drag on for months if not years."
Rather than attend Monday's selectmen's meeting, Donald went to the board of health's meeting, where members scheduled a public hearing for 7 p.m. May 24 to hear comments about the turbines' alleged health effects.
"We made a decision last night that we would set up a hearing "» to allow folks who believe they're being affected by the turbines to submit written testimony," said board member Stephen Rafferty on Tuesday.
Some people who attended the board of health meeting asserted that an abutter to the turbines recently attempted suicide because of ailments caused by the turbines, but board members cut off that discussion when those making the claim could not authenticate it, Rafferty said.
Board of health members will use testimony submitted to them as guidelines in deciding whether they should order an emergency shutdown of the turbines, said board member Jared Goldstone..
"I think it's something that's been building for a while," said Goldstone, who added that state officials at the Department of Environmental Protection have been largely mute in responding to town requests for guidance. "We have written letters to the state that haven't received direct replies."
Residents who submit written testimony before the hearing — specifically about negative health effects resulting from exposure to turbines — may summarize their points in front of the board, Goldstone said.
The board of health will accept written testimony until May 31.
Well at least when the V112 burns up like the one in Germany they have sited it in a wetland with lots of artificial material or as they call it geosynthetic roads and lots more concrete. Sounds really eco friendly. As long as they qualify for cash they really don't care.
The first North American installation of the Vestas V112-3.0 MWwind turbine is scheduled to begin later this month at EDPRenewables' (EDPR) 216 MW Marble River Wind Farm, located in Clinton County, N.Y.
The May 21 arrival of the Vestas V112 turbines comes less than twomonths after the V112 caught fire at a wind farm near Lower Saxony, Germany. Vestas said the fire was caused by an arc flash, which was theresult of a loose connection in the tower's harmonic filter cabinet.
Despite the V112's notoriety, Vestas says the incident will not affect the turbinesthat will be used at the Marble River project.
"Vestas has discussed this issue with EDPR, and we believe there will be no impact to the Marble River project," a company spokesperson told NAW.
Dan Fitzgerald, project manager at EDP Renewables (EDPR), expects the MarbleRiver project to be completed by the end of October, in time for the project to qualify for the Section 1603 cash grant. To qualify for the program, projects are required to have started construction by Dec. 31, 2011, and be completed by Dec.31, 2012.
According to Peter Geelan, project manager at Tetra Tech Construction - the windfarm's balance-of-plant and electrical contractor - turbine testing andcommissioning are slated for mid-June.
In addition to its inclusion of the V112 wind turbines, the Marble River project isnotable for its geotechnical challenges, Geelan says. For instance, large tracts ofwetlands surround the area.
"It's a very moist site - if we're not in mud, we're in rock," Geelan explains, addingthat geosynthetic materials were needed to increase the tensile strength on theaccess roads.
What's more, concrete needed to be added to the foundation design in areas with ahigh water table, Geelan says.
The moist conditions caused by local wetlands also created some permittingconcerns for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the New York Department ofEnvironmental Conservation.
To reduce the project’s impact on the wetlands, EDPR made modifications to thewind farm's original layout - for instance, the company reduced the number ofturbines from 109 to 74. In fact, the site’s moist conditions are what led EDPR toselect the Vestas V112 wind turbine over its original choice, Suzlon's S88 2 MWwind turbine.
Other modifications included decreasing the length of both the proposed accessroads and the buried electrical collection lines, Geelan says.
Thus far, about 20 of the 70 turbine foundations have been poured, and nearly halfof the access roads have been completed, Geelan adds.
We, the people of the Netherlands, are asking for support. In our densely populated country, they are planning huge wind farms next to our homes. In spite of all the reports about negative health aspects caused by industrial wind turbines, the requests for more wind farms are piling up.We are afraid that many people will get sick and therefore we want to ask the government to stop the planning of building more turbines.Apart from the health aspects, we are afraid that there will be a large environmental impact, no nature left and that we will not be able to leave because the houses become unmarketable.Therefore, we ask you to sign this petition in order to help us with our struggle.
Petition:
We, the people of the Netherlands, conclude that the wind turbines will be harmful to our HEALTH, our FINANCES, our NATURE and our SAFETY.Therefore we ask:That the Ministry of Economy, Agriculture and Innovation, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, the Municipalities and the Provincial Governments to stop the building of wind turbine farms in our immediate environment right now.
BARNSTABLE — A special county panel recommends that ties between two regional energy agencies be severed and that the finances of one of the agencies be examined by an independent auditor and the state inspector general's office.
In a 17-page report scheduled for formal release next week but obtained by the Times, the county's Assembly of Delegates Special Subcommittee on Cape Light Compact and Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative made seven basic recommendations.
The report was approved by a vote of the subcommittee at its last meeting on Wednesday.
The Compact was created in 1997 to buy energy in bulk for residents of the Cape and the Vineyard, as well as to provide energy-efficiency programs.
The cooperative was formed in 2007 to pursue renewable energy projects for its members, which include 16 local towns, the compact and Barnstable and Dukes counties. It has received more than $2 million from the Compact to keep it afloat.
The cooperative is moving forward with a slew of solar energy projects across the Cape and Vineyard after struggling to develop wind energy projects in several towns.
The highlights of the report include a recommendation that the inspector general review the group's findings and that the Compact undergo a forensic audit by an outside auditor.
The five-member subcommittee also recommended that the Compact and the cooperative be separately controlled and that each have a separate chief executive officer and separate legal counsel. Ratepayer funds collected by the Compact should not be used to support the cooperative and members of the boards of both groups should not overlap, according to the recommendations.
"We found that there was just so many people who were involved in both organizations," said Ron Bergstrom, speaker of the Assembly of Delegates and chairman of the subcommittee. "Even though (the cooperative) was kind of a spinoff of (the Compact) it is really a separate organization. We thought that that was an issue."
Once the committee reports its recommendations back to the full assembly, its job is over, Bergstrom said, adding that the full assembly could decide to take action or not.
The subcommittee did not base its work on opposition to wind energy, which first sparked objections by members of the public to the relationship between the Compact and cooperative, he said.
Bergstrom said he hopes the two organizations issue a "substantive" response.
Cooperative president Charles McLaughlin said he had not seen the report but doesn't like what he has heard so far.
"(The cooperative) is not subject to county oversight, and as I understand some of the wording of this, they're attempting to mandate actions of (the cooperative) and we reject that outright," he said.
Cooperative officials were willing to sit down and go over any questions before the report was issued but that didn't happen, McLaughlin said
"This confirmed my worst fears, that this was a mob with preconceived notions of what they wanted accomplished and they've done it," he said.
The inspector general's office has no jurisdiction over the concerns raised in the report, McLaughlin said.
"We will respond more substantively as time goes along," he said.
Barnstable County Assistant Administrator Maggie Downey, who is also the administrator for the Compact and the clerk for the cooperative, said keeping membership of the two organizations separate may not be a bad idea, but it is up to the members and organizations.
Some of the other recommendations are already being addressed, including a vote of the Compact to eventually stop funding the operations of the cooperative, she said.
The optimistic message of Fritz Vahrenholt, climate dissenter and CEO of RWE Innogy
"The sun is giving us time to come up with smarter solutions for the Energiewende"
By Marcel Crok European Energy Review 2 May 2012
Fritz Vahrenholt, head of the renewable energy arm of RWE and a former hero of the German environmental movement, has been derided in Germany as a lobbyist for the fossil fuel sector after he published a book highly critical of the global warming consensus. But Vahrenholt's message is far from simplistic. He supports the idea of an "Energy Transformation", but argues that the current German approach is too costly and even counterproductive. Germany's renewable energy policies are undermining the country's biodiversity and destroying its forests, he says in an interview with EER. He is convinced that the contribution of CO2 to global warming is being exaggerated and that there is more time to come to genuinely sustainable solutions. "We run the risk of destroying the foundations of our prosperity."
Departing RWE Innogy chief executive Fritz Vahrenholt (c) RWE Innogy
For decades he was a hero of the German environmental movement, but with the recent publication of his book Die Kalte Sonne (The Forgotten Sun) Fritz Vahrenholt (62) has become something of a public enemy to the climate-minded Germans. The subtitle of the book is: "Why the climate catastrophe is not taking place" (Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht statt findet). The title and subtitle together sum up the main message of the book: there is climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but the influence of the sun has so far been underestimated. As the sun is heading towards a more inactive phase we will not get a climate catastrophe in the next century.
Although this can be viewed as a positive message, many people in Germany don’t see it that way. The book has been severely criticized in German quality newspapers although a more popular newspaper like Bild shouted 'The CO2 Lie' in a headline. Die Zeit called him 'Störenfritz', troublemaker Fritz. A planned lecture at the University of Osnabrück was cancelled because the university found the topic too provocative. Meanwhile the book is selling very well (22,000 so far) and for this reason some newspapers are already comparing him with Thilo Sarrazin, the controversial politician who published the book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Abolishes Itself) in which Sarrazin criticized German immigration politics. Sarrazin had to give up his job at the Deutsche Bundesbank but he sold a spectacular 1.2 million copies of his book.
What makes it all the more spicy is that Vahrenholt is not just anyone. Since five years he has been CEO of RWE Innogy, the part of RWE responsible for the production of renewable energy. RWE Innogy “aims to vigorously grow renewable energies in Europe”, it says on its website, and the company has3.7 GW of renewables assets in its portfolio (2.6 GW in operation and 1.1 GW under construction). RWE, however, is also the biggest German producer of coal- and lignite-based electricity. Critics therefore see a direct conflict of interest. Vahrenholt’s coauthor Sebastian Lüningworks for RWE DEA, the oil productionarm of RWE. In the interview that EER had with Vahrenholt in Essen, he says their connection with RWE makes it even harder to have a constructive public debate about the book and about climate change. “People are saying ‘we don’t have to read that book because it is influenced by the company’. I can tell you that’s not true. Lots of people inside RWE do not support this book,because it is politically incorrect”.
In 1978 Vahrenholt, who is a chemical scientist by education, wrote the book Seveso ist überall. Die tödlichen Risiken der Chemie (Seveso is everywhere. The deadly risks of chemistry). The book was a bestseller and Vahrenholt became a friend of the environmental movement. “The book was critical about the chemical industry. I was the good guy.” In the eighties he went into politics and became ‘Umweltsenator’ (senator for the environment) in Hamburg. In 1998 he moved to Shell where his task was to improve the image of the oil company after the controversy around the Brent Spar. In 2001 he became CEO of REpower Systems, a wind energy company, before he switched to RWE Innogy in 2007.
Under his leadership, RWE increased its production of renewable energy from 1 to 4.3% of the company’s total electricity production and 7.6% of its capacity. RWE Innogy employs 1450 people. Later this year Vahrenholt will step down as CEO of RWE Innogy(he will remain on the Supervisory Board of the company) and become president of the German Wild Animals Foundation (Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung).
When your job is to produce renewable energy and when you are responsible for almost 1500 employees, what made you decide to write such a detailed book about the global warming debate?
This was directly related to my work. Every year RWE invests 1.2 billion euros in RWE Innogy. But in 2009 there was little wind in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and our profits went down. During the annual meeting, Jürgen Großmann, the CEO of RWE, said to me: ‘I give you so much money, but you bring back too little, what’s going on?’ I said there is no wind. He said ‘come on, next
Jürgen Großmann said to me: 'I give you so much money, but you bring back too little, what's going on?'
year I don’t want to hear the same excuse’. But 2010 was again not very windy as was 2011. However, the climate models of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body which coordinates international climate research, editor) said the rise of CO2 concentrations would lead to more wind in Northern Europe!I started looking in the scientific literature and found out the lack of wind had nothing to do with CO2 and global warming. In our region the weather is influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), a natural cycle with a period of about 60 years. For 30 years you have more wind in the winter, for 30 years less. And if there is less wind the winters are colder, like they were in 2009 and 2010. I published my findings in an op-ed in Die Welt in 2010. I was criticized by Stefan Rahmstorf, a well-known and influential German climate scientist. Sebastian Lüning then wrote in a reaction on Rahmstorf’s blog there was some merit in my analysis. I discovered that Lüning also worked for RWE and that we actually worked in the same building in Hamburg. We decided to team up and two years later we finished the book.
But you could have written a couple of op-eds, why a 450 page book in which you criticize mainstream climate science and the IPCC?
In Germany the Energiewende (energy transition) is mainly driven by fear of climate change. There is a generally accepted idea that global warming or climate change is the major environmental crisis facing us and that we have to act now. In my opinion this leads to hasty measures which cost the German economy many billions of euros. So when Sebastian and I realized we are being misinformed by the climate establishment, a book was the logical consequence.
Did you have indications that the dangers of global warming were overblown?
For years I believed the science of the IPCC was solid. I had the famous hockey stick graph (a graph purporting to show that current global temperatures are by far the highest in the last 1000 years, editor) in all my presentations. But then I read the book The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, which is very critical about this graph. Slowly I started to realize we have been misguided by the IPCC about the natural fluctuations in the climate in the past thousands of years. The whole purpose of the IPCC has been to get rid of the so-called Medieval Warm Period, a warm period around the year 1000 when the Vikings settled on Greenland and were able to live there for a couple of centuries. After this warm period we have had the Little Ice Age which coincided with a very quiet sun. Many papers have been published in the last few years which show that the Little Ice Age was not a local European phenomena, as the IPCC suggests. So yes, the IPCC has underestimated the natural fluctuations of the climate and overestimated the role of CO2.
You do not deny though that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it will generate warming. What is the main difference between your view and the generally accepted view that CO2 is currently the dominant climate factor?
The IPCC has made a couple of errors. The first is that they have diminished the influence of the sun to about five percent of the effect of CO2. So the IPCC is claiming that since the end of the Little Ice Age CO2 caused twenty times more warming than the sun. In this period the sun went from a very quiet to a
The fear for climate change is so big that the Germans are even sacrificing their forests
very active state. From 1950 to 2000 the sun was more active than it has been for probably a thousandyears. Now the IPCC mainly looks at sunspots and what is called total solar irradiation. But there is more, there is the strong magnetic field of the sun and there are probably mechanisms in the climate system that amplify fluctuations in solar activity. The amplifying mechanisms are still under investigation, but the IPCC ignores these in their climate models. We therefore think that the contribution of the sun is much larger and that it can explain around 50 percent of the warming we have had so far. This also means the effect of CO2 is smaller.
A second major issue is that temperatures have been on a plateau now for fifteen years. Yes it is warm, but it has not been getting warmer anymore. When we and other critics point this out we are criticized. Our critics say fifteen years is not enough to make judgments about the climate. However the climate models of the IPCC expected a warming of 0.2 degrees between 2000 and 2010 and another 0.2 degrees until 2020. So far this warming has not taken place. We can explain this, but the IPCC should come up with an explanation too. So far they haven’t done this. Worse, most people are not even aware that the climate hasn’t been warming for the past fifteen years.
Has the IPCC failed to provide us with a balanced assessment of the scientific literature?
In 2010 I was asked to review a special IPCC report on renewable energy. I noted many errors and in the end someone from Greenpeace edited a main part of the summary of the report. A Greenpeace scenario, claiming that in 2050 we can produce 80 percent of our energy with renewables was presented as one of the major conclusions. The approach was not very scientific and I started wondering how other IPCC reports were being made.
I found out that one third of the core writing team of the Summary for Policymakers in 2007 had connections with Greenpeace and WWF. Now I don’t claim this proves the report is false, but suppose that people found out that IPCC summary reports were written by people with connections to Exxon or Shell, would that be acceptable?
The IPCC is first of all a political organization. Most of the 31 members of the IPCC Secretary come from developing countries like Sudan, Madagascar, Iran or Cuba. These countries are mainly interested in having money transferred from the north to the south. From that perspective it is understandablethat they do not support the view that the sun is playing a major role in global warming.
In recent years there has been growing evidence that the effect of black carbon on the climate is much bigger than we thought, more than fifty percent of the effect of CO2. This is something that we can address relatively easy in a global program. However, black carbon is a problem of the south, of Africa and countries like China and India. So the UN will never address this as a main topic.
With the book you have made your own assessment of the literature and you have even made your own prediction of the future. What can we expect?
The IPCC has underestimated the influence of a natural 60 year cycle, which is dominated by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. The climate models cannot yet simulate these natural variations. So part of the recent warming was not caused by CO2. These oscillations now move from their warm to their cooler phase. And at the same time the sun is moving to an inactive phase. We therefore expect cooling to at least 2035 and maybe even 2050. But we do expect a modest warming from greenhouse gases in 2100, in the order of one degree Celsius. So the good news is that we can stay below the two degree target. The sun is giving us time to make sensible decisions about the energy transition.
Are you suggesting that Germany is not taking the right steps?
Indeed I think we are on an awkward energy path. To give a few examples: on twenty percent of our agricultural land we are growing energy crops, mainly corn. This monoculture is endangering natural diversity. We are burning wheat to produce bioethanol. For the first time in forty years we even have to
Importing food like wheat for energy use, is that really the solution we want?
import wheat. Importing food like wheat for energy use, is that really the solution we want? Several federal states (Länder) are opening up their forests for wind energy with dramatic impacts. For each wind turbine you have to cut a hole in the forest of five to seven hectares. To build a turbine of 80 tons you need big cranes and a road through the forest. A lot of forest will be destroyed and many animals, like bats for example, will be killed. The fear for climate change is so big that the Germans are even sacrificing their forests.
Is Germany too ambitious in its climate targets?
Only Europe, Australia and New Zealand are taking measures against CO2 but these countries emit only 14 percent of the world’s total. Other important countries, like China, the US, India, Canada, Japan don’t support a binding agreement. China alone is responsible for 25 percent of the global CO2 emissions and its share is growing rapidly. They have overtaken France last year in emission per capita with 6.8 tons. When I was senator, twenty years ago, they emitted only one ton per capita. Next year they will overtake the UK and in three years Germany. In 2020 they will even catch up with the US.So the contribution of Germany and even Europe is relatively small. At the same time our policy is to run 10 or 20 years ahead of the others. In this way we’re destroying the foundations of our prosperity. In the end what we are doing is putting the German automotive sector at risk, the steel, copper and chemical sectors, silicon, you name it.
So you are saying that Germany should be less ambitious, also with their transition to renewable energy? That seems quite remarkable for the CEO of a renewable energy company.
Look I am in favor of the transition to renewable energy but my point is that this transition costs a lot of time. I see big opportunitiesfor wind energy along the North Sea coast and RWE is investing a lot of money there. But what Germany is doing now is incredible. Although we get the same amount of sunlight as Alaska, 800 hours a year, we have installed 50 percent of the global solar PV capacity. With all these solar roofs we generate only three percent of our electricity but it is costing us 8 billion a year! And this will go on for twenty years because of the feed-in tariff. One of the arguments is that it’s generating jobs but this is only partly true, because nowadays 85% of the panels are coming from
Although we get the same amount of sunlight as Alaska, 800 hours a year, we have installed 50 percent of the global solar PV capacity
China and the US. Meanwhile our grid is not ready for large amounts of renewable energy. We have a huge problem with the stability. Either there is not enough power and we have to import from France or as happened last week, we had the opposite problem, a surplus of electricity. On Sundays we need a capacity of around 35,000 MW only, on an average day 50,000 and in winter it can be as much as 80,000. Now we have 27,000 MW wind and 28,000 MW solar capacity, so what do you do on a Sunday when it is windy and sunny? Right now we have to give it to our neighbors who take it for negative prices.Solar is doing nothing for the frequency stability of the network. So we need conventional power for back-up, nuclear or gas fired stations. Plans for the Energiewende date from 2010 and included nuclear for the transition phase. Now that we have phased out nuclear power Germany’s plans are even more ambitious. Renewable energy gets priority on the grid. For this reason nobody dares to invest in gas fired power stations anymore.Our current approach is a dead end.
So how can Germany get out of this dead end?
The exit is Europe. The Energiewende should be a European task. It makes no sense to do it with solar power in Flensburg Solar when you can do it in Andalusia for one third of the cost. Wind energy in the Po delta in Italy makes no sense either. But before we can do it on a European scale we need a pan-European grid. Building such a grid will take us at least twenty years.
Do you see a role for shale gas in the transition phase?
Shale gas is going to revolutionize the energy sector, I am quite sure about that. Four years ago thanks to shale gas the US became a gas exporting country. In Europe we have a huge belt of shale gas under the UK, the North Sea, The Netherlands, Lower Saxony to Poland. North Rhine-Westphalia has enough shale gas for a hundred years and this is one of the most industrialized regions of Europe. France has forbidden the exploration of shale gas by law, which is ridiculous. There you see the influence of the nuclear lobby. Poland is depending on gas from Putin and will certainly extract it. The UK is open for shale gas because the oil and gas from the North Sea, on which their prosperity was based, is declining very rapidly. In Germany there is a moratorium even for shale gas exploration. We have to be very transparent about the environmental risks, but in my opinion we should start the exploration of shale gas. We need gas for all the periods that there is little or no wind. Shale gas is more than a bridge, it’s a game changer.
You are soon stepping down as CEO of RWE Innogy, is this because your opinions conflict too much with the interests of the company?
No, I told my people my book is not controversial for Innogy. We have to invest in all those energy sources that end up in 10 euro cents per kwh or below. I see the price of electricity at that level beyond 2020. If we depend on subsidies forever we are in the wrong business.Wind onshore will come down from 9 to 6 cents, offshore will come down from 15 to 10. Large scale biomass can get to this level as
The exit is Europe. The Energiewende should be a European task.
well. We need biomass because wind and solar are volatile and if you want renewable energy as balancing power you can only use biomass and hydropower. Hydro is a no-brainer, it has always been competitive. Until 2025 the target for RWE is 25 to 30% renewables which is a nice target for a company and also for society. But that’s it, the system integration costs above 50% renewables are very, very steep. Some greens want 100% renewables. What do you do on a day like today, when it’s cloudy and there is no wind? If you want to store electricity for ten days, because ten days without much wind happens every now and then, how much pump storage do you need? We calculated this, it’s the Bodensee up to the top of the Zugspitze, the highest mountain in Germany, and then in ten days the lake is empty.I don’t exclude storage in batteries or as hydrogen, but it must be commercial. Wind energy to hydrogen through electrolysis cost you 20 cents today. We have a long way to go. But hundred years ago we didn’t know how to drive cars and airplanes. I am very optimistic about the skill of engineers but it will take a generation. Therefore I have a positive message with my book: we do not have to do silly things because we still have time.
Under pressure from business groups, the Legislature has backed away from a plan to require utilities to buy a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources.
The energy bill is one of the last pieces of legislation awaiting action before the 2012 session adjourns.
But the business community opposed a section of the bill that said utilities had to step up their purchase of renewable power supplies. They argued that would raise electricity rates and not do much to improve Vermont's greenhouse gas footprint.
East Montpelier Democrat Tony Klein chairs the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. He said some utilities were also skeptical about the legislature mandating a renewable portfolio standard. He said the utilities benefit now from selling credits from their own clean energy projects.
"It's no secret that we heard from business on that end. And heard from utilities that are also the ones that are selling the RECs. So that is not a hard one for my committee to adapt to," Klein said.
Governor Peter Shumlin says he wants the Legislature to pass the energy bill. But his administration supports the compromise. Elizabeth Miller heads the Department of Public Service.
"Studying the issues that have been brought up also seems appropriate to us. And frankly it's an issue of ensuring that views are respected, compromises are reached and progress continues," Miller said.
Associated Industries of Vermont and other business organizations have been urging the Legislature to drop the renewable mandate.
In the first part of this wind industry cover-up story, it was pointed out how California Condors were trapped from the wild in the mid 1980s as an emergency response to save the quickly disappearing population from thousands of turbines that had been placed in the Tehachapi Pass region.
What is not known is that during this same period of time in the 1980s, tens of thousands of other birds also perished at California wind farms. If one chooses not to believe any of this, then knowing how the industry responded in 1989 should convince anybody about the ongoing 28 year mortality cover-up by the wind industry.
In the 1980s as the turbine numbers and size expanded, wind personnel began seeing increasing numbers bird carcasses around the turbines. Due to the severity of the avian mortality problem, the wind industry adopted a strategy for survival; whatever happens on a wind farm, must stay on the wind farm. They knew that without a witnesses or bodies it is tough to prove anything. So with their on site high security, gag orders in lease contracts and workers fearful of losing their jobs, it helped them to maintain this concealment.
But there still were some lose ends. In 1985, the same year the 10 -13 missing condors came to light, a bird mortality study at the San Gorgonio pass wind turbines was being conducted by a competent ornithologist named Michael D. McCrary. In 1986 he came forward with his results. From his research he estimated that 6,800 birds were being killed annually by the 2947 turbines in this wind resource area. He also discovered that virtually all of the fatalities were smaller birds and that the turbines were killing nocturnal migrants.
These were astounding numbers and his report should have been an immediate red flag for the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The McCrary study should have prompted immediate follow-up studies at the three major wind resource areas in California about the impacts of the propeller style wind turbine. These wind resource areas were Altamont Pass, Tehachapi Pass and the San Gorgonio pass.
Instead the opposite took place. The research and study of the impacts from wind turbines came to a stand still.
Then in 1988 the California Energy Commission stepped in and funded a study to examine the extent of avian mortality at the three major wind resource areas in California. Even though the wind projects were being conducted with secrecy on private land, the public was becoming aware of the wind turbine impacts. Concern was building because word was coming in from the field about dead eagles and raptors with horrific injuries were showing up in wildlife rehab centers. This new study was an attempt to “document the reported” losses at each wind farm from November 1984 until April 1988. A period of 3-1/2 years. It was titled “Avian mortality at large wind energy facilities in California: identification of a problem”.
When this report was written the number of wind turbines in California had almost doubled from the 1984 figure of 8500 to 15,000. The report even acknowledges that “since 1984 there has been a yearly increase in the reported incidents from the Altamont pass area”. But it was downplayed with a statement that “it was unknown whether this results from an increase in collision incidents or an increase in reporting.”
The McCrary study had already reported several years earlier that approximately 2.3 fatalities were occurring at each turbine per year or approximately 34.4 per MW at San Gorgonio pass wind turbines. Keeping those numbers in mind and using these same ratios for all of California, gives us a mortality figure of 34,000 mortalities for the 15,000 turbines in 1988 and 19,550 for the 8500 turbines in 1984. When the other year and a half is added to the total and adjusted for the changing turbine numbers, you would get approximately 40,000 additional fatalities.
By using the McCrary figures, there would be an estimated total of 93,950 avian fatalities for California from November 1984 up through April 1988.
At that time the wind industry knew they could never survive these fatality numbers because the public would not stand for it. So the 1989 California Energy Commission report, in an attempt to rewrite history, came to some startling conclusions and opinions about the fatalities at the three major wind recourse areas from 1984 to 1988. They claimed that “the purpose of the study was to document avian collision and electrocution incidents at wind energy facilities.” But it really wasn’t a study at all. It was nothing but a list of the wandering wounded raptors of documented incidents that had escaped the secrecy of California wind farms. These were the only incidents that could be proven by the outside world regarding what was happening around the turbines.
This study would mark the beginning of a new era of deception for the wind industry, the California Energy Commission and Government Wildlife agencies. Their study revealed 72 incidents of avian fatalities involving wind generators and associated powerlines over a 3-1/2 year time period. Power lines were even given a portion of the blame in these 72 fatalities. Topping it off, all collision incidents occurred at only two of the wind resource areas in California,nothing was reported from San Gorgonio.
Tens of thousands of birds and raptors had been killed by these new wind farms and this document was the best the CEC, the USFWS, and CA DFG could come up with. Looking back anyone should be able to see that the obvious purpose of this study was not to document avian collisions at wind farms, but was to say as little as possible about this problem.
In my opinion this 1989 study, report or what ever you want to call it, is mother lode of all bogus wind documents. Even sadder, is the fact that the figures produced by this document have been quoted in deceptive studies and reports promoting the wind industry for over 20 years.
The reality was that since 1984, eagles and other protected species were being slaughtered like never before in America. It was as if the Migratory bird treaty and the laws pertaining to the “take” of protected species had never been written. If they wanted, the USFWS and DFG could have pulled the trigger on this industry any time they wanted. It did not matter a bit that any of this was on private property. With these agencies, if there is reason to believe wildlife violations are being committed, there are no fences.
In a perfect world, none of these the agencies would have dismissed the McCrary study. Anytime they wanted to document what was really happening at the wind resource areas, they would have went to each of the wind farms to look for themselves. Then they would interviewed the hundreds of workers and security personnel that witnessed the bodies piling up. For workers, it would have been easy to see dead birds lying in the clearings around installed wind turbines. Workers and security driving around on the service roads that feed into every turbine (see images), would have seen plenty because large birds can be seen from several hundred yards away. Workers would have also been witness to the fact that these turbines were knocking down all types of birds. Not just raptors.
Service roads
The USFWS, and CA DFG should have then demanded real studies. But they didn’t. Instead they did what they are still doing for this industry. The upper levels of these agencies helped the wind industry cover up this problem. They did this by taking no action by not initiating any proper studies. However they did do something, they wrote a letter.
This supposedly bold action taken by the USFWS is even mentioned in the California Energy Commission study. “The concern of avian mortality on large wind farms has been renewed in recent years. In 1985 and 1986 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) received several reports of raptor mortality or injury from the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. This prompted action by the USFWS in the form of a letter to all wind resource developers and operators in the Altamont Pass wind resource area informing them of the legal implications of causing death or injury to eagles and other raptors. In addition their assistance was requested in investigating the actual take of these protected species in the Altamont Pass Resource area. This action led to the support and cooperation of several Altamont Pass wind energy companies. However this effort by the USFWS did not extend to the wind resource developers and operators in the Tehachapi Pass and San Gorgonio pass resource areas.”
As we all know, that letter did nothing for the ongoing carnage.
For the wind industry what the McCrary study really proved was that what happens at Altamont Pass is not unique. Everywhere birds are mixed with the propeller style wind turbines, they get slaughtered. But unlike Altamont where studies from 1998-2004 estimated mortality as high as 2,277 raptors and 11,520 birds killed each year, the McCrary studies not only showed higher numbers but also showed a much higher percentage of small birds being killed.
I have looked over all the studies produced from Altamont and all have serious flaws. If the true numbers of small birds being killed were added to the mortality reported from Altamont pass, there would be at least 2-3 times more fatalities. In other words at least 25,000 birds per year. One of the primary reasons for the flawed mortalities figures coming out of Altamont is a result of the studies being conducted on 30-90 day cycles. These studies are missing most of the smaller birds and bats. To find these smaller species, mortality searches must be conducted on a daily basis to keep up with the multitude of ravens, gulls, and mammals that are eating them.
Conducting searches on a daily basis will also serve another useful function. It would keep researchers ahead of the worst scavengers of all, wind industry personnel. Security and maintenance workers would then not be able pick up the bodies of highly sensitive species. Important rare species like peregrine falcons, white-tailed kites, condors, and whooping cranes, could then be reported instead of hidden.
If anyone thinks that this is not going on within the secure boundaries of wind farms, then consider these facts. The only peregrine falcon ever found killed and reported at Altamont Pass was during a mortality study being conducted on a 2 day search cycle. This same study also recorded the highest mortality ever for Altamont Pass because researchers were getting to more of the smaller birds. It is also my belief from my research, that theMcCrary 1986 study from San Gorgonio Pass study has never been given to Congress by the California Energy Commission when many other worthless wind industry studies have.
Yes, the industry today now admits to more fatalities at 2.9 per MW but this is still 12 times less than the 34.34 fatalities per MW reported in 1986 by McCrary. The low 2.9 per MW figures have been deliberately cooked up by the industry. It has been done by using industry approved grossly undersized search areas and studies that do not look for fatalities on 1 day search cycles. They also do not use trained dogs because with trained dogs far more birds and bats would be found in a fraction of the time. The industry is well aware of all of this.
Today there are USFWS voluntary guidelines currently in place for the wind industry and they have been there all along. From the very beginning this industry has never been required to say or report anything of substance. As anyone can see from the information I have presented in this report, this is what you get with volunteer guidelines. We are lied to. Today all the same problems that existed in the 1980′s, are still with us. The industry still continues to operate their wind farms like Area 51 in Nevada and they generate any of the needed paperwork to keep things that way.
I can not bring back the millions of birds killed by this industry. I can not undo what has already been done. But I can educate people to this very real and growing problem. Millions of birds being killed by this expanding industry and it is going to get a lot worse. This is not a problem about English Sparrows and Starlings; it is about hundreds of other species that need the habitats where these turbines are being placed. They can not coexist with these turbines and never will.
My intention with this report is for the public to understand the path this industry has always taken. Then by using this knowledge the necessary changes can be facilitated.
If nothing is done, the rapid expansion of the wind industry will absolutely bring about the extinction of several bird species and forever change the remaining bird populations on this planet. Society can not wait for the wind industry to come clean and move away from their propeller style wind turbine. It may never happen.
But the public can force this to happen with enough support. A good place start would be for some ethical USFWS mandatory guidelines and for the public to end the wind industry tax credits.
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Impact of Tax Policies on the Commercial Application of Renewable Energy Technology Testimony of Lisa C. Linowes April 19, 2012 I. Introduction
My name is Lisa Linowes. Since 2006, I've served as executive director and spokesperson for the Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group, a national advocacy group focused on the impact/benefits analysis and policy issues associated with industrial-scale wind energy development. As publisher and editor of IWA's website (windaction.org), I track news and research pertaining to industrial wind, provide commentary, and facilitate information sharing on the issue. I hold a BS in Software Science from the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, New York and a Masters in Business Administration from Southern New Hampshire University. A more complete biography is included with this testimony. The findings and opinions I am presenting here are entirely my own but reflect the official position of IWA. II Background and Purpose
Energy policy in the United States calls for the aggressive deployment of renewable generation which has led to an explosion of expensive renewable resources that are variable, operating largely off-peak, off-season and are located in rural areas with limited transmission.
By the end of 2011, nearly 47,000 megawatts (MW) of on-shore wind was installed in the United States representing less than 3% of total electricity generation in the country. Based on the interconnection queues of each grid region in the US, industrial wind is the dominant renewable resource representing more than 90% of the proposed generating capacity of all renewable energy projects in the United States.
My testimony looks at recent trends in the US wind industry including the impacts of advancing significant wind resources. I also examine the effect of the production tax credit and Section 1603 in driving growth. III Testimony 1. The Wind Mandate: 20% Wind Power By 2030
In 2008, the US Department of Energy (DOE) published 20% Wind Energy by 20301, a report that examined the technical feasibility of using wind energy to generate 20% of the nation‟s electricity demand by 2030. The report, which called for the deployment of 305,000 MW of wind by the year 2030, including 54,000 MW offshore, has served as the foundation for ongoing advocacy of wind development in the US.
The American Wind Energy Association insists the industry is on track to meet the Department of Energy's goal of 20% wind but getting to a 20% scenario is neither realistic nor wise. The report's authors failed to accurately characterize the purpose and scale of such development, the technology challenges and staggering financial costs, and the fundamental changes to electricity infrastructure necessary to achieve the hoped-for 2030 levels.
This below excerpt from the report has gone largely unnoticed by most people but is essential in understanding the premise behind DOE's 20% wind scenario:
Wind power cannot replace the need for many 'capacity resources,' which are generators and dispatchable load that are available to be used when needed to meet peak load. If wind has some capacity value for reliability planning purposes, that should be viewed as a bonus, but not a necessity.
DOE is well aware of the fact that wind energy is an unpredictable, variable resource that cannot be relied on to deliver electricity when needed. Claims by industry proponents that installed wind today powers, on average, over 12 million American homes misrepresents wind energy's purpose and limited contribution to our energy portfolio. For the authors of the report, satisfying the 20% wind energy goal is entirely independent of our need for reliable power plants meant to meet 1 20% Wind Power by 2030 - http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
demand. In fact, no amount of wind installed in the US will result in an existing power plant being decommissioned nor will it negate the need to build new reliable generation.
So why build wind at all? Wind is being installed to generate low-emissions energy. Any opportunity beyond that is, as DOE correctly states, is "a bonus, but not a necessity."
Nonetheless, the cost and impacts of achieving 20% wind in the United States are staggering. Assuming a start point of 47,000 MW of wind now operating in the US (with none offshore), over 13,000 MW of new wind would need to be installed year after year through to 2030 to reach 305,000 MW. In addition, average capacity factors would need to dramatically increase from a current nationwide average of 30%2 to over 40%.
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 near their homes or on publicly-owned lands, national forests and wilderness areas; b) sustained and substantial taxpayer-funded subsidies to ensure project economic viability; c) above-market energy prices for wind and increased capacity payments for reliable resources, and d) the requirement for expansive and expensive power lines to access remote areas of the country. Moving Wind Offshore
In September 2010, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) expanded on DOE's study with the release of its Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States,3 a report that described the benefits and feasibility of building 54,000 MW of wind offshore along our eastern seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. Water depths on the Pacific Coast, according to NREL, posed a 'technology challenge'.
No operating offshore wind plants are sited anywhere in the US. The controversial Cape Wind (130 turbines, 468 MW) project proposed ten years ago is still under challenge. Property owners within the viewshed of the project were joined by Wal-Mart, the Associated Industries of 2 Wiser R. and M. Bolinger. LBNL-4820E. June 2011, 2010 Wind Technologies Market Report, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-4820e.pdf 3 Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, September 2010 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
Massachusetts, and wind developer TransCanada4 among others in protesting the no-compete, high-priced power purchase agreement approved by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In Rhode Island, approval of Deepwater Wind's pilot project is under fire. In Delaware, NRG Bluewater Wind terminated its power purchase agreement with Delmarva5 due to poor economics and growing public opposition to expensive renewable energy. A fight sparked in Michigan over a proposed 1000 MW wind facility in Lake Michigan packed hearing rooms6 with angry protests. A similar response came from communities along northern New York after NYPA sought bids to build turbines in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. Both the Michigan and NYPA plans were shelved7.
None of these projects, in total, match the scale and cost of what NREL claims can be built offshore. Fifty-four thousand megawatts would mean 115 projects equivalent in size to Cape Wind, or 15,000 turbines located within 10-20 miles of our coastlines and spanning 3,000 square miles of open water. The eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine is 1,342 miles.
Obvious environmental and visual impacts are only a part of the issue. Problems with the technology are also very real8.
And then there's the cost. 4 Providence Business News, Cape Wind energy prices high, not competitive with other green projects http://www.pbn.com/Cape-Wind-energy-prices-too-high-not-competitive-with-other-green-projects,52862 5 North American Windpower, NRG Bluewater officially ends contract for Delaware offshore wind project, http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.9130 6 Muskegon Chronicle, Oceana County Board rejects Scandia Wind's Offshore proposal, http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/08/oceana_county_board_rejects_sc.html 7 North America Windpower, NYPA cancels 150MW Great Lakes offshore project, http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/1095655/NYPA-cancels-150MW-Great-Lakes-offshore-project/ 8 Turbine failures offshore are harder to repair and are often addressed on an aggregated basis. It's not unusual to wait as long as three months before turbines are fixed, leading to lower equipment availability. While wind conditions offshore might be better for energy generation, harsh environmental conditions could mean turbines are available for fewer hours in the year. In 2005, all eighty Vestas V90 turbines at Denmark's offshore Horns Rev facility had to be removed and repaired owing to the effect of salty water and air. A similar repair was reported on 30 Vestas turbines off the UK coast. In 2010 hundreds of European offshore wind turbines were found to have a design fault that caused the towers to slide on their bases. The problem was universal and not specific to any one project or turbine manufacturer.
The Cape Wind project will cost $2.5 billion for 468 megawatts ($5500/kw), an enormous expense for any individual power plant, especially one expected to deliver only 39% of the time with no guarantee the generation will arrive when most needed. With high upfront costs and fewer hours to spread the cost over, offshore wind is not economically viable without significant public support, above-market, long-term purchase agreements and constraints imposed on more reliable sources of generation.
NREL addresses some of the obstacles to building offshore wind in a very superficial manner. On visual effects, the authors acknowledge that coastal dwellers might object to the turbines and recommend added study to understand coastal communities and their ability to accept changes to the seascape. Regarding property values, NREL relies on the poorly defined Hoen/Wiser9 study to claim no impact but admit more work is needed for offshore properties. On tourism, NREL concedes the evidence is ambiguous but still claims, "actual effects appear to be minimal". And finally, on marine safety they admit collisions may pose a potentially significant risk to the marine environment or to human safety but offer cold comfort that no incidents have occurred to date.
The true impact of a national renewable vision based on wind is in the public cost, both in dollars and in the impacts wrought by transforming our open spaces, on- and offshore into massive industrial power plants with associated transmission and other infrastructure. Wind proponents advocate for a national energy policy that mandates renewable energy, but public policy requires credible analysis with an objective eye on reality. To my knowledge, no such analysis has been undertaken by DOE. 2. Federal Subsidies Programs: PTC and Section 1603 a. The Production Tax Credit
The AWEA insists the industry is at risk of a slow-down if Congress does not act quickly to extend the production tax credit (PTC), the federal incentive most often credited for market growth in the wind sector. The PTC expires at the end of 2012. 9 Wilson, Albert R., Wind farms, residential property values, and rubber rulers, http://www.arwilson.com/pdf/newpdfs/WindFarmsResidentialPropertyValuesandRubberRulers.pdf
But if the PTC were to expire, the damage would be less than what AWEA claims.
Attributing wind market activity to the PTC is overly simplistic and fails to consider other crucial factors driving development in the US.
The PTC was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to stimulate use of renewable technologies for power generation by providing a production-based credit for the first 10 years of project operations. Initially set at 1.5¢/kWh, the credit is adjusted annually for inflation and today stands at 2.2¢/kWh.
When adopted, the House Ways and Means Committee insisted on an expiration date (June 30, 1999) to give Congress an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the credit in meeting its goal. In each of the five years following the PTC's enactment wind capacity declined10. It wasn't until 1998 and 1999 before the trend drifted upward. (see Exhibit 2)
While it's possible the market needed time to respond to the new subsidy, other more significant factors likely stalled growth.
The US was awash in generation and oil prices were low and stable. Deregulation shifted plant ownership to independent power producers which led to improved plant management and increased efficiencies. This was particularly true for nuclear power where average capacity factors grew from 66% in 1990 to over 90% currently11.
The demand for renewable energy largely didn't exist except in States with programs that encouraged renewable generation. It's no accident that the bulk of new wind built in 1998-99 occurred in four states12 with renewable programs -- California, Iowa, Minnesota and Texas. 10 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/xls/stb0811a.xls 11 http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors 12 http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp
When the Asian financial crisis hit in 1997, oil prices collapsed13 taking with them any financial incentive to build new renewable generation. The PTC expired in 1999, the same year oil prices bottomed out, and new wind installations went bust the following year.
AWEA has complained for over ten years that expiration of the PTC in 1999 caused development to slow calling it the boom-bust cycle. Yet given available data, it's impossible to isolate the factors that contributed to the decline. Clearly other macroeconomic issues played a crucial role. Some energy experts maintain the PTC was largely irrelevant in those years.
After 2004, the PTC may have contributed to growth in the wind market, but so did State policies mandating renewables. Wind benefited from rising natural gas prices as well (over $5 per million BTU) making wind power contracts an attractive way to displace higher-cost natural gas generation.
By the middle of 2008 the US economy stumbled and energy prices dropped off quickly. With incomes falling, tax-based policy incentives lost much of their effectiveness as tax equity investors disappeared. Section 1603 cash grants created under the 2009 stimulus were designed to fill the void.
In a press reports this month, AWEA CEO Denise Bode credited the industry's recent growth to the fact that the PTC has not expired for the past five years. This is not accurate. The vast majority, of the wind built since 2008 through to the end of 2012 is directly tied to Section 1603 grant funding.
But with 1603 now expired the wind industry has again turned its attention to extending the production tax credit (PTC). Ditlev Engel, chief executive officer of Vestas Wind Systems A/S complained that US turbine sales may "fall off a cliff"14 unless lawmakers extend tax credits beyond 2012.
Turbine sales may decline but not because of the PTC. 13 http://www.slideshare.net/FNian/asian-financial-crisis-presentation (Slide 26) 14 Bloomberg News, US wind market set to „Fall Off a Cliff,‟ Vestas CEO says, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/u-s-wind-market-may-fall-off-a-cliff-in-2013-vestas-ceo-says.html
The 2008 recession slowed economic growth causing demand for electricity to drop. Many States, including California15, are now signaling their renewable mandates are being met which will weaken demand for wind. Recent discoveries of abundant shale gas reserves are expected to keep gas prices low and stable through to 2020 and likely longer. Since natural gas is among the important elements in determining the competitiveness of wind, low gas prices will generally reduce wind's attractiveness as a 'fuel saver'. In fact, the Energy Information Administration is forecasting flat growth16 in the wind sector for the next ten years regardless of what happens with the PTC.
The production tax credit largely benefits corporate investors and wind project owners. For investors like General Electric, the credit is an open-ended subsidy17 offered for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. Because the PTC directly reduces the amount of federal income taxes paid, it should be thought of as providing 2.2¢/kWh of after-tax income (in 2011 dollars).
This represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh (assumes a 40% marginal tax rate). When measured relative to the price of wholesale power, the PTC is exceptionally generous.
Claims by AWEA of wind being at cost parity with non-renewable resources should not be taken on face value.
For consumers, the production tax credit disproportionately benefits ratepayers in States with renewable energy mandates by distributing the high cost of wind to taxpayers at large. And since the subsidy is uniform across the country it's highly inefficient, supporting poorly sited projects as well as projects that would have been built regardless of the credit. This is certainly true in Texas and the Pacific Northwest where wind exceeds transmission capacity, in New York where average annual capacity factors are under 25% and in New England where utilities routinely sign long-term power contracts at prices significantly above market. 15 Letter by Michael Picker, Senior Advisor to the Governor of California for renewable energy facilities, to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, http://www.windaction.org/documents/33056 16 EIA Table 16. Renewable Energy Generating Capacity and Generation, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/tables_ref.cfm 17 Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, May 2005, Present Law And Background Relating To Tax Credits For Electricity Production From Renewable Sources, http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=1579 b. Section 1603 vs. PTC
The Section 1603 cash grant program enabled developers to secure direct monetary outlays from the Federal government to cover 30 percent of a project‟s qualifying cost. The criteria for receiving the grant were not onerous and the Treasury Department was prohibited by law from ranking the projects before distributing the funds.
Spanish energy giant Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. received over a billion dollars in cash grants alone. A preliminary evaluation18 of the grant outlays published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in 2010 found that 61% of the grants distributed through to March 2010 “likely would have deployed under the PTC [production tax credit] if the grant did not exist.” In many cases, money went to projects that were already under construction, and in some cases already producing electricity. Wind developers whose projects received Section 1603 money complained19 that it was unfair to criticize them for taking the funds because their projects otherwise would have received the production tax credit. They insisted the cost to the taxpayers was not materially different.
Aside from the obvious intrinsic value of cash in hand versus tax credits earned over a period of ten years, I was prompted to look further into the numbers themselves to test the claim of equivalence.
I looked at two operating geothermal facilities, five operating onshore wind energy facilities and five approved, but not built wind projects including two offshore applications.
Exhibit 3 shows my findings. In all cases, cash grants that were (or will be) distributed exceeded anticipated production tax credit amounts in total by over one-half billion dollars. In general, projects with greater development costs (more than $2150/kw for wind) and/or lower average capacity factors (under 30% for wind) received substantially higher benefits from the cash grant 18 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Bolinger, M., Wiser, R., Darghouth, N., Preliminary Evaluation of the Impact of the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program on Renewable Energy Deployment in 2009, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-3188e.pdf 19 The New York Times, Stimulus Cash Flowed to Completed, Under-Way Renewable Energy Projects, http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/14/14greenwire-stimulus-cash-flowed-to-completed-under-way-re-95989.html?pagewanted=all
than the current PTC. To keep the table simple, I did not apply a 7.5% discount rate to the production tax credit. If I had, the monetary differences of the two programs would have been more stark since the cash grant is received at the start of the operational life of a renewable energy project.
With upfront cash grants developers have minimal incentive to negotiate lower prices with suppliers. In fact, the more expensive a project is to construct the better for vendors, contractors and developers.
There are other qualitative benefits under the cash program which shift the rewards to developers while laying project debt and risk at the feet of American taxpayers. Unlike the PTC, the cash grant is not dependent on project performance. If a project‟s capacity factor is marginal the public still grants the cash. Projects that would normally not meet financial threshold requirements are apt to get built anyway. The Section 1603 program substitutes government payments for private investments after which the government just walks away. c. The high cost of subsidizing wind
Since the PTC was adopted in 1992, its annual cost has ballooned from $5 million a year in 1998 to over $1 billion annually today. Even if the PTC were to sunset, taxpayers are still obligated to cover nearly $8 billion in tax credits for wind projects built in the last decade. (Exhibit 4) This is in addition to the over $15 billion paid out or accruing for projects built under Section 1603.
Exhibit 4 compares yearly installations of wind under the PTC and 1603 and looks at the cost of each subsidy. If the goal of a subsidy is getting wind turbines erected in the US, Section 1603 is the more aggressive program for driving development. But the grants under 1603 are excessive.
The New York Times examined the government largess secured by Canadian investment giant Brookfield Asset Management for its Granite Reliable Wind park, a 99 MW facility now under construction in northern New Hampshire. According to the Times, the project "will receive so many subsidies for a New Hampshire wind farm that they are worth 46 percent to 80 percent of
the $229 million price of the project, when measured in today‟s dollars"20. Brookfield received subsidies under Section 1603, Section 1705 (partial loan guarantee), and the Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) 3. Wind energy and jobs claims
In 2007, the AWEA touted that the industry represented 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in the US, a figure that jumped to 85,000 in 2008 but by 2010 dropped to 75,000 with roughly 20,000 in the manufacturing sector.
AWEA's 2010 annual report lists pages of facilities it claims are US Wind Industry Manufacturing Facilities. Of the 450+ facilities listed, a less than 75 represent plants dedicated to building turbine parts (blades, towers, nacelles) including Vestas and Gamesa plants in Colorado and Pennsylvania respectively. The rest build components for industrial uses. Many have been in business for decades and their sole business is not wind-specific. AWEA omits any details showing the percentage of each company's gross revenues tied to the wind industry so verifying job counts is not possible.
Wind construction jobs are not permanent so the industry would need to reach peak levels of development year after year just to maintain current job levels. When installations dropped in 2010, it was no surprise that jobs dropped as well. And since growing the manufacturing base is predicated on installing more wind turbines it's difficult to envision a scenario where job growth is sustainable.
This month, NREL released a report entitled Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the §1603 Treasury Grant Program21 20 New York Times, Lipton, E. and Krauss, C., A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/energy-environment/a-cornucopia-of-help-for-renewable-energy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all The wide range reflects a disagreement between the experts on the future price of electricity in New Hampshire. Brookfield received subsidies under Section 1603, Section 1705 (partial loan guarantee), and Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) as well as state and local benefits. 21 NREL April 2010, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the §1603 Treasury Grant Program http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52739.pdf
which examined the impact Section 1603 had on job growth and development for the wind and PV solar industries.
Using a modified version of its JEDI model to enable modeling on a national level, NREL estimated that 1603 grants for both wind and PV solar projects supported between 52,000 and 75,000 direct and indirect jobs annually. For wind alone, average jobs per year were between 44,000 and 66,000. It's difficult to map NREL's results to AWEA's job numbers but it would appear that job growth in the wind industry since Section 1603 has declined.
But that's only part of the jobs tale.
In 2010, the State of Vermont published the results of its study22 to evaluate the consequences of adding just 50 megawatts of renewable energy at prices that were higher than market-based alternatives.
The analysis found the Feed in Tariff program would increase Vermont capital investment and create jobs during its 26 year life cycle, however, the net gain in employment was found to be far less than conventionally thought. Following an initial increase in temporary construction-related jobs, long term employment would average thirteen full time jobs per year, including both direct and indirect employment in the energy sector as well as the job and income related effects of increased electricity costs. But other sectors, predominately service sectors, would suffer long term net job losses. In essence jobs would be created in one sector of the Vermont economy at the expense others.
But job transfer was not the only finding reported from the study. The model also showed that above-market energy costs due to higher electricity prices would have the deleterious effects of "reshuffling consumer spending and increasing the cost of production for Vermont businesses" and that "increased costs for households and employers would reduce the positive employment impacts of renewable energy capital investment and the annual repair and maintenance activities". 22 The Economic Impacts of Vermont Feed in Tariffs http://publicservice.vermont.gov/planning/DPS%20White%20Paper%20Feed%20in%20Tariff.pdf
NREL's report makes clear (footnote 2) that its analysis omits any evaluation of job displacement or loses due to wind and PV solar development under Section 1603. In essence, NREL modeled benefit of 1693 without acknowledging any cost. 4. The hidden subsidies for wind power
Independent of the PTC and Section 1603, millions of public dollars have been spent supporting wind power development in the US. One example is the work undertaken by DOE, FAA and the DOD to evaluate and try to mitigate for the impacts of large-scale wind turbines on military and navigational radar in the US. By 2008, nearly 40% of our long-range radar systems were already compromised by wind turbines23. We've doubled our wind capacity since then but the problem of radar interference persists.
Our military services and federal agencies have conducted numerous studies on the radar question, as have multiple international military and private interests24. Not all studies agree on levels of severity and potential mitigations, but all agree that large scale industrial wind turbines have the potential to negatively affect military installations, radar, and navigation aids.
According to Raytheon lead radar engineer, Peter Drake25, radar mitigation technology does not yet exist: ' …These things [wind turbines] inside of 20 miles, look like a 747 on final approach, the trick for us is to somehow make them disappear, while still being able to see a real 747…we have not figured that out yet.'
While most of the information pertaining to turbine interference is not readily available to the public, the below situations are known: 23 Long Range Radar Joint Program Office Wind Farm Brief http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=2178 (Slide 3) 24 Report to the Congressional Defense Committees, The Effect of Windmill Farms On Military Readiness 2006, http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/windfarmreport.pdf 25 NAS Kingsville Wind Farm Effects on Air Traffic Control and Compatible Siting Collaboration http://growinggreencommunities.com.ismmedia.com/ISM3/std-content/repos/Top/Text%20Blocks/Speakers/Presentations/AP/AP%20McLaughlin.pdf a. Travis AFB. The Travis Midair Collision Avoidance (MACA) pamphlet26 warns that wind farms southeast of the base interfere with primary radar. Pilots are urged to fly with their transponders on to be seen by the secondary radar system (SSR) installed at air traffic control facilities. Transponder-only airspace but relies on pilots complying with the warning. Recreational pilots may not remember to comply or their aircraft might not be adequately equipped. SSR also assumes pilots want to be seen. b. Naval Air Station Kingsville, Texas (NASK). Despite proposed technical mitigations, documentations released by the Texas Comptroller's office recommended27 that at least one school district near NASK deny special tax treatment for a wind project due to impacts at NASK radars. NASK trains 50% of our US naval aviators.
It is critical that Congress investigate this issue more closely and fully ascertain the costs in dollars and reduced radar surveillance occurring due to wind development. We can easily define and quantify the cost of subsidies like the PTC and 1603, subsidies meant to support renewable energy. Such hidden subsidies, however, are easily kept from public view but the risk to our national security and military readiness is far more impacting. 5. Summary
a. The Department of Energy's goal of 20% wind by 2030 is entirely independent of our need for reliable power plants. No amount of wind installed in the US will result in an existing power plant being decommissioned nor will it negate the need to build reliable generation. Wind is being installed to generate low-emissions energy.
b. The cost and impacts of achieving 20% wind in the United States, including 54,000 MW offshore are staggering and not realistic.
c. The production tax credit disproportionately benefits ratepayers in States with renewable energy mandates by distributing the high cost of wind to taxpayers at large. And since the 26 Travis Midair Collision Avoidance (MACA) pamphlet, http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=2180 (Page 27 Economic impact evaluation of wind turbines in the vicinity of the Naval Air Station Kingsville http://www.windaction.org/documents/34352
subsidy is uniform across the country it's highly inefficient, supporting poorly sited projects as well as projects that would have been built regardless of the credit.
d. Section 1603 cash grants shift the rewards to developers while laying project debt and risk at the feet of American taxpayers. The cash grant is not dependent on project performance. Even project with marginal capacity factor still receive the cash. Projects that would normally not meet financial threshold requirements are apt to get built anyway.
e. Since the PTC was adopted in 1992, its annual cost has ballooned from $5 million a year in 1998 to over $1 billion annually today. Even if the PTC were to sunset, taxpayers are obligated to cover nearly $8 billion in tax credits for wind projects built in the last decade. This is in addition to the over $15 billion paid out or accruing for projects built under Section 1603.
f. In 2007, the AWEA claimed 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in the US, a figure that jumped to 85,000 in 2008. By 2010, jobs dropped to 75,000 with roughly 20,000 in the manufacturing sector.
g. Independent of the PTC and Section 1603, millions of public dollars have been spent evaluating and trying to mitigate for the impacts of large-scale wind turbines on military and navigational radar in the US. Developers have been asked to provide some funding but there are no clear rules for establishing funds and how costs can be shared between developers.
Wind Energy continues its unprecedented killing of Eagles. They have already convinced the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to CHANGE THE LAW to permit them to Kill Ealges...THE SYMBOL OF AMERICA CAN BE LEGALLY KILLED BY WIND ENERGY . Wind Energy and their allies weren't satisfied with the law change that allowed them to KILL EAGLES FOR ONLY 5 YEARS. That wasn't good enough for these major killers of Eagles. They now want a license to kill Eagles for 30 years. The Golden and Bald Eagles enjoyed absolute protect under 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. THAT IS GONE at the behest of WIND ENERGY LOBBY and they want more!
We propose to revise the regulations for permits for nonpurposeful take of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) where the take is associated with, but not the purpose of, an activity. We propose to extend the maximum term for programmatic permits to 30 years.
But as they say, THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTION...so Wind Energy continues to delude environmentalists with its good intentions. Even though every single Wind Energy project has gone to great lengths to insist that Wind Turbine don't kill that many birds and bats... they are paving the way for breaking decades of protection for Ealges and Migratory birds and allow killing with immunity!
Call your Congressman, Senator, Governor, complain to your nature club, many who absolutely and uncritically support Wind Energy. I have tracked the killing of Osprey, Peregrine Falcons, Owls, Eagles and in every case the results are ALWAYS worse than sponsors claims...they do more harm than they will admit and their only reaction is to lie, deny or remove the killer to only build BIGGER KILLERS. I am unaware where they removed a multi-million dollar turbine that has been improperly sited.
Their favorite projects are the ones where they don't monitor the kills, so they can smugly say they haven't found any dead animals. Or they go out once or a couple times a year and say they found a few while conveniently not calculating the removal or loss of carcasses. Or lastly well it is already built and we can't afford to remove it.
The kill rates at many wind farms are in excess of the local population so the only birds there are migrants who are then replaced by other migrants once they are dead. In their favor once the population is killed off the bird death count goes to zero
There is no money in stopping this and there are no promotion for government sciencists going against the grain. I have spoken and corresponded with them. The government leaders and their wind energy believers and their lobbyists have all the MONEY and POWER. The laws are in place forcing energy companies to build. The only issue is where.
I IMPLORE YOU to make the calls, write the letters to stop this unprecedented destruction. These machines are unlike anything in nature before.
THE OIREACHTAS is to consider in detail shortly a Bill, tabled by Labour Senator John Kelly, that would impose restrictions on the location of wind turbines near people’s homes.
Under the Bill, which has received support from all sides in the Seanad, smaller turbines would have to be placed more than 500 metres from a residence while larger turbines of 50m-150m would have to be a minimum of 1km to 2km away.
“At present, the distance is 500 metres, a figure that has been in place for a number of years during which wind turbines have become taller,” said Mr Kelly, who is based in Ballaghaderreen, Co Roscommon. “Some turbines on wind farms are as tall as the Spire on O’Connell Street.”
He noted that authorities in Britain were moving in the same direction as his proposals. “In the House of Lords, there is a Bill on committee stage along the same lines as my Bill, except that the distances proposed are even further from private residences.”
Mr Kelly said there was widespread support for his measure. “The amount of people that have made contact with me has amazed me, and all of them know that this is their only hope of avoiding living beside a wind farm development for the rest of their lives.”
Minister of State for Planning Jan O’Sullivan said legislators needed to “consider the practicality of introducing binding legislation” in this area rather than guidelines for wind turbine locations. However, she was “not opposing the Bill”. One of her concerns was that the imposition of distance limits “would inevitably limit the number of sites where wind energy developments could be located”, which could affect the State’s ability to meet the 2020 renewable energy targets.
Mr Kelly said he had met Department of the Environment officials to discuss the matter.
To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.
If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often wilfully deaf. The good news though is that if you look closely, you can see David Cameron’s government coming to its senses about the whole fiasco. The biggest investors in offshore wind — Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens — are starting to worry that the government’s heart is not in wind energy any more. Vestas, which has plans for a factory in Kent, wants reassurance from the Prime Minister that there is the political will to put up turbines before it builds its factory.
This forces a decision from Cameron — will he reassure the turbine magnates that he plans to keep subsidising wind energy, or will he retreat? The political wind has certainly changed direction. George Osborne is dead set against wind farms, because it has become all too clear to him how much they cost. The Chancellor’s team quietly encouraged MPs to sign a letter to No. 10 a few weeks ago saying that ‘in these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines’.
Putting the things offshore may avoid objections from the neighbours, but (Chancellor, beware!) it makes even less sense, because it costs you and me — the taxpayers — double. I have it on good authority from a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs.
In Britain the percentage of total energy that comes from wind is only 0.6 per cent. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, ‘policies intended to meet the EU Renewables Directive in 2020 will impose extra consumer costs of approximately £15 billion per annum’ or £670 per household. It is difficult to see what value will be got for this money. The total carbon emissions saved by the great wind rush is probably below 1 per cent, because of the need to keep fossil fuels burning as back-up when the wind does not blow. It may even be a negative number.
America is having far better luck. Carbon emissions in the United States fell by 7 per cent in 2009, according to a Harvard study. But the study concluded that this owes less to the recession that year than the falling price of natural gas — caused by the shale gas revolution. (Burning gas emits less than half as much carbon dioxide as coal for the same energy output.) The gas price has fallen even further since, making coal seem increasingly pricey by comparison. All over America, from Utah to West Virginia, coal mines are being closed and coal plants idled or cancelled. (The US Energy Information Administration calculates that every $4 spent on shale purchases the same energy as $25 spent on oil: at this rate, more and more vehicles will switch to gas.)
So even if you accept the most alarming predictions of climate change, those turbines that have ruined your favourite view are doing nothing to help. The shale gas revolution has not only shamed the wind industry by showing how to decarbonise for real, but has blown away its last feeble argument — that diminishing supplies of fossil fuels will cause their prices to rise so high that wind eventually becomes competitive even without a subsidy. Even if oil stays dear, cheap gas is now likely to last many decades.
Though they may not admit it for a while, most ministers have realised that the sums for wind power just don’t add up and never will. The discovery of shale gas near Blackpool has profound implications for the future of British energy supply, which the government has seemed sheepishly reluctant to explore. It has a massive subsidy programme in place for wind farms, which now seem obsolete both as a means of energy production and decarbonisation. It is almost impossible to see what function they serve, other than making a fortune from those who profit from the subsidy scam.
Even in a boom, wind farms would have been unaffordable — with their economic and ecological rationale blown away. In an era of austerity, the policy is doomed, though so many contracts have been signed that the expansion of wind farms may continue, for a while. But the scam has ended. And as we survey the economic and environmental damage, the obvious question is how the delusion was maintained for so long. There has been no mystery about wind’s futility as a source of affordable and abundant electricity — so how did the wind-farm scam fool so many policymakers?
One answer is money. There were too many people with snouts in the trough. Not just the manufacturers, operators and landlords of the wind farms, but financiers: wind-farm venture capital trusts were all the rage a few years ago — guaranteed income streams are what capitalists like best; they even get paid to switch the monsters off on very windy days so as not to overload the grid. Even the military took the money. Wind companies are paying for a new £20 million military radar at Brizlee Wood in Northumberland so as to enable the Ministry of Defence to lift its objection to the 48-turbine Fallago Rig wind farm in Berwickshire.
The big conservation organisations have been disgracefully silent on the subject, like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which until last year took generous contributions from the wind industry through a venture called RSPB Energy. Even journalists: at a time when advertising is in short supply, British newspapers have been crammed full of specious but lucrative ‘debates’ and supplements on renewable energy sponsored by advertising from a cohort of interest groups.
And just as the scam dies, I find I am now part of it. A family trust has signed a deal to receive £8,500 a year from a wind company, which is building a turbine on land that once belonged to my grandfather. He was canny enough not to sell the mineral rights, and the foundations of the turbine disturbs those mineral rights, so the trustees are owed compensation. I will not get the money, because I am not a beneficiary of the trust. Nonetheless, the idea of any part of my family receiving ‘wind-gelt’ is so abhorrent that I have decided to act. The real enemy is not wind farms per se, but groupthink and hysteria which allowed such a flawed idea to progress — with a minimum of intellectual opposition. So I shall be writing a cheque for £8,500, which The Spectator will give as a prize to the best article devoted to rational, fact-based environmental journalism.
It will be called the Matt Ridley prize for environmental heresy. Barring bankruptcy, I shall donate the money as long as the wind-gelt flows — so the quicker Dave cancels the subsidy altogether, the sooner he will have me and the prizewinners off his back.
Entrants are invited forthwith, and a panel of judges will reward the most brilliant and rational argument — that uses reason and evidence — to gore a sacred cow of the environmental movement. There are many to choose from: the idea that wind power is good for the climate, or that biofuels are good for the rain forest, or that organic farming is good for the planet, or that climate change is a bigger extinction threat than invasive species, or that the most sustainable thing we can do is de-industrialise.
My donation, though significant for me, is a drop in the ocean compared with the money that pours into the green movement every hour. Jeremy Grantham, a hedge-fund plutocrat, wrote a cheque for £12 million to the London School of Economics to found an institute named after him, which has since become notorious for its aggressive stance and extreme green statements. Between them, Greenpeace and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) spend nearly a billion a year. WWF spends $68 million a year on ‘public education’ alone. All of this is judged uncontroversial: a matter of education, not propaganda.
•••
By contrast, a storm of protest broke recently over the news that one small conservative think-tank called Heartland was proposing to spend just $200,000 in a year on influencing education against climate alarmism. A day later, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with assets of $7.2 billion, gave a grant of $100 million to something called the ClimateWorks Foundation, a pro-wind power organisation, on top of $481 million it gave to the same recipient in 2008. The deep green Sierra Club recently admitted that it took $26 million from the gas industry to lobby against coal. But money is not the only reason that the entire political establishment came to believe in wind fairies. Psychologists have a term for the wishful thinking by which we accept any means if the end seems virtuous: ‘noble-cause corruption’. The phrase was first used by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir John Woodcock in 1992 to explain miscarriages of justice. ‘It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned,’ said the late Lord Denning, referring to the Birmingham Six.
Politicians are especially susceptible to this condition. In a wish to be seen as modern, they will embrace all manner of fashionable causes. When this sets in — groupthink grips political parties, and the media therefore decide there is no debate — the gravest of errors can take root. The subsidising of useless wind turbines was born of a deep intellectual error, one incubated by failure to challenge conventional wisdom.
It is precisely this consensus-worshipping, heretic-hunting environment where the greatest errors can be made. There are some 3,500 wind turbines in Britain, with hundreds more under construction. It would be a shame for them all to be dismantled. The biggest one should remain, like a crane on an abandoned quay, for future generations to marvel at. They will never be an efficient way to generate power. But there can be no better monument to the folly of mankind.
By JANICE PODSADA, jpodsada@courant.comThe Hartford Courant 4:44 p.m. EDT, April 6, 2012
Researcher Todd Katzner and the U.S. Department of Energyare tailing the same slightly ruffled, strawberry blond: an Eastern Golden Eagle equipped with a tiny cell phone that winters in Connecticut and summers in Quebec. Wingspan, 7 feet; weight,14 pounds; appearance, magnificent.
The eagle's flight path could alter the course of wind farm development on the East Coast.
Birds and wind turbines share an affinity for windy mountain ridgelines putting them on a potential collision course, said Katzner, one of a dozen researchers studying the Golden Eagle's migratory habits and hangouts.
Golden Eagles, whose wing-span can reach seven feet, use the "lift" or updraft created by surface winds hitting sloped terrain — hillsides and mountains — to soar. Bald eagles and Goldens also ride columns of rising air, known as thermals, which allow them to glide at altitudes of more than 1,000 feet, well above a 300-foot to 500-foot-tall wind turbine.
But the same steep ridgelines that permit Golden Eagles and Bald Eagles to hitch a ride on the wind as they migrate north and south, are the same gusty high points preferred by wind farm developers, said Katzner, professor of wildlife and fisheries resources at West Virginia University in Morgantown, whose Golden Eagle tracking project is funded by several sources, including the DOE.
And Golden Eagles are more apt to be killed by wind turbines than other raptors because of their hunting methods, experts say. In California, wind farms in the Altamont Pass area east of Oakland kill an estimated 70 Goldens each year, said Katzner, citing a recent bird mortality study.
Nationwide, it's estimated that thousands of birds, including eagles, falcons, hawks, owls, gulls, waterfowl and songbirds are killed by wind turbines.
Eastern Golden Eagles are "among the rarest species out there," said Katzner. West of the Mississippi River their population is estimated at 20,000; east of the river, estimates vary from 1,500 to 3,000 Goldens.
For years, researchers have focused on the Goldens that wing their way through the mountains of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, part of the Northern Appalachian range, and the emerging wind energy industry that has grown up there in the last decade.
But the discovery last year of just one female Golden Eagle near Connecticut's Housatonic River has them speculating that she may be one of many that prefer the Nutmeg state.
"I think there may be more of these birds wintering in Northwest Connecticut than anybody has ever realized," Katzner said.
While not an endangered or threatened species Golden eagles are protected under the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act against harassment or killing. But in the West wind turbines are killing Golden Eagles at a higher rate than other raptors. Their particular hunting style puts them at a greater risk.
The faster a wind turbine's blades rotate, the more electricity it generates. For a bird whose migratory path passes over a ridgeline dotted with wind turbines — attempting to avoid the spinning the blades "is like trying to cross a freeway," said David Brandes, civil engineering professor at Lafayette College inEaston, Penn., who studies raptors.
Birds rarely, if ever, fly into trees, so why can't they avoid wind turbines?
While birds can easily spot trees and other stationary objects, they can miss the sweep of a spinning rotor, turning at more than 100 miles, making them nearly invisible.
And just as some mammals are better at crossing roads and avoiding vehicles, some birds are better at avoiding wind turbines. It varies by species, migration patterns and flight altitudes.
Birds with a long narrow wing, such as falcons, that employ a "flapping flight" are less likely to collide with a turbine than broad-winged birds that conserve energy by soaring, Brandes said.
When a broad-winged bird uses the updraft generated by hills and mountains to hover, "they're at the turbine's height, [200 to 400 feet] putting them in the rotor's sweep zone," Brandes explained.
And Golden Eagles are more likely to collide with a turbine than other raptors because they hover while they hunt.
It's a little like trying to drive and text at the same time.
"They're so focused on hunting, holding still in the air and looking for mammals, they don't see the turbine," Brandes said. "Bald Eagles don't use that style of hunting."
Just One Bird
How can the discovery of just one Golden Eagle in Northwest Connecticut lead researchers to think there might be at least a hundred more of her kith and kin in the region?
According to Katzner, Goldens exhibit "stereotyped behavior." If there's one Golden in an area — one female wintering in Northwest Connecticut, there are likely others. "There's not a lot of individual variation," he said.
In short, it's unlikely she's alone or a loner.
The female Golden eagle that Katzner's tracking, was found in February 2011 by a snowmobiler near the New York/Connecticut border. Injured, she had puncture wounds on her feet from an animal. The Golden was rehabilitated at Tufts Wildlife Clinic in North Grafton, Mass., and released a month later near Cornwall, but not before she was banded and outfitted with a solar-powered transmitter, designed by Katzner's company, Cellular Tracking Technologies LLC.
The transmitter she wears, No. 3354, is really a tiny cell phone, weighing a little over 3 ounces that plots her GPS coordinates every 30 seconds. When she flies close to a cell phone tower, the data are automatically downloaded, said Katzner who is tracking about 25 Goldens with the device.
But a month after her release, she stopped "calling home."
It wasn't until last month that she flew close enough to a cell phone tower that the data – a year's worth of information as to her whereabouts — was downloaded.
Other evidence that there may be a large population of Goldens wintering in Northwest Connecticut is the fact that there weren't any sightings in that area of a Golden Eagle wearing a transmitter, Katzner said. That points to their remote habitat and elusive nature which could explain why they are rarely spotted by humans despite their golden crested heads, Katzner said.
From the data Katzner collected, it turns out that the eagle spent last summer in the northeastern regions of Quebec. Last October she headed south and returned to the northwestern Connecticut/New York border in December and then spent three months in the area, before once again heading north this spring toward her breeding grounds in Canada, he said.
That migration path said Katzner, "was completely unexpected. We have expected these birds to be short distance migrants. We were surprised she went such a long way north. Based on this bird's behavior we think they're may be more birds wintering in Connecticut, New York, this area."
Katzner used the 6,000 points to plot a detailed map of her journey, an invaluable document that he says can be used to advise the wind energy industry on where to build wind turbines that are eagle-friendly.
Katzner's studies of Golden Eagles have also helped inform the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which incorporated data he collected into the agency's new land-based wind energy guidelines, released last week.
The guidelines are intended to assist wind developers in identifying bats and local bird species, including Golden Eagles, that may be affected by a wind project.
While the guidelines are voluntary, evidence of eagle kills would draw the attention of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who would then notify local authorities to launch an investigation.
In Connecticut, the Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection would be alerted.
"We are looking at Golden Eagles as an indicator species," Brandes said. "There are plenty of birds that migrate through Connecticut, bald eagles, red-tailed hawks, broad-tailed hawks. They fly in similar ways, following the mountains down through New England and would be at potential risk of wind farms."
What is their risk in Connecticut? It's not clear. Not a single commercial-size wind turbine has been erected.
Although the Connecticut Siting Council last year approved construction of a six-turbine, 9.6 megawatt commercial wind farm project in Colebrook, the West Hartford wind developer BNE Energy Inc. has only begun road clearing. BNE is waiting for a decision in a Superior Court appeal challenging the council's authority to approve wind farm projects.
In seeking the council's approval, the West Hartford developer, BNE conducted the required bird and wildlife impact studies. But the true impact, if any, on birds and raptors, including the Goldens, may not be known until the turbines start spinning. What is clear, however is that the state's windswept ridges have been identified as prime wind farm sites.
Pennsylvania's Solution
Pennsylvania has about 15 wind farm developments and more planned. But what do those wind farms, located hundreds of miles away in the Alleghany Mountains and Poconos have do with Connecticut?
Plenty.
Several companies that Connecticut Light & Power buys power from happen to own, operate or buy power from wind farms in Pennsylvania. To meet Connecticut's renewable energy standards, each company is required to deliver 16 percent of their supply from renewable energy, which includes solar, biomass or wind, said Mitch Gross, CL&P spokesman.
The number of Pennsylvania wind farms keeps growing. But rather than wait for the bird strikes to mount, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, responsible for monitoring bird and bat kills, has put a voluntary wind agreement program in place, said Jerry Feaser, an agency spokesman.
Under the program, wind developers can sign the agency's voluntary agreement. The developers and the agency then work cooperatively to reduce the impact on birds and wildlife. That's where information gathered by Katzner and other researchers plays an important role in identifying where bird strikes are likely to occur.
So far 33 companies have signed the agreement, Feaser said.
"We work together to avoid areas that would clearly pose a problem to birds and wildlife," Feaser said.
There are simple fixes, such as moving wind turbines away from known bird migration routes, Brandes said.
"Moving these turbines back is going to reduce their speed somewhat, but compromises have to be made," Brandes said.
"The future of…our national security, our environmental quality all depend on decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and on fossil fuels," Katzner said. "Wind power is among the most important alternative energy sources currently available, and the mid-Atlantic region is a primary focus for wind power development."
Global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels pose a far greater danger to birds and wildlife in the long run than wind turbines, he added.
The goal of Katzner and other researchers is to create a region-wide map showing the relative risks posed by wind power to eagles and similar birds.
"These maps will allow us to make specific recommendations regarding siting of new wind farms and operation of existing wind farms, to mitigate their impact…on eagles and other raptors," Katzner said.
Applying a little bit of social pressure on wind farm developers can also lessen bird strikes, Feaser added.
"If you want to be identified as supplying green energy, you can't be green if you're out there killing birds."
World's Largest Solar Plant, With Second Largest Ever Department of Energy Loan Guarantee, Files For Bankruptcy
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/02/2012 20:14 -0400
Solyndra was just the appetizer. Earlier today, in what will come as a surprise only to members of the administration, the company which proudly held the rights to the world's largest solar power project, the hilariously named Solar Trust of America ("STA"), filed for bankruptcy. And while one could say that the company's epic collapse is more a function of alternative energy politics in Germany, where its 70% parent Solar Millennium AG filed for bankruptcy last December, what is relevant is that last April STA was the proud recipient of a $2.1 billion conditional loan from the Department of Energy, incidentally the second largest loan ever handed out by the DOE's Stephen Chu. That amount was supposed to fund the expansion of the company's 1000 MW Blythe Solar Power Project in Riverside, California. From the funding press release, "This project construction is expected to create over 1,000 direct jobs in Southern California, 7,500 indirect jobs in related industries throughout the United States, and more than 200 long-term operational jobs at the facility itself. It will play a key role in stimulating the American economy,” said Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America and Executive Chairman of project development subsidiary Solar Millennium, LLC." Instead, what Solar Trust will do is create lots of billable hours for bankruptcy attorneys (at $1,000/hour), and a good old equity extraction for the $22 million DIP lender, which just happens to be NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, another "alternative energy" company which last year received a $935 million loan courtesy of the very same (and now $2.1 billion poorer) Department of Energy, which is also a subsidiary of public NextEra Energy (NEE), in the process ultimately resulting in yet another transfer of taxpayer cash to NEE's private shareholders.
As Bloomberg notes: "The company joins Energy Conversion Devices Inc., a U.S. solar manufacturer that suspended production last year; LSP Energy LP, the owner of a natural-gas-fired power plant in Mississippi; Ener1 Inc., maker of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in electric cars; solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC; and energy storage company Beacon Power Corp. (BCONQ) in bankruptcy."
And so central planning fails again, and again, and again, and again. But it sure will be better with the centrally planned monetary (and in the absence of a working Congress - also fiscal) policy. Because this time it really will be different.
Solar Trust of America and several affiliates filed for protection from creditors with the U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware. It estimated to have as much as $10 million of assets, and between $50 million and $100 million of liabilities.
Blythe is about 220 miles (354 km) southeast of Los Angeles.
"We have been working with Solar Trust of America for a couple of years in getting this project going," David Lane, Blythe's city manager, said in an interview. "Although the project is not in the city limits, we are the only city within 100 miles. My sense is that with the large investment in what was to have been the world's largest solar power plant, someone somewhere will buy it and build it."
At least someone's reputation will be tarnished as a result of this latest epic failure of the Obama administration to misallocate capital :
Solar Millennium said it has been sued by former Chief Executive Utz Claassen over public statements by company representatives that he claims have damaged his reputation and left him unable to find a job. Solar Millennium said the lawsuit would not directly affect its insolvency proceedings.
Two people, however, who won't be humiliated at all are California Governor Jerry Brown, and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who reprise the role of Joe Biden, last seen praising not only MF Global's Jon Corzine, but that other epic administration failure: Solyndra. Watch them praise the groundbreaking for the Blythe facility.
Epic embarrassment. And not even a full year ago.
But before that, of course, we had the funding of the plant with a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy, the second largest ever, smaller only than Georgia Power's $8.33 billion loan guarantee.
From the DOE:
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced the offer of a conditional commitment for a $2.1 billion loan guarantee to support Units 1 and 2 of the Blythe Solar Power Project, sponsored by Solar Trust of America, LLC. The concentrating solar thermal power plant includes two units comprising a combined 484 megawatt (MW) generating capacity, an eight-mile transmission line and associated infrastructure. The project will be built adjacent to the City of Blythe in Riverside County, California and is expected to create over 1,000 construction jobs and approximately 80 operations jobs. The plant is estimated to avoid over 710,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from over 123,000 vehicles.
“Loan guarantees play an important role in facilitating the development and deployment of innovative technologies at massive scope and scale,” said Secretary Chu. “Continued investments like this project make solar power more efficient and cost competitive while creating thousands of jobs and strengthening the economy.”
“California is the national leader in clean energy, and our great state is poised to become the world leader in renewable energy generation,” said Governor Jerry Brown. “I commend President Obama and Secretary Chu for making another major investment in California.”
“This clean energy project will create more than 1,000 jobs and strengthen the economy of Riverside County. Investments like this one are critical to reducing America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil, protecting our children from pollution and creating clean energy jobs here in California,” said Senator Barbara Boxer.
And while we do not know just how much the government will have to pay out of pocket, we do know that STA had at least $50 million in debt at filing.
What we do know for sure is that at least the firm's financial advisors made money on the deal. From the company's Investors page:
World-Class Financial Advisors
In October 2009 Solar Trust engaged Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. as advisors to assist in securing more than $6 billion in financing for construction of the company’s solar power plants in California and Nevada. Citigroup and Deutsche Bank are also providing advisory services for Solar Trust’s efforts to develop models for debt and equity project financing for its solar power plant projects.
Great job there Citi and Deutsche: can you please advise us how much in taxpayer cash you received as part of your incalculable "advice" please?
Also, as noted earlier on, as part of its first day filings, the company was prompt announce the procurement of DIP funding (link), which will come in the form of a $22.3 million secured loan (against what assets?) at Libor + 800bps, courtesy of NextEra Energy Resource, LLC. The same NextEra featured in the following press release:
NextEra Energy Resources' subsidiary closes on $935 million financing and secures a DOE loan guarantee for its Genesis solar project
JUNO BEACH, Fla. – NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, announced that its subsidiary, Genesis Solar, LLC, has closed on construction and term financing consisting of $702 million in project bonds, a $150 million project term loan facility and an $83 million project letter of credit facility. The U.S. Department of Energy has provided a loan guarantee of 80 percent of the principal and interest on the project bonds and project term loan under its Financial Institution Partnership Program. Proceeds from the financing will be used primarily for the construction of the Genesis project, a 250-megawatt utility-scale concentrating solar thermal generating facility featuring proven parabolic trough solar thermal technology, located in Riverside County, Calif.
“This financing marks a significant milestone in the development of the Genesis project,” said Armando Pimentel, executive vice president and chief financial officer of NextEra Energy, Inc., the parent of NextEra Energy Resources. “We are very pleased with both the strong investor reception for this financing, which we view as a validation of our solar development efforts, and the receipt of a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy Loan Programs Office.”
That's right: one ward of the state, bailing out another ward of the state, all to reduce those evil carobn emissions. Although that is not all. NextEra is also a subsidiary of the publicly traded, albeit with very private investors, NextEra Energy (NEE). Which means that every dollar extracted out of Solar Trust via the DIP, and ultimately via a Credit Bid in which NextEra will acquire the STA assets at pennies on the dollar, will go straight to NEE's shareholders. Who are these shareholders you ask? Here they are: spot the odd one(s) out.
And that is how in crony America taxpayer money goes from one insolvent pocket, to another, to Wall Street, all under the guise of idealistic pursuits and clean energy.
There is more to this story but we will stop here as we have had enough.
For those interest here is the first day affidavit, as well as the DIP term sheet. And the last time we saw an Org Chart this fun, the company's name started with En and ended in ron.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service released a laughable set of "voluntarily guidelines" for Wind Energy development. Reading it, makes it clear, this was directly from the American Wind Energy Association lobby to allow unfettered Industrial Wind development.
In the official press release from the US FWS, is a quote “The country needs more wind energy for its American manufacturing and construction jobs, environmental benefits, and national energy security. ” said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association." Funny does Denise work at US FWS??? Why are they quoting praise from a lobbyist making billions off Industrializing open space, harming people and animals which by definition can not replace existing power plants as the wind blow 10-40% of the time and requires massive infrastructure buildouts over long distances? Funny I didn't know the AWEA was part of the US FWS? I guess those lobbyist dollar get editorial rights.
or
Here is some tough language about killing Eagles and migratory birds....how may times can you say "may" where are the words "MUST", "HAVE TO", "REQUIRE" and "NEED TO"?
The voluntary guidelines will also help developers identify additional steps, review processes and permits that may be needed to ensure compliance with federal laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. If the project may affect one or more species protected by the ESA or their habitat, for example, developers may need to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan and apply for an Incidental Take Permit.
Which clearly states numerous times that the "guidelines" are "voluntarily" and talk a lot about communication protocol and little about measurements.
Here is a classic....maybe we will research this more...that is we spent the money and done the harm.
The National Park Service has been investigating potential impacts to wildlife due to alterations in sound level and type. However, further research is needed to better understand this potential impact. Research may include: how wind facilities affect background sound levels; whether masking, disturbance, and acoustical fragmentation occur; and how turbine, construction, and maintenance sound levels can vary by topographic area.
Below is another classic about the 100 Golden Eagles killed at Altamont each year from a population of 1100...no problems here. BTW it is know that Golden Eagles have declined with the ascend of Industrial Wind Turbine...coincidence?
" The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) has been the subject of intensive scrutiny because of avian fatalities, especially for raptors, in an area encompassing more than 5,000 wind turbines (e.g., Orloff and Flannery 1992; Smallwood and Thelander 2004, 2005). Field studies on golden eagles, a longlived raptor species, have been completed using radio telemetry at APWRA to understand population demographics, assess impacts from wind turbines, and explore measures to effectively reduce the incidence of golden eagle mortality for this area. (Hunt et al. 1999, and Hunt 2002). Results from nesting surveys (Hunt 2002) indicated that there was no decline in eagle territory occupancy. However Hunt (2002) also found that subadult and floater components of golden eagle populations at APWRA are highly vulnerable to wind turbine mortality and results from this study indicate that turbine mortality prevented the maintenance of substantial reserves of nonbreeding adults characteristic of healthy populations elsewhere, suggesting the possibility of an eventual decline in the breeding population (Hunt and Hunt 2006). Hunt conducted follow-up surveys in 2005 (Hunt and Hunt 2006) and determined that all 58 territories occupied by eagle pairs in 2000 were occupied in 2005. It should be noted however that golden eagle studies at APWRA (Hunt et al. 1999, Hunt 2002, and Hunt and Hunt 2006) were all conducted after the APWRA was constructed and the species does not nest within the footprint of the APWRA itself (Figure 4; Hunt and Hunt 2006). The APWRA is an area of about 160 sq. km (Hunt 2002) and presumably golden eagles formerly nested within this area. The loss of breeding eagle pairs from the APWRA suggests these birds have all been displaced by the project, or lost due to various types of mortality including collisions with turbine blades.
One more laughable statement...these machine generate about 100 decibels....other than a waterfall, what background noise are they speaking of? Could they be measuring from 1000ft? And why no mention of the loud mechanic generator....Oops won't want the lobbyist money to stop would we.
Turbine blades at normal operating speeds can generate levels of sound beyond ambient background levels.
I suggest you read this ridiculous document to see how bought your government is.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THIS AND THE VAST HARM THEY ARE PERPETUATING!
Go read the report by ERCOT the Texas power authority is seeing the high variability of wind energy harming their base generation power plants.
The Pine Tree Industrial Turbines have killed at least 8 federally protected raptors...making this worse than Altamont . Many more will have been killed that aren't found. Regionally these birds will become extinct. Sadly environmental groups are only now trying to stop these projects...which is too late once they are built for billion of dollars.
U.S. probes golden eagles' deaths at DWP wind farm
February 16, 2012|By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times
Two more golden eagles have been found dead at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power wind farm in the Tehachapi Mountains, for a total of eight carcasses of the federally protected raptors found at the site.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to determine the cause of death of the two golden eagles found Sunday at the Pine Tree wind farm, about 100 miles north of Los Angeles and 15 miles northeast of Mojave, said Lois Grunwald, a spokeswoman for the agency.
The agency has determined that the six golden eagles found dead earlier at the 2-year-old wind farm in Kern County were struck by blades from some of the 90 turbines spread across 8,000 acres at the site.
Those deaths give Pine Tree one of the highest avian mortality rates in California's wind farm industry. The death rate per turbine at the $425-million facility is three times higher than at California's Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where about 67 golden eagles die each year. However, the Altamont Pass facility has 5,000 wind turbines — 55 times as many as Pine Tree.
The flight behavior and size of golden eagles make it difficult for them to maneuver through forests of wind turbine blades spinning as fast as 200 mph — especially when the birds are distracted by the sight of squirrels and other prey. Golden Eagles are about 40 inches tall and weigh about 14 pounds,
The DWP is developing a avian and bat protection plan that "will include measures for mitigating risks to golden eagles," utility spokesman Brooks Baker said.
Critics say the problem is fundamental. "The increasing golden eagle mortality at Pine Tree clearly points to wind turbines built in the wrong location," said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. The utility needs to redesign its 250-megawatt Pine Tree network and Kern County needs to put a moratorium on construction of nearby wind farms to prevent deaths, Anderson said.
Garry George, renewable energy project director for Audubon California, said the best solution is to devote years of research into golden eagles' behavior in an area before deciding where to erect turbines. "If you don't ... you wind up with a Pine Tree," George said.
Killing golden eagles is illegal under federal law, but so far, federal authorities have not prosecuted any wind farm operators for violations.
A prosecution in the Pine Tree case could force the booming alternative energy industry to revise its approach at a time when Kern County is drafting boundary maps for wind resource areas for dozens of proposed wind projects designed to generate electricity for Los Angeles County.
A year ago, the Kern County Board of Supervisors adopted a renewable energy goal of having 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy production by 2015. Los Angeles has a renewable energy goal of 35% by 2020.
A coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Defenders of Wildlife recently sued Kern County to block construction of the proposed North Sky River and Jawbone wind energy projects, which would operate on 13,535 acres of mountainous terrain adjacent to Pine Tree.
According to the lawsuit, the projects would have an unacceptable effect on protected bat and avian species, including the golden eagle and the rare and protected California condor, and on an important avian migratory corridor.
Compare Wind Turbine Failure against city reducing energy consumption by about 45 percent and saving "$1.1 million in energy costs a year, largely from retrofitting buildings with efficient light bulbs and other cost-saving measures"
Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.
The city’s seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.
That’s according to data available on Reno’s new “open government” website that tracks the amount of power each windmill generates and the average wind speed from each day.
The most successful of Reno’s six operational windmills is located at the city’s water sewer facility in Stead. It features two white blades and has generated 11 megawatt-hours over the last 365 days with an average wind speed of 2.3 miles per hour. Before it was constructed in October 2010, it was expected to generate 10.5 megawatt-hours, according to its Scotland-based manufacturer, Gaia-Wind.
The windmills in downtown Reno, including the two on top of City Hall, have fallen far behind with the amount of electricity they were originally billed to produce.
For example, the windmill located on the eastern side of City Hall produced 129 kilowatt-hours over the last 365 days, though its manufacturer, Michigan-based Cascade Engineering Inc., said it would produce 750 kilowatt-hours in a year.
“The vendor looked at it and suggested if we installed them higher, we’d get better wind output from them,” said Jason Geddes, Reno’s environmental services administrator. “That’s not what their literature advertised in the beginning. We’re finding we’re getting turbulence from city hall itself.”
Geddes said city staff is talking to the manufacturer about moving the windmills to a better spot on top of the 16-story building.
The two vertical windmills on top of the downtown Parking Gallery also have lagged in wind energy production. One of the installations, which looks like a double helix, has produced just 33.4 kilowatt hours since it was installed in September 2010, even though its manufacturer, Venger Wind, promised it would produce 1,100 kilowatt-hours a year.
Geddes said the problem is lower-than-expected wind speeds in downtown Reno — about 1.3 miles per hour on average at the parking garage — compared to windier areas closer to the Sierra and canyons.
Another windmill located at the Stead water treatment facility managed to produce nearly 8.7 megawatt-hours in a year (down from an anticipated 10.5 megawatt-hours) before it was shut down last October for repairs. It’s expected to be operational again in May.
“The turbines that we have installed up in Stead at the wastewater plant have been two of most successful turbines we’ve had and two of the most productive in the state in terms of what they produce,” Geddes said.
The windmills are part of the city’s larger, $20 million renewable energy effort, funded by $4.7 million grants and rebates, as well as $15.3 million in renewable energy-related bonds that will be paid off using cost savings from the project over the next 15 years.
So far, the city has reduced its energy consumption by about 45 percent and is saving about $1.1 million in energy costs a year, largely from retrofitting buildings with efficient light bulbs and other cost-saving measures. In February, the city finished work on nine solar installations that are expected to save up $3 million in energy costs over the next 20 years, or $150,000 a year, and generate up to 18 percent of the government’s electricity.
While Reno’s windmill demonstration has generated less power and resulted in a mixed bag of results, Geddes said they were intended to give the city a chance to experiment with different designs and areas in the Truckee Meadows to see which are the best fit for wind-energy production.
And while the windmill numbers are lackluster compared to other portions of the project, such as solar panels and retrofitted buildings, Geddes said Reno’s green-energy efforts have earned the city national attention from the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Time and USA Today, as well as the National Resource Defense Council in 2010 naming Reno one of the top 22 “Smarter” cities in the country when it comes to renewable energy.
Former Maine Governor's Wind Energy Company Investigated by Congress along with many others.
The Maine Wire -- DEVELOPING: KING WIND PROJECT CITED BY CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION
Report Refers to project as part of a pattern of “dysfunction, negligence and mismanagement”
Just a day after Angus King announced he was divesting his stake in his wind energy company, a Congressional Oversight Committee has called into question the basis for a $102 million loan guarantee granted to King’s Record Hill Wind project.
The U.S House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform yesterday released an extensive report on questionable funding for projects authorized through the U.S. Department of Energy. The report, titled “The Department of Energy’s Disastrous Management of Loan Guarantee Programs”, reveals that the Record Hill project received a loan guarantee based on “questionable reasoning” by King’s company.
From the report:
“After conducting a substantial review of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) loan guarantee program, it is clear that the significant losses absorbed by taxpayers as a result of Solyndra’s collapse is just the beginning. The investigation conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has uncovered numerous examples of dysfunction, negligence and mismanagement by DOE officials, raising troubling questions about the leadership at DOE and how it has administered its loan guarantee programs.”
The report shows that the Department of Energy (DOE) “approve[d] Record Hill Wind’s $102 million loan guarantee project as “innovative,” despite the project using commercial technology. DOE knew that the Record Hill project did not use significantly innovative technology.”
“the Record Hill Wind project attempted to categorize minor modifications to existing commercial technology as “innovativeness.” DOE eventually agreed with Record Hill Wind’s questionable reasoning”
In 2011, Independence Wind partners Angus King and Rob Gardiner celebrated the federal loan guarantee in a press release:
“The U.S. Department of Energy has issued a conditional commitment for a loan guarantee to cover a portion of the cost of constructing the Record Hill wind project… “We’re delighted that the exhaustive review done by the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office has resulted in this step toward making the project a reality,” said Independence Wind, LLC President, Rob Gardiner.”
The report’s release calls into question the timing of King’s announced separation from Independence Wind. Just a day before the Oversight Committee released its findings, King announced he would separate himself from Independence Wind to avoid a conflict of interest. According to theAssociated Press:
“Independent Senate candidate Angus King completed the transfer of his stake in a wind energy company he co-founded to his business partner and said Monday he would go one step further to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest by placing his investments in a blind trust.”
According to King’s campaign spokesperson Crystal Canney, King originally scheduled interviews last Friday to spread the word about his disassociation with Independence Wind. MPBN reported Friday the 16th that King had filed the paperwork to dissolve his relationship with Independence Wind, and that, “As a result, any financial benefits he might have received from federal energy subsidies as a principal in the company will no longer be valid issues in his campaign.”
Canney said that King had no knowledge of the Oversight report until it was released publicly this week.
A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children,[1] and it may have important implications for public health.
March 11, 2012 by Christopher D Hanning and Alun Evans in British Medical Journal
The evidence for adequate sleep as a prerequisite for human health, particularly child health, is overwhelming. Governments have recently paid much attention to the effects of environmental noise on sleep duration and quality, and to how to reduce such noise.[1] However, governments have also imposed noise from industrial wind turbines on large swathes of peaceful countryside.The impact of road, rail, and aircraft noise on sleep and daytime functioning sleepiness and cognitive function) is well established.[1] Shortly after wind turbines began to be erected close to housing, complaints emerged of adverse effects on health. Sleep disturbance was the main complaint.[2] Such reports have been dismissed as being subjective and anecdotal, but experts contend that the quantity, consistency, and ubiquity of the complaints constitute epidemiological evidence of a strong link between wind turbine noise, ill health, and disruption of sleep.[3]
The noise emitted by a typical onshore 2.5 MW wind turbine has two main components. A dynamo mounted on an 80 m tower is driven through a gear train by blades as long as 45 m, and this generates both gear train noise and aerodynamic noise as the blades pass through the air, causing vortices to be shed from the edges. Wind constantly changes its velocity and direction, which means that the inflowing airstream is rarely stable. In addition, wind velocity increases with height (wind shear), especially at night, and there may be inflow turbulence from nearby structures-in particular, other turbines. This results in an impulsive noise, which is variously described as "swishing" and "thumping," and which is much more annoying than other sources of environmental noise and is poorly masked by ambient noise.[4][5]
Permitted external noise levels and setback distances vary between countries. UK guidance, ETSU-R-97, published in 1997 and not reviewed since, permits a night time noise level of 42 dBA, or 5 dBA above ambient noise level, whichever is the greater. This means that turbines must be set back by a minimum distance of 350-500 m, depending on the terrain and the turbines, from human habitation.
The aerodynamic noise generated by wind turbines has a large low frequency and infrasound component that is attenuated less with distance than higher frequency noise. Current noise measurement techniques and metrics tend to obscure the contribution of impulsive low frequency noise and infrasound.[6] A laboratory study has shown that low frequency noise is considerably more annoying than higher frequency noise and is harmful to health-it can cause nausea, headaches, disturbed sleep, and cognitive and psychological impairment.[7] A cochlear mechanism has been proposed that outlines how infrasound, previously disregarded because it is below the auditory threshold, could affect humans and contribute to adverse effects.[8]
Sixteen per cent of surveyed respondents who lived where calculated outdoor turbine noise exposures exceeded 35 dB LAeq (LAeq, the constant sound level that, in a given time period, would convey the same sound energy as the actual time varying sound level, weighted to approximate the response of the human ear) reported disturbed sleep.[4] A questionnaire survey concluded that turbine noise was more annoying at night, and that interrupted sleep and difficulty in returning to sleep increased with calculated noise level.[9] Even at the lowest noise levels, 20% of respondents reported disturbed sleep at least one night a month. In a meta-analysis of three European datasets (n=1764),[10] sleep disturbance clearly increased with higher calculated noise levels in two of the three studies.
In a survey of people residing in the vicinity of two US wind farms, those living within 375-1400 m reported worse sleep and more daytime sleepiness, in addition to having lower summary scores on the mental component of the short form 36 health survey than those who lived 3-6.6 km from a turbine. Modelled dose-response curves of both sleep and health scores against distance from nearest turbine were significantly related after controlling for sex, age, and household clustering, with a sharp increase in effects between 1 km and 2 km.11 A New Zealand survey showed lower health related quality of life, especially sleep disturbance, in people who lived less than 2 km from turbines.[12]
A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children,[1] and it may have important implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise. Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue, as is an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels.
Footnotes
Competing interests: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; CDH has given expert evidence on the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep and health at wind farm planning inquiries in the UK and Canada but has derived no personal benefit; he is a member of the board of the Society for Wind Vigilance; AE has written letters of objection on health grounds to wind farm planning applications in Ireland.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
2 Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:334-9.
3 Phillips C. Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:303-8.
4 Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:3460-70.
5 Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Can road traffic mask sound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road traffic sound. Energy Policy 2010;38:2520-7.
6 Bray W, James R. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2011, Portland, Oregon, 25-27 July 2011. Curran Associates, 2011.
7 Møller M, Pedersen C. Low frequency noise from large wind turbines. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;129:3727-44.
8 Salt A, Kaltenbach J. Infrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:296-303.
10 Pedersen E. Effects of wind turbine noise on humans. Proceedings of the Third
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg Denmark 17-19 June 2009. www.confweb.org/wtn2009/.
11 Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report. Proceedings of 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), 2011, London, UK. Curran Associates, 2011.
12 Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks K, Hill E. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life. Noise Health 2011;13:333-9.
“Obviously, we take these findings extremely seriously,’’ said Kenneth Kimmell, the state environmental protection commissioner. “But I don’t think we should jump to conclusions that the experience here can be generalized to other locations.’’
All available contemporaneous documents -- 
