Industrial Wind Action Group Editorial: The economics of transmission in New England

Posted on March 2, 2010 by morgan

Important Editorial from the Industrial Wind Action Group:

WindAction Editorial

The economics of transmission in New England

With little fanfare last week, the ISO-New England[1] released its latest report, New England 2030 Power System Study: Report to the New England Governors, summarizing the economic and environmental impacts of developing significant amounts of renewable sources within the region including substantial inland and offshore wind resources.

According to the report, the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) and the ISO initiated the study in early 2009 following receipt of a letter from Maine’s Governor John Baldacci requesting the ISO’s support in advancing a “…regional vision for developing renewable energy.” Shortly after, the NESCOE submitted a letter to the ISO on behalf of the governors, asking that the economic study be done. The assumptions used in the study were developed by the States with technical input from the ISO.

Background

All of the New England states, except Vermont, have adopted aggressive renewable portfolio standards (RPS) representing about 11% of demand in 2009 but growing to as much as 23% by the year 2020.

Utilities are under pressure to acquire renewable energy (or credits) from owners of operating renewables facilities in order to comply with the RPS programs. For each missing megawatt hour of renewable energy where the mandated percentages are not met, nearly every RPS in New England imposes a sizable fee[2] that is typically collected by each State’s Public Utility Commission (PUC). The cost for either the renewable energy credit, or the compliance fee, is passed on to the ratepayers in the form of higher electricity bills.

The cost of meeting renewable mandates

In order to develop the RPS sources needed to satisfy legislative mandates, most transmission operators intend to build numerous transmission projects either to rural areas in New England or to out-of-region sites, generally into Canada. Several of these projects have already been proposed with more to come. And the state legislatures and PUC’s have, thus far, responded favorably to having these costs socialized and paid for by the ratepayers in the region — not by the renewable generators. Since most of this generation will be intermittent (wind) and largely operate off-peak and off-season, the ISO-NE will also have to procure quick start generation or arrange for sizable storage projects to balance the system. These costs are likely to be socialized as well, and not paid for by the renewable generators.

In a part of the country where only 160 megawatts (MW) of wind is currently installed, all of it onshore, the ISO’s report identified a potential for up to 12,000 megawatts — a 75-fold increase from current wind capacity — with 7,500 MWs on land and the remaining 4,500 MWs offshore. Most of the onshore development would be sited in rural and remote areas of Maine (4,500 MWs), New Hampshire (1,200 MWs), Massachusetts (1,000 MWs) and Vermont (650 MWs), hundreds of miles from urban areas.

Offshore wind would be distributed in 1500 MW increments off the coasts of Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island. We note that no offshore towers are installed anywhere in the United States at this time, and that Cape Wind, a proposal to erect 130 towers in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts represents one of the fiercest wind battles worldwide!

Despite only limited wind generation experience in the region, and no offshore experience, the document assumes an average capacity factor for offshore wind of 40.7% and inland wind factors of 29.3% in Maine and a whopping 35.4% for the rest of New England!

But what caught our attention were the costs and scale for new transmission development outlined by the ISO — information that should be required reading by every electricity consumer in New England, and every politician.

In order to meet the 12,000 megawatts of wind potential identified in the report, the ISO anticipates 4,320 new miles of transmission with midrange “order of magnitude” costs between $19 and $25 billion (500 kv or 765 kv lines). Even the more modest scenario of 4000 megawatts of on- and offshore wind was estimated to need 3,615 miles of new transmission ranging in cost from $11 to $14 billion.

The ISO states that its intent was to conduct a “what if” analysis that would inform the states of the economic and environmental impacts of various scenarios. “Although this analysis presents a variety of economic results for comparison,” it wrote, “[the analysis] was not a least‐cost plan or multi‐year, present‐worth analysis, and it did not include a “feedback loop” that accounted for how consumers or investors would react to the different sets of circumstances presented.”

Indeed!

Given the way New Englanders have responded negatively to wind development thus far, it is impossible to imagine a situation where ratepayers would embrace the environmental, economic, and social costs of industrializing their rural areas with turbines and transmission. It’s regrettable that the ISO did not take this opportunity to speak frankly to the governors of New England rather than bolster Baldacci’s (et.al.) pie-in-the-sky “vision” when it concluded that “New England has significant potential for developing renewable sources of energy …primarily from inland and offshore wind resources.”

In his memo to the ISO last December, Mr. William Short, an energy analyst with decades of experience in renewable energy deployment, warned that “promoters of renewable energy projects are getting their poorly conceived ideas made into statutes and regulations. Those statutes and regulations are leading to higher costs to end users than if sound economic renewable energy policies were implemented.” He goes on to recommend an alternative policy approach and then challenges the ISO to “get over the idea that it should only respond when asked by state legislatures or public service commission’s” and, instead, become the independent energy policy expert for New England.

Mr. Short, we agree!

[1] The ISO-NE is a non-profit entity tasked with managing the New England grid system and ensuring the day-to-day reliable operation of the region’s bulk power generation and transmission system.

[2] The 2009 compliance fee for the region is $60.92 per megawatt hour. Renewable energy credits are trading at around $30 per megawatt hour.

Visit the Industrial Wind Action Group site.  They are “dedicated to providing information on industrial wind energy to enable communities and government officials to make informed decisions.”

Posted in industrial wind cost, Wind Energy Legislation, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Former industrial wind advocate: “This is nothing more than industrial wind mountaintop removal. It is being driven by dollars and cents, not ecological sense.”

Posted on March 1, 2010 by morgan

From the Guest Columns section of the Lewiston, Maine Sun Journal:  Save the highland mountains from industrial wind

By Jonathan Carter

Mar 01, 2010

I have been advocating for wind power for decades. I never thought I would see the day when I would be opposing wind power development. However, the current frantic rush to install industrial wind on every viable mountaintop is both shortsighted and ecologically damaging.

All one has to do is look at the impact of the Kibby TransCanada industrial wind operation in the remote boundary mountains of western Maine. This is nothing more than industrial wind mountaintop removal. It is being driven by dollars and cents, not ecological sense.

To call mountaintop wind operations “farms” is nothing more than public relations. Farms suggest a positive relationship with the land. The industrial wind operations are nothing less than massive electrical generating facilities that destroy the quality of a place and pose serious health problems for both humans and wildlife.

When Gov. John Baldacci announced the formation of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power, I thought, “good idea John.” Never in my wildest dreams did I think this task force would submit to the Legislature an expedited wind permitting law that fast-tracks industrial wind development in an area covering two-thirds of the state.

This bill was passed by the Legislature in 15 days, with little to no public involvement or debate. The fact is that the expedited wind law was, to a large extent, written by the wind developers whose primary interest is green money, not green energy.

This law gives the go-ahead for potentially 360 miles of industrial wind turbines on Maine mountaintops. This would result in the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads. It would require the clearcutting of more than 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads need to support 400- to 500-foot turbines (more than 40 stories high and higher than the Statue of Liberty!).

In addition to the destruction of habitat, these massive wind machines, the blades of which move at more than 180 miles an hour, sweep more than an acre of space and broadcast high volume sounds which have literally driven people in Maine from their homes.

The proposal by Independence Wind for the highland mountains is a perfect example of how the new expedited wind law will open the doors for wind developers to destroy the essence of a rural community by turning the mountains of Maine into something more analogous to the Portland Jetport.

The Highland Mountains are right next to the Bigelow Preserve. This development would undermine the wild character of hundreds of miles of the Appalachian Trail. The whole Bigelow Range would be confronted with an upfront, in your face, string of 48 turbines with their noise, shadow flicker and flashing red lights.

In leveling the highland mountains, 1.6 million cubic yards of blasted debris, enough to fill a 100,000 truckloads, would be moved. If those trucks were lined up, they would stretch all the way to North Carolina.

North Carolina has put a moratorium on mountaintop turbines because the people there recognized that turbines would degrade the mountains which define their state and are a major economic driver in the form of tourism and outdoor recreation. What has Maine done? It has passed an expedited law that will fast track industrial mountaintop wind.

Some environmentalists have been drawn into believing that if you are not for covering the mountains of Maine with wind turbines, then you are acting against the unfolding disaster of climate change. That is a false dichotomy. Global warming is a catastrophic crisis, but the solution is not to destroy the pristine character of the Maine mountains. The industrial wind mountaintop frenzy sweeping across Maine is not tied to shutting down an oil or coal power plant. It is simply feeding our gluttonous consumption of more and more energy. It makes no sense to destroy our mountaintops to feed that appetite.

There are better alternatives, the first being conservation. It is no secret that if the federal subsidies (as much as 60 percent of cost) being poured into industrial wind were invested instead into efficiency and conservation projects, the reductions in carbon emissions would dwarf those potentially created by mountaintop industrial wind. It would also create thousands of more jobs for local communities. If these funds were used for forest restoration, the reductions per dollar expended would be even greater.

Maine, a state with one of the highest renewable energy portfolios, already produces more than enough energy. In fact, we export energy. It has been estimated that Maine and the rest of New England will have excess capacity for the next 15 to 20 years.

If we allow this mountaintop wind gold rush to continue, after the rush has played out, Mainers will be left with the tailings of a despoiled landscape and the magic of the mountains gone forever.

Jonathan Carter is director of the Forest Ecology Network and a board member of Friends of Highland Mountains.

Posted in Environment | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Small town nukes and industrial wind – energy’s promising future and its ancient past.

Posted on March 1, 2010 by morgan

Thanks to Larry Thomas for pointing out this article from National Geographic on “Small Town Nukes.”

Seeing it reminded me of a presentation I attended nearly a year ago, when I first began to question my belief in industrial wind.  See, I didn’t start out disliking “wind farms.”  I didn’t object to the massive turbines topping mountains, although I thought it was a little nuts for some folks to actually think they would add beauty and mystery to our grand Appalachians.  But then, they probably think Miss America could use a little touch up.

I probably wouldn’t have bothered to attend the presentation except for a few excellent questions raised by a county commissioner that seemed to go unanswered, and a few letters to the editor opposing the proposed local installation.  It struck me then, that the articles in the local paper might have easily been written by the wind companies and seemed to fit better in the classifieds.  The letters from opponents, on the other hand, spoke effectively against the towers.  I began to take an interest.

Mr. John Droz came to our area, at the invitation of the Allegheny Front Alliance, to discuss industrial wind.  During the presentation, Mr. Droz discussed his clear objections to industrial wind in very specific scientific, yet understandable terms.  I was surprised to learn of their inefficiency, unreliability, high cost and negative environmental impact.  He really slammed industrial wind, yet in a polite, low key manner.  I left the meeting with more questions than answers.  To me, that is the sign of an excellent presentation … wanting for more.

What surprised me most that evening was that two officials from US WindForce, the developers of the proposed local wind project, were in the audience and, when the question and answer period came – NOTHING!  Not a peep to counter any of the statements made by Mr. Droz, many of which were damning to their whole story.

Even more interesting – there was nothing in the local paper about the presentation that proved so damning to their glowing portrayal of this industry.  Search Droz at the paper’s website and the only mention will be the letter to the editor I wrote after attending the presentation.  Think about that … a nationally recognized scientist coming to our little town to speak about one of the largest investments in land and money in our area and NOTHING!  Well, in my humble opinion, nothing much has changed at the Mineral Daily News-Tribune (WV) in the last year.  Thankfully, the Cumberland (MD) Times-News has recently begun to ask serious questions and publish articles representing both sides of the debate.

But back to the “small town nukes!”  In his presentation, Mr. Droz did not simply come to slam an industry.  He came with a bag full of energy possibilities.  Exciting technology with the potential to forever change how we produce and use energy.  As does my patient guide through this maze – Mr. Jon Boone, who calls industrial wind – “perhaps the silliest modern energy idea imaginable,” Mr. Droz speaks of solutions.  That evening he spoke of the excellent potential for these mini-nukes to power communities.

Of the the National Geographic article, Mr. Droz feels “that if National Geographic has finally seen the light, can some other environmental groups be far behind?“

And perhaps if we don’t fritter away every dollar on subsidies to prop up this boondoggle called industrial wind, we can develop real solutions.

Visit the John Droz web site here.  You can also sign up for his informative email newsletter by contacting him at aaprjohn@northnet.org

Visit Jon Boone’s excellent and informative resource at Stop Ill Wind.

Posted in industrial wind poor performance, John Droz, Jon Boone | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Wind farms and “fair share” of local property tax. (Ne’er the twain shall meet!)

Posted on March 1, 2010 by morgan

More “woulda, shoulda, coulda” riding along with the wind?

From The Star Press (Indiana):  Value of wind farms to local governments questioned

By SETH SLABAUGH
seths@muncie.gannett.com

MUNCIE — Wind farms could be more valuable to local communities than riverboat casinos, but not if they don’t pay their fair share of local property taxes.

“The ones we’ve looked at, on average, the state is assessing each windmill an average of $1 million,” said accountant Gregory Guerrettaz, president of Financial Solutions Group in Indianapolis. “So right there, you could be losing a differential of $4 million on taxes during the life of that windmill.”

Guerrettaz, a municipal financial consultant for more than 20 years, spoke to local planning officials recently at a Communities at the Crossroads conference in Indianapolis.

“I’m saying, when we looked at it, on average, a wind farm is not going to bring in its proportional share of property taxes that it should,” he said. “And it will not bring anything in on an income tax.”

Four wind farms have been proposed in East Central Indiana, and others are already being built in West Central Indiana.

Wind towers are assessed by the state, not by local assessors, who do, however, assess the land on which the structures sit.

Wind tower assessments are based on “federal cost less federal depreciation as reported by the company on its federal income tax return,” said Amanda Stanley, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance.

“The company reports its cost to build the wind tower structure and calculates the depreciation of that structure on its federal income tax return.”

Many counties have granted property tax abatements to wind farms that essentially exempt part of the assessed value of the wind tower structure from taxation, she explained.

“So while the assessed value of the wind tower structure may be $5 million, an abatement may reduce the taxable assessed value of the tower to $1 million,” Stanley said. “The granting and amount of these abatements is a local decision, even though the property itself is assessed by the state.”

Benton County will begin collecting property taxes from 87 windmills this year, and many more are being built there.

“We gave them a 10-year abatement,” said Benton County Assessor Kelly Rose.

The wind farm will pay zero percent of what it normally would have paid in property taxes the first year, 10 percent the second year, 20 percent the third year and so on until paying 100 percent in the 11th year.

The 87 windmills were assessed by the state at $85.8 million. The assessed value of the land for the 87 towers is $806,000. The land is assessed the same as cell towers.

But the county is also receiving payments in lieu of taxes from wind farm developers.

For example, an agreement with BP Wind Energy, which is developing a $700 million wind farm, calls for BP to pay Benton County $1 million 30 days after starting construction, plus another $1 million a year for three more years.

The payments are being made to “correct current shortfalls in local government revenues so as to better enable Benton County to provide the abatement contemplated herein, and to offset revenue which Benton County would otherwise lose as a result of the abatement,” the agreement states.

Paul Cummings, project developer for Horizon Wind Energy, which is planning a wind farm in Randolph County, said Indiana’s property taxes on wind farms are “pretty high” compared to other states. Local communities approve abatements and receive payments in lieu of taxes to “make the projects work in the beginning,” he said.

Full property taxes are paid after 10 years “when we’re able to afford it,” Cummings said.

Posted in Industrial Wind Taxes, industrial wind vs. property value, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Glenn Schleede: “US and NY officials reward Iberdrola of Spain at the expense of US taxpayers, job seekers, and electric customers”

Posted on March 1, 2010 by morgan

Courtesy of Mr. Glenn Schleede:

US and NY officials reward Iberdrola of Spain at the expense of US taxpayers, job seekers, and electric customers

Often it’s hard to tell whether highly questionable actions by federal and state government officials that reward special interests at the expense of US taxpayers, job seekers, and electric customers are due to honest but misguided intentions, skullduggery,  malfeasance, incompetence, or simple mistakes.

Consider, for example, the connections between:

  • Actions affecting Iberdrola during the last few months by members of the New York State Public Service Commission (NYS PSC), NY Senator Charles Schumer, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

But please recognize that “connecting the dots” among the actions of these officials will require careful reading of the following pages.

Iberdrola of Spain’s February 24 doubling of net profit announcement

“MADRID (AFP) – Spain’s Iberdrola, the world’s biggest wind-power generator, said Wednesday its annual net profit in the fourth quarter more than doubled to 795.3 million euros (1.07 billion US dollars)

“But the company reported that for the full year 2009 net earnings weakened due to weakness in core markets, which was offset by higher renewable energy output and greater income from its US unit.

“The results were boosted by income from its US unit Energy East, which helped make up for lower demand in its two main markets, Spain and Britain.” (emphasis added).

How has Iberdrola benefitted so handsomely from US and NY officials’ actions?  READ ON:

Linked also at MasterResource

Posted in Glenn Schleede, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Friends of the Grande Rhonde Valley Newsletter – March 2010

Posted on February 28, 2010 by morgan

Thanks to the Blue Mountain Alliance in Oregon for referring us to the March 2010 Newsletter published by the Friends of the Grande Rhonde Valley.  These groups share our concern for the severe environmental damage brought on by the inefficient and unreliable intrusion that is industrial wind.

The newsletter is provided here for your convenience:

Posted in Environment, Friends and Citizens Groups | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Tribes reject wind farm offer | CapeCodOnline.com

Posted on February 28, 2010 by morgan

By Patrick Cassidy

pcassidy@capecodonline.com

February 28, 2010

A million-dollar offer by Cape Wind Associates LLC to each of the Indian tribes fighting the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm has been declined.

“A financial offer was made to our tribe and it was rejected,” the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s chairman, Cedric Cromwell, said in a statement e-mailed to the Times. “This issue has never been about money for us.”

The offer, which sources say was for $50,000 a year for 20 years, comes as negotiations wind down between the wind energy developer, the Mashpee tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) over the impact of Cape Wind’s plan to build 130 turbines in the Sound.

“Culturally speaking, the offer was never acceptable,” Bettina Washington, the Aquinnah tribe’s historic preservation officer, said yesterday. “We would not consider selling our cultural landscape.”

The tribes contend the turbines would be built in an area submerged beneath the Sound where their ancestors once lived. They also argue an important sunrise ceremony would be disrupted by the 440-foot-tall turbines.

In January, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who visited the Cape and Vineyard earlier this month to meet with the tribes and view the proposed site of the project, said he would make a decision on whether to approve a federal permit for Cape Wind by April if the negotiations between the company and the tribes did not yield a compromise by tomorrow. An announcement from Salazar’s office on what happens next is expected tomorrow.

Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said a “financial mitigation” offer was made to the tribes but he would not confirm the amount of money. “Cape Wind proceeded as constructively as possible with other parties in the spirit of working together and we’ll find out on Monday from the secretary’s office what, if anything, they were able to arrange,” Rodgers said.

Tomorrow also marks a self-imposed deadline for an update by Cape Wind and National Grid on negotiations for the utility to buy power from the project. There will be no announcement regarding those negotiations, Rodgers said, adding the talks are “ongoing.”

The town of Barnstable and the primary anti-Cape Wind group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, have argued for an alternative location for the project south of Tuckernuck Island off Nantucket. That site has been studied and dismissed as impractical, according to Cape Wind. And the Aquinnah tribe has not fully endorsed the alternate location, saying the site must be studied to ensure it would not unduly damage ancient lands significant to the tribe.

In a letter sent Feb. 9 to Salazar, Jeffrey Madison, a former member of the Aquinnah’s tribal council, wrote the contention of his fellow tribe members that the turbines would disrupt important ceremonies was unfounded.

Madison, who included with his letter a petition signed by eight other tribe members, is an attorney with the law firm Wynn and Wynn, which was hired by Cape Wind more than a month ago to advise the company on Indian affairs. Madison did not reply to a telephone message left at Wynn and Wynn or an e-mail sent to him yesterday seeking comment. A home phone number for Madison is disconnected.

Audra Parker, president and CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, blasted Cape Wind’s monetary offer to the tribes. “Cape Wind can’t pay off the Native Americans to compensate for irreversible impacts to sacred land,” she said yesterday.

Tribes reject wind farm offer | CapeCodOnline.com

Posted using ShareThis

Posted in Cape Wind | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“Wind farm owners have a strong incentive to sell off or abandon their projects once tax benefits have been captured…”

Posted on February 28, 2010 by morgan

“Wind farm owners have a strong incentive to sell off or abandon their projects once tax benefits have been captured (5-6 years for accelerated depreciation; 10 years for production tax credits), turbine performance deteriorates and/or operating and maintenance costs escalate. Economics may dictate abandonment of individual windmills or entire “wind farms” before the end of land rental contracts or current estimates of the useful life of the turbines. When and if this happens here, there will be no property tax revenue, jobs will disappear and landowner leases will be worthless since no revenue will be generated, then we will be stuck with the rusting skeletons.”

From The Observer – Union and Wallowa Counties’ (Oregon) News Leader

For the sake of green or greed

Written by Dennis Wilkinson

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Treasury awarded $546 million to Iberdrola from the stimulus program. Per the CEO of Iberdrola, the offshore parent company of Horizon and the developer of Antelope Ridge, they expect to receive another $470 million in 2010.

Horizon’s Elkhorn Wind Farm in 2007 and 2008 received $11 million each year in tax credits from the state of Oregon. In addition, Union County gave Horizon a property tax deduction of $331,680 each year for 2008 and 2009 which will continue for the next 10 years. The federal government also allowed in 2008 and 2009, a Production Tax Credit of $5,518,500 each year wherein it will continue for 10 years which will amount to $55,188,000. If you add up these numbers, it amounts to in excess of $81 million over 10 years, which are political giveaways at taxpayers’ expense. Just imagine what kind of jobs that could be created with this kind of money being addressed to private sector and infrastructure.

If the Antelope Ridge project is built and the county offers the same tax relief program as was given Elkhorn, we will be giving Horizon in excess of $6.5 million in tax relief annually. In addition, there will be a Federal PTC of $16.5 million allowed each year for 10 years for a total PTC of $165,864,000.

Wind farm owners have a strong incentive to sell off or abandon their projects once tax benefits have been captured (5-6 years for accelerated depreciation; 10 years for production tax credits), turbine performance deteriorates and/or operating and maintenance costs escalate. Economics may dictate abandonment of individual windmills or entire “wind farms” before the end of land rental contracts or current estimates of the useful life of the turbines. When and if this happens here, there will be no property tax revenue, jobs will disappear and landowner leases will be worthless since no revenue will be generated, then we will be stuck with the rusting skeletons.

In California with the impact of past mandates and subsidies, there are thousands of abandoned wind turbines that litter the landscape of wind energy’s “big three” locations — Altamont Pass, Tehachapi and San Gorgonio. Across the wind farm sector there are 14,000 turbines that have simply been abandoned — spinning, post-industrial junk that generates nothing but bird kills.

Last year, as the national debt of wind-intensive European Union became unbearable, the bubble burst. What do they do with all this industry that they have been creating with subsidies that now is collapsing? The president of the Renewable Industry in Spain wrote a column arguing that “ … the only way is to find other countries that will give taxpayers’ money away to the wind industry.”

That “other country” is the United States of America.

Wind-subsidy proposals being floated in Congress suggest that American political leaders have yet to understand that “green power” means generating electricity by burning taxpayer dollars.

In a recent news article and press releases from Horizon, it was stated that the Elkhorn project has generated $664,000 in revenue per year and 40 full-time jobs that cannot be substantiated along with the employment numbers of 50 full-time jobs for the Antelope venture. In contacting Horizon for documents to support these claims, they refuse to respond. The number of full-time employees at Elkhorn per Horizon’s own documentation indicates 14 with only two being Horizon employees. The rest are Vestas employees, who may or may not be permanent. Or, is there a serious issue with the project that is requiring constant repair and maintenance?

Regarding jobs, it is interesting that in the proposal Horizon presented for the Antelope Ridge Wind Farm, they state that disruption to wildlife will be kept to a minimum since regularly scheduled turbine visits will be one per turbine every 6 months, so why will it require significant manpower?

The ARWF appears to have the blessing of the commissioners since it is clear that they are looking forward to spending whatever revenue they can from this project. To get 30 jobs, as one commissioner thinks would “be acceptable,” is a huge price to pay for the total destruction of the east end of the county. It is most likely Horizon will combine the workforce of ARWF and Elkhorn, in which we may get 4-5 new jobs between the two farms.

The city of Union will be surrounded by these gigantic wind turbines compromising the citizens’ health and welfare not to mention their livelihood. They are fighting to save their community without the help of the county. In recent communication from Oregon Department of Energy, they were surprised how the city of Union has not been included in the county’s communication regarding the project and stressed Union should be a part of every step of the process.

A rapidly growing grassroots organization, Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley, has been formed to stop the Antelope Ridge Wind Farm and to get the attention of the county officials along with the Oregon Department of Energy and the Energy Siting Council. Join the resistance and help stop this wind farm nonsense.
Dennis Wilkinson is a Cove resident.

Posted in Friends and Citizens Groups, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Industrial wind – estimating local labor content.

Posted on February 26, 2010 by morgan

Having spent a number of years in project related work, construction workers are high on my list of folks to respect.  The work is difficult, demanding and dangerous.  So don’t let anything I write here be implied as a reflection on them.

Such jobs are critical and every effort to put folks to work should be considered.  Some, like me however, don’t see wind as a viable, reliable energy source and view the use of “potential” jobs as a red herring in the whole argument about industrial wind’s place in future energy solutions.  Many simply believe the outlandish tax credits and subsidies provided the wind LLCs would be better spent on construction projects that provide real economic growth and, as a result, long term jobs.  So, when I hear job numbers tossed around, I think it’s fair to ask for a little clarification.

For example, the number of construction jobs for the Pinnacle Wind Farm at New Page (Mineral County, WV) under development by US WindForce is estimated to be, depending on the source, more than 100, 131, or 150/200.  It is interesting to note that West Virginia regulators said the project will create 275 local construction jobs and about 15 permanent jobs.  Now, how in the world did they come up with that number?

In June of 2009, US WindForce’s David Friend “estimated 150-200 workers would be needed during the construction phase, which is expected to take nine months to a year.”  For me, 150/200 jobs over a time period is a meaningless measure unless converted to labor (man) hours.  And there is, of course, a way to get to that number, if you have a few additional facts.

Take a look on page two of the schedule here and we’ll pick up on the other side.  Note that the schedule is a snapshot in time and to get to the current and most accurate schedule go to the Gantt Chart link on the US WindForce site:

The schedule confirms the 9 to 12 months from mobilization to completion, and, as with any construction project there is some overlap.  A fair portion of the work however is sequential.  I imagine that the foundation people need to be out of the way before the crane operators, riggers and assemblers show up, and they, in turn, will need to move over a little for the electricians, etc.  That being the case, what does the 150/200 worker number so readily tossed about translate to, in real labor content?

For me, the best measure of labor content in a project is labor (man) hours.  I imagine someone estimated the labor hours to prepare cost estimates during the bid phase.  And now, since the WV PSC approval last month and Mr. Friend’s indication that he’s raring to go, these labor numbers should have firmed up considerably.  So now I think we’re far enough along to estimate labor content by discipline and roll up an estimate of total labor hours to provide a more realistic presentation of labor.

Granted, if I’m the only knucklehead who thinks leaving numbers like 150/200 workers and 9 to 12 months dangling out there together might paint a slightly rosier picture than exists in reality, especially when repeated so often in the press, you should just ignore this post.  But if seeing actual labor (man) hours helps others understand more about the actual labor contribution to be received from the project in order to make a better assessment of the projects value to the community in terms of labor, it might be worth putting that number along side the 150/200 and 9 to 12.

I know cost issues are proprietary, but I’m not asking that the cost of labor be published.  Since however, wind developers were so eager to publish labor as a sales point in terms of “X jobs for Y months,” I think it’s fair that when they are able to clarify the claim in real terms, they simply do so.  After all, what’s the harm?

Posted in Industrial wind jobs, Pinnacle Wind Force LLC, US WindForce | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Seeking US stimulus funds, Iberdrola, world’s largest industrial wind company, is focusing on the US as its “main platform for growth.”

Posted on February 24, 2010 by morgan

The Financial Times article – Iberdrola to focus on US for growth – notes that “the world’s biggest wind power company, is focusing on the US as its “main platform for growth” in the next three years.”

Of it’s plans to invest 39% of its capital spending in the US, Iberdrola notes “Investment in the US is particularly attractive in part because of an expected $2bn in grants from stimulus funding – about 30 per cent of its planned investment in wind power – as a result of president Barack Obama’s support for low-carbon energy.”

Excellent!  More of your tax dollars in the form of stimulus funding heading overseas!

Posted in Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment