AT Note: For best quality, please view in full screen.
Readers recalling that I’m going to pay attention to items a little closer to home might wonder why I find this snippet from a Business Week article interesting: “Suzlon Energy Ltd. (SUEL), the Indian wind-turbine maker seeking an extension on debt repayments, has filed a lawsuit against a unit of Edison International (EIX) claiming its improperly refusing to make a pre-payment for turbines supplied to a U.S. wind farm.”
Well, Edison Mission and Mineral County WV also have a financial agreement. The lawsuit from the Indian manufacturer lawsuit states, as part of the reason for Edison Mission not paying what is due, the “precarious financial situation of Edison.” Suzlon mentioned in the complaint that it is concerned the Edison unit may have to file for bankruptcy, a point I’ve addressed on this blog previously.
You see, our County Commissioners signed a Decommission Agreement for the eventual removal of the 23 turbines installed above Keyser, WV and the obligation to honor the agreement now rests, I assume, with Edison Mission, or one of it’s LLCs. That fact alone gives me pause, but the real problem with the decommission agreement, as I see it, and expressed to the Commissioners before they signed the agreement, is that the escrow set aside to remove the turbines after scrap value is considered is … wait for it … $0 dollars, except for a small percentage for administration fees.
At the time I suggested to the Commissioners that the shortfall could be as much as several hundred thousand dollars. After further consideration, I estimate the cost for transportation alone for items not adequately covered in the consultant’s assessment on which the escrow value was reached, may well put us in jeopardy to the tune of $750,000. That’s a lot of money, even in super wealthy Mineral County, WV!
So what happens if Edison Mission goes belly up? I don’t really know. I have a gut feeling that the Commissioners who signed this agreement even after being warned of the shortfall don’t know for certain.
I would be happy to be proven wrong … but so far I haven’t seen anything that gives me hope.
Date: September 22, 2012
URGENT: For Immediate Release
Contact: Kimberly Connaughton 301-616-9693
In 2010, Save Western Maryland, an Oakland based grassroots community action group, filed a federal lawsuit against Constellation Energy after Constellation Energy released information that their project had identified the presence of the Federally Endangered Species: the Indiana Bat.
The Criterion Industrial Wind Project on Backbone Mountain is in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), due to the presence of the Indiana Bat and the documented bat mortality within industrial wind projects. Before the case made it to trial, Save Western Maryland agreed to stay the proceedings so that Constellation Energy could apply for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). An ITP creates an exemption to the ESA where the operators of projects are required to take action to prevent harming endangered species, and in so doing an applicant that obtains an ITP thereby comes into compliance with the ESA so long as the ITP is adhered to during the project’s operational lifespan. Constellation Energy has submitted its application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for their ITP and the document can be reviewed at: http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/Criterion_documents.html
According to a report released by the USFWS in August 2012, the Criterion Power Partners industrial wind project has the “the highest estimated avian fatality rate at a wind project in North America, 16 birds per wind turbine”. This landmark ITP will set an important precedent in the regulation of industrial wind power projects. It will be the first time for the USFWS to approve mitigation measures and a habitat conservation plan in the Northeast, and perhaps the first time anywhere in the continental United States. Representing Save Western Maryland in the submission of comments is the law firm of Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal, whom holds unparalleled expertise in this area.
Save Western Maryland urges concerned citizens to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with comments regarding the ITP application before the September 30, 2012 deadline.
Comments should be sent to:
Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2012–0032;
Division of Policy and Directives Management;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222;
Arlington, Virginia 22203
This exchange between Melissa Francis of the Fox Business Channel and Denise Bode of the American Wind Energy Association is an instant classic. The interview is titled Wind Energy Tax Credit a Help or Distorting the Market? and can be viewed at the link.
Among the tired old boilerplate served up by Ms. Bode in an effort to reach into your pocket for even more cash to benefit the wind profiteers is this gem in which she names both natural gas and industrial wind the “new flexible affordable generation.” The implication is, of course, that both sources are far superior to nuclear and coal which cannot be easily ramped up and down to manage variations in demand.
But what is “flexible?” Flexibility is defined as the ability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements such as, in this case, demand for electricity.
Natural gas power plants are, in fact, flexible in that they can quickly come on line to meet variable requirements. Natural gas is a demand driven fuel and can serve as both base load and in support of nuclear and coal. Demand driven … as in, when you flip on the light switch you can start reading your book.
On the other hand, industrial wind is fully at the mercy of the wind. Stating that industrial wind is “flexible” to meet demand is absurd and, of course, intentionally misleading. The wind – the fuel supply for the industrial wind electricity generator – is on its own schedule creating a supply side flexibility … as in, flip the light switch and wait for a breeze.
Does Ms. Bode believe that people are actually stupid enough to accept her “flexible” generator suggestion? The answer is … yes … she does!
And she’s right! Just take a poll of your congressional, state and local officials. A large number are willing to continue to toss more of your tax money at this energy impostor in the form of subsidies such as the Production Tax Credit. After all, as lobbyists know all too well, filling campaign coffers with tons of cash has the effect of lowering a politician’s IQ.
Oh … I said yesterday I’d keep to topics a little closer to home! Well, last month, the mental giants in Washington wrote a check in the amount of $44,184,807.00 on your taxpayer account to corporate giant Edison for simply building a wind project above my home town of Keyser, WV. And they don’t really give a damn if the 23 turbine facility actually produces any electricity.
Again, please take a few moments to view the discussion: Wind Energy Tax Credit a Help or Distorting the Market?
I’ve taken a bit of a break here at Allegheny Treasures. The original focus of the blog was industrial wind in the Alleghenies but, with a lot of help, the effort expanded a bit. In recent weeks I’ve decided to leave the national issues to far more competent folks (links to your right) and follow happenings closer to home.
A few issues have popped up that deserve attention and, while they do relate to each other, I’d like to deal with them one at a time, rather than lump them together in a large, even more tedious post.
Let’s start with this item.
In April of 2012, Correspondent Tisha Thompson of NBC 4 Washington published an article titled Green Energy Has Residents Seeing Red – Turbine noise worse than neighbors expected. The article dealt with noisy turbines at the Pinnacle wind project on Green Mountain above Keyser, WV. As the article explained, residents are finding their quality of life destroyed by the noise from “wind farm” they supported.
I found this comment following the article, particularly interesting.
Countering local resident Frank O’Hara, on again off again wind spokesperson Frank Maisano couldn’t hold back stating – “I actually am not working for the wind industry currently. I am responding to these outrageous mistruths because somebody has to inject actual facts into this discussion.”
Mr. Maisano continued, in response to the pending “award” of taxpayer cash to be handed over the the Pinnacle owners, with this: “Again, the facts are that nobody will be applying for 1603 grants, as Mr. O’Hara claims they will. That is because the 1603 Treasury grant program actually expired in December. In any case, only one wind developer out of thousands actually received a 1603 Treasurty [sic] Grant. It just isn’t something that wind developers were including in their plans.”
Mr. Maisano wrapped with this, “Just the facts, ma’am. Something that Mr. O’Hara, “tossed out of office” Spiggle and the rest of the merry band of wind opponents won’t offer.”
As Ms. Thompson will attest, the comment section crashed shortly after the article was posted and my reply to Mr. Maisano could not be published. I’ve provided it here for your reference:
Morgan: “Mr. Maisano can’t seem to resist applying personal monikers. From his perch in Gambrills Maryland, some 170 miles from the nearest turbine, he happily designates folks suffering from turbine noise as “a couple of noisy complainers.” Perhaps he sees this feeble attempt to demean those who disagree as a winning strategy. Attacking opponents personally is much easier than debating the merits of industrial wind in the Alleghenies.
As example, in April of 2011, Mr. Maisano wrote a letter to the editor of the Cumberland Maryland Times attacking Dr. Wayne Spiggle and giving opponents the “merry handful” moniker. My response to Mr. Maisano was later published in the same paper and included a suggestion that the paper conduct a public discussion of industrial wind, inviting Mr. Maisano and his folks to join the “merry handful.” That offer still stands.
While Mr. Maisano remains oddly knowledgeable about the details of the Pinnacle project, I must take exception to his broad claim that “nobody will be applying for 1603 grants.” It is true that 1603 program expired at the end of the year, but the facts are that a project can still accept funds, provided it was placed in service in 2009, 2010, or 2011 or placed in service after 2011 but only if construction of the property began during 2009, 2010, or 2011. The Pinnacle project seems to meet these eligibility standards. Grant seekers must submit a Placed in Service application before October 1, 2012, so there’s still time for Edison to do so.
But if, as Mr. Maisano suggests, Edison Mission has refused to accept this approximately $40 million taxpayer funded grant, I will be happily surprised. It seems odd to me Edison would refuse these millions, especially since the Production Tax Credit for industrial wind is on thin ice and the President’s new budget, according to North American Windpower, has “de-emphasized” land based industrial wind, choosing instead to make offshore wind the cornerstone of his renewable energy policy. Contrary to Mr. Maisano’s claim, recent news articles note that many foreign wind companies are rushing completion of US based wind projects in order to take advantage of these very US taxpayer funded subsidies. And, of course, I haven’t yet heard profit based Edison Mission state this generous position and until I do, I’ll remain skeptical of Mr. Maisano’s statement.
From my vantage point, I cannot hear Pinnacle’s wind turbines, but I fully support a remedy for my neighbors who are experiencing these serious problems. These folks did not move to be near the turbines. They were promised there would be no issue and they actually supported the project. Only after operation began were they told by an Edison Mission representative that the Japanese turbines sitting atop Mexican made towers had never been used “around homes” and that “they didn’t know they made this much noise.” And for Mr. Maisano to simply dismiss these sincere residents of our community as “a couple of noisy complainers” is beyond reprehensible. It seems to me that Edison Mission’s community relations department should be thankful Mr. Maisano is “not working for the wind industry currently.”
I gladly accept being one of Mr. Maisano’s “merry band of wind opponents.” Two years ago I supported industrial wind. My opposition grew as I moved past the heavily funded wind lobby hype and assessed industrial wind solely on performance and cost. This is what brings me to the conclusion that neighbors suffering from wind and health issues related to industrial wind cannot be comforted by the insistence that what they are experiencing is a necessary sacrifice. Industrial wind is, quite simply, a failed technology.”
Why bother to dredge up this old stuff? It seems on August 23, 2012, the very same Pinnacle wind plant discussed in the NBC 4 article received $44,184,807.00 from U.S. Taxpayers under the very Section 1603 Award program Mr. Maisano tried to dismiss in his comments.
And what about the noise issues … the primary focus of the Ms. Thompson’s article? The harmed residents appealed to the WV PSC for help. Well, the WV Public Service Commissioners ruled that the folks complaining could not be protected by the WV Public Service Commissioners because … ready for it? … the WV Public Service Commissioners have no authority in the matter and, worse, they set no standards in the siting certificate for noise because, well, they didn’t seem to know how. Bottom line, residents were told they could pursue the matter in court, with their own money, of course … and Edison was off the hook. This decision, by the way, was made in spite of WV PSC Staff statements supporting the harmed residents.
Supported by State level incompetence, financially challenged Pinnacle owners, the Edison Mission Group, received the huge $44 million payout which was effectively removed from your pocket to be handed over to the massive Edison corporation. By the way, the Section 1603 cash “award” is issued upon project completion, so there are no required production levels. Simply build the project, tell the U.S. Treasury the project is complete and shazaam – the US taxpayer has less money to spend on things that really matter.
Since September, 2009, the Treasury’s 1603 Award program has paid out some $14,000,000,000.00 (b-b-b-b-billion) to renewable energy developers, with much more anticipated as the program’s payouts wind down.
One would think this generous amount, coupled with the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which, between 1992 and 2010, cost approximately $7.9 billion and, in the 2011–2015 budget window is estimated to cost American taxpayers another $9.1 billion of which about 75% will be claimed by the wind industry, would be enough to get you on your feet.
But industrial wind, perhaps the oldest ever infant industry, expects even more from taxpayers. Industrial wind reminds me of the perpetual underachiever who, at 5o, still isn’t quite ready to cut the apron strings and move out. At some point, you just have to kick them out and let them stand on their own. For industrial wind, that time is long overdue.
At 7:31 this morning, according to the US National Debt Clock, the US Taxpayers are on the hook for an incredible $16,056,327,274,614.00. See for yourself:
Stated another way: Sixteen Trillion, Fifty Six Billion, Three Hundred and Twenty Seven Million, Two Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Six Hundred and Fourteen Dollars we do not have … and that number is rising rapidly!
Well folks, it’s time to cut the subsidy cord!
Urgent! Please tune in this evening (Sunday, August 26th) from 7:00 to 8:00 Eastern time on WWR, Wind Wise Radio at http://www.windwiseradio.org
Tina Fitzgerald and Scott McLane from Vermont will be on to talk about the sordid goings on surrounding the Georgia Mountain Project that has been in the news so much this week.
Pam and Art Dodds, Master Naturalists, will join us to talk about endangered bats being killed in West Virginia and other impacts. West Virginia’s current slogan is “Wild and Wonderful”. It used to be “Open for business.” Perhaps it needs to be changed back?
Arthur W. Dodds, Jr., is a professional cartographer who worked for NOAA as a supervisor managing the instrument approach procedures charts for airports throughout the U.S. His credentials include training and management concerning the heights of objects which could impact flight patterns; electromagnetic field impacts on RADAR; and viewshed analysis. Mr. Dodds is also certified by the West Virginia DNR as a Master Naturalist. Mr. Dodds serves as President of the Laurel Mountain Preservation Association.
Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D., is a Registered Professional Geologist who has worked as a geologist/hydrogeologist for the Virginia DOT, Virginia DEQ, and an environmental firm near Bristol, Tennessee. She has concentrated on groundwater contamination investigations and is currently conducting hydrological investigations in watersheds which will be impacted by industrial-scale wind turbine projects and by extensive high voltage transmission lines. Dr. Dodds is also certified by the West Virginia DNR as a Master Naturalist. Mrs. Dodds serves as Treasurer of the Laurel Mountain Preservation Association.
h/t to John Terry
The Public Service Commission of West Virginia has a Vision Statement.
Have a look at Vision Statement Item 4: “An improvement in the standard of living and quality of life for the people of West Virginia”
Reading this statement, folks following the PSC Commissioner’s actions regarding Mineral County’s wind turbine noise debacle might begin to wonder if the Commissioners are a bit visually challenged.
In case you don’t know, several neighbors, many who supported the recently opened Pinnacle wind project, complain that the noise coming from the turbines make their lives miserable. They appealed to the PSC to take control of the issue and, at least, have the turbines shut down at night so they could get a little sleep.
And then? This headline in the 8/21/2012 Cumberland Times-News says it all: W.Va. wind farm gripe snuffed out
Well, so much for Item 4’s “improvement in the standard of living and quality of life” requirement.
By the way … “A Gripe?” Your life is being destroyed and the Cumberland Times-News headline dismisses it as a gripe? Shameful!
Anyway, the reason the folks affected by the turbine noise formally appealed to the PSC was simply that they couldn’t get satisfaction from the profit-based corporation responsible for the turbines. I suspect they thought that, since the PSC had the authority to grant the permit to build, their government agency would want to insure that the offending wind project was, in fact, “An improvement in the standard of living and quality of life for the people of West Virginia.”
I would have thought the same, since WV state legislators assigned powers to grant (or not) permits to build such projects to the PSC. And, after all, the state legislators surely wouldn’t have assigned authority to the PSC Commissioners if they believed the PSC wouldn’t adhere to the “Vision” they actually set for themselves. (Yes … I know!)
Unfortunately for the local residents, this logic falls apart. The initial and subsequent appeal for help was denied by the PSC, ignoring advice from its own Staff, in favor of Edison Mission Energy, the now profit-challenged child of Edison International.
The reason given by the PSC Commissioners? You’re gonna love this! “the sitting order does not contain material terms and conditions related to noise or flicker and because the agency does not possess the statutory authority to address the issues raised by Braithwaite.”
In other words: “the sitting order (originally written by the very same WV PSC Commissioners as a result of testimony prior to granting the permit) does not contain material terms and conditions related to noise or flicker and because the agency (the very same WV PSC) does not possess the statutory authority (if not them, who?) to address the issues raised by Braithwaite (one of the harmed residents requesting help).”
Your read it right: The PSC, in its Pinnacle wind project siting order, seems to claim it was unable/unauthorized to set adequate measures dealing with potential turbine noise (quality of life?) and now falls back on this failure as a reason to ignore their own Vision Statement’s Item 4 regarding our neighbor’s Quality of Life – even though their own Staff seemed to feel otherwise.
In private industry, I was charged with planning and executing my department activities. I was also directly responsible for the results. I can only imagine the reaction if I asked my boss to ignore poor end results because the planning was inadequate. After the initial “what kind of idiot do you take me for” look, I would likely be replaced and, perhaps even fired.
But that’s what we’re asked to do here. We’re to excuse Commissioners because their hands are tied due to earlier considerations they failed to consider, and further … that they don’t actually have the power or knowledge to enforce the requirements set by their own Vision Statement. Well, maybe we should fire the whole bunch!
Take a look at this from the Siting Order and tell me if you feel secure about these officials protecting your back yard:
While there has been progress in controlling the sound fiom [sic] turbines, we indicated the complexity of our task in considering sound analysis in a previous siting certificate order:
What the hells does that mean? Are they actually saying, having learned little from the past, we are unable to make a quality decision regarding this current project … so we’ll just let this one fly as well?
It seems to me the WV State Legislature should have its own rear end kicked for allowing a condition to exist in which one of its agencies can excuse its failures to protect citizens with this nonsense: “Neither the governing statute nor the Siting: Rules contain any operational noise limitations or guidelines. Instead, they require us to balance various project impacts and their effects on the community. The Pinnacle study complied with Commission requirements, accurately portrayed ambient noise levels that are typical for a rural community, and employed a variety of conservative assumptions to allow us to assess the “worst case” scenario for the Project’s noise impacts. Even under all of the conservative assumptions, the highest level of predicted operational noise was 56 dBA. Application App. Up. 8 (Pinnacle Ex. 1. The Commission is not required to conclude that the Project would never impact existing ambient noise levels, nor would that be a reasonable thing to do. Based upon the totality of the evidence presented to us, we conclude that the Project will emit some noise, but the operational noise levels should not be objectionable. The Commission further concludes that, to the extent that operational noise results in negative impacts, those negative impacts are expected to be as minimally disruptive to existing property uses as is reasonably possible.”
Repeat that, please … “Based upon the totality of the evidence presented to us, we conclude that the Project will emit some noise, but the operational noise levels should not be objectionable. The Commission further concludes that, to the extent that operational noise results in negative impacts, those negative impacts are expected to be as minimally disruptive to existing property uses as is reasonably possible.”
Tell that to the neighbors who find their “quality of life” destroyed as a result of your Siting Order!
The PSC Commissioners, in ducking the hard work, would rather the residents they are pledged to protect seek remedy in court. This is absurd in light of this earlier PSC Staff comment: “It is ludicrous to argue that because the Commission possibly had incorrect information before it when it made its decision, it cannot now review that decision. Therefore, Staff believes Pinnacle’s argument that this issue is beyond Commission review should be rejected.” – INITIAL JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM (WV Public Service Commission) in the matter of Case No. 12-0251-E-C, Richard L. Braithwaite V. Pinnacle Wind, LLC”
The WV Legislature seems satisfied not only with the lack of standards they set, but with the performance of Public Service Commissioners’ granting of siting permits based on wouldas, shouldas and couldas. My boss would have fired the whole bunch based on this poor performance.
For you folks interested in reviewing the Siting Order, it’s at this link. If you really want to get into the weeds, you can let me know and I’ll source the two day (2009) testimony which led to approval. It’s some real Perry Mason stuff.
The neighbors are gathering for what will probably be an expensive lawsuit to in an attempt to do what the feckless Public Service Commission will not. It’s unfortunate that they not only have to pay lawyers to protect themselves, but continue to pay the salaries of the PSC Commissioners and Legislators who actually put them in this tough spot.
By the way … Item 5 of the WV PSC Vision Statement states: “That consumers receive the best value in utility service from financially viable and technically competent companies …”
Well, at the time of the 2009 PSC hearing, the no-longer-affiliated wind developer seeking the permit to build wasn’t even sure of the relationship between his company and the ultimate owner, or which entity/name would assume control of construction and operation. Of course, this muddled testimony set off no warning bells demanding further thorough questioning by our stellar group in Charleston. And now, the potential exists that the current wind plant owner may go bankrupt.
So much for Vision Statement Item 5’s financially viable requirement and, with the noise issue and the redesigning of the turbines on the fly, one begins to wonder about the technically competent requirement as well. Oh … and about that best value requirement? I suppose if the turbines actually spin when needed a bulb will light … somewhere.
Yep! There’s no doubt … my boss would have fired the whole bunch!
AT Note: While this study of industrial wind’s ability to replace fossil fuel is focused on data specific to The Netherlands, it should give pause to the efforts in the US to blanket our countryside with these enormous and very expensive environmental intrusions. Perhaps, as the study suggests, placing industrial wind into our energy mix is truly not a sacrifice worthy of the results.
Abstract: “Electricity production in The Netherlands using renewables, especially wind, has grown to a size that makes it visible in the national statistics of electricity generation. Its influence on fossil fuel consumption can be determined. Based on these ‘official figures’ we show the actual contribution of fuel reduction to be equivalent to about 4,1% of the installed – ‘nameplate’ – capacity.
The actual data also provide some insight into the mechanism that causes wind electricity to have such a dramatically small influence on primary fuel consumption.” – C. (Kees) le Pair
Full report at this link: FACTS ABOUT THE SAVINGS OF FOSSIL FUEL, BY WINDTURBINES IN THE NETHERLANDS1.
Items of Interest:
1-“The amount of misinformation driven by the wind industry and its surrogates has reached a point where the public and Congress are less willing to blindly follow AWEA’s lead.” – MasterResource
2-“President Barack Obama announced late Monday that a large wind farm and a solar-power plant both planned on federal land in Arizona will get expedited reviews so they can begin construction quickly. Five other projects across California, Nevada and Wyoming will get similar treatment, according to the announcement.” – Tuscon Citizen
Not to confuse the issue, but “federal land” is more accurately described as “US Taxpayer owned property.”
3-Also, from the Tuscon Citizen – The scale problem for solar and wind generation of electricity
4-“Vestas Wind Turbines To Dot Landscape In Tuscany” – North American Wind Power
I love the term “dot landscape.” As the saying goes … “you can lead them to water.“
5-“They (Criterion Power Partners) estimate that this change will save an estimated 50 percent of bats without loosing significant power.” – Audubon Magazine
From what I read, not a lot of significant power would be lost if the turbines hadn’t been installed in the first place and, best of all, they wouldn’t be killing any endangered species.
Allegheny Treasures 