Will Pinnacle Knob be built with obsolete turbines? If completed within the next few years the answer may well be yes.

Posted on October 17, 2009 by morgan

For the sake of argument, let’s say the two year old computer I’m using has capacity and functionality to support my growing business for, at least, the next three years.  Unless it breaks, I would be a little nuts to replace it with today’s model based on a forecasted need three years from now.  Heck, with the way technology is advancing, by the time I get to the point of need a couple of years from now, the darned thing would be obsolete.  And worse, it would be a two or three year old used piece of equipment at the time the need for top performance is greatest.

So, what does that have to do with the Pinnacle Knob wind farm project planned for Mineral County, WV?  Well, according to what I understand, there is no forecasted requirement for the electricity it will generate that cannot already be supplied from existing power plants.  So we’re doing quite well meeting our needs with what we have.  You have to ask yourself the logic of installing turbine models available today that may well be obsolete by the time they actually begin to contribute to a real need.  Even worse, they will have been operating for all those years when not needed, serving to limit their effective life expectancy during the time of real need, should it ever arise.  So, on the face of it, that all seems pretty nuts, too.

From what I read, today’s turbine models are only expected to perform at some 30% of rated name plate capacity.  Actual performance measures have placed the number for some turbines at a much lower 15%.  As I’ve mentioned before, I marvel at the willingness of authorities to grant permission to consume the land and air space required to mount 23 turbines that produce only the output of 3 to 7 units.  I can’t help but think that, should the WV PSC receive an application for a facility that required a several mile strip of mountaintop including hundreds of acres of land and sky, in order to install 3 to 7 turbines, they would shove it back across the desk and tell the submitter to come back with a better plan.  I suspect environmentalists would be bouncing off the trees at the thought of such poor utilization of land and sky.  But, effectively, that’s what the US WindForce request boils down to.

But, back to the immediate need issue.  There is none!  Feeble memory and all, I recall a question raised by one of the WV Supreme Court of Appeals Judges at the June 2009, Laurel Mountain hearing stating that, effectively, there was no forecasted need for the electricity to be generated by the turbines that could not already be provided by existing power plants.  I seem to recall there was not a strong rebuttal of that point by the PSC Attorney or from any other of the wind advocates.

If I heard correctly, that statement leads me to suggest that, should Pinnacle Knob be built in advance of real need,  it would be the equivalent of me buying that “already obsolete” computer.  You see, the industry is working very hard to improve the efficiency, material content, safety and environmental issues surrounding the current design.  And that brings me to this October 12, 2009 post at Business Week’s Green Business Blog: ”Innovative wind turbine design triples output“‘  You can read the text later, but one thought from Business Week writer Adam Aston to keep in mind while you watch the video … “From the first flight at Kitty Hawk, it took about 50 years to engineer the switch from spinning propellers to more efficient jet engines. Now wind technology could be about to make a similar design leap, barely a decade after the commercial industry’s birth in the U.S.”

MIT’s Technology Review took a favorable look at the design last December in their article “A Design for Cheaper Wind Power – A design that draws on jet engine technology could halve the cost of generating electricity from wind.”  Last I checked, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was a fairly reliable place to go for this kind of thing.  Yep!  There’s work to do but, as Paul Sclavounos, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, said in the article, “It’s plausible that such a design could double or triple a turbine’s power output.”  To which I say, darn!

The MIT Technology Review article concludes that “Part of the increase comes simply from guiding the air to the turbine with the shroud. But Sclavounos notes that it also helps to use the wind surrounding the turbine to speed up the airflow, because the power produced by a wind turbine increases with the cube of the wind speed. The key question is whether the new turbines can be built and maintained at a low-enough cost, Sclavounos says.”

So, how are they making out with the design?  “FloDesign has already built a small prototype for wind-tunnel tests. Its next step is to build a 12-foot diameter, 10-kilowatt system for field tests. The prototype will be finished by the end of next year or early in 2010, with commercial wind turbines to follow. (The company is not yet taking orders.) Eventually the company plans to make turbines as large as one megawatt.”  Read the entire MIT article here.

Yes, developments like this are perhaps a few years away.  But since we don’t really need the power from Pinnacle quite yet, wouldn’t we be smart to wait until a time closer to need to top our mountains with the latest and most modern tools to gather the wind.  The property owners will still make a profit, taxes will still be collected and jobs will still be created, but we just might actually get some real benefit from the wind.

Is there a risk in waiting?  Nope!  With the quick turn quoted by US WindForce it seems certain, should the forecast suddenly change to a closer power need, installation could still meet the need.  Best part though … it would be with the new stuff.  Not the old obsolete stuff they’re making today.

I’m sure the wind industry will come up with a few reasons to continue to use the old props – inventory to consume, purchase price agreements and shovel ready, to name a few.  But these are business issues.  They have nothing to do with what is best for the consumers, the environment and the folks that will have to live with the installations long after US WindForce drives off to count their money.  The folks who matter in the long term are the ones the WV PSC is to protect and serve.  If US WindForce really wants to be the “good neighbors” they portray themselves to be, they will want what is best for us.  Without a need for what they’re producing the best option for us is to wait.

And even if this new “jet” technology is not available at the time Pinnacle Knob becomes a viable option, millions and millions of dollars are being spent world-wide to find improvements in the existing design.  On Thursday of this week, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, announced a $24 million grant to three universities in order that they study the technology with the specific goal in mind to improve what exists today.  NREL’s National Wind Technology Center installed the first of two multimegawatt wind turbines in August of this year, which is to be used for research to advance wind turbine performance and reliability.  So, with such a massive, ongoing effort to improve a product we will have to live with for 25 years, my vote is to make sure we don’t toss one on the mountain that is obsolete before it churns out the first kw of “needed” electricity.

But then, that’s just what I think.  I’d appreciate hearing your views.

Please report any errors, omissions or broken links in the comment section.

Posted in Pinnacle Wind Farm, Wind energy, Wind Power Reliability Factor | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Happily, nothing like this will ever happen at Pinnacle. After all, the folks in Denmark don’t know nearly as much about windmills as we do.

Posted on October 15, 2009 by morgan

I don’t speak the language but I think there might have been at least one “oh … &*^)@(#” in there somewhere.  But not to worry, as the kids say – this is soooo last year.

Here’s a related text article – “Minister demands explanation for windmill collapse”

Here’s some interesting tid bits from the article:  Vestas itself will also now conduct an internal investigation to determine why the wind turbines have been breaking down. ‘We’ve still got about 35,000 wind turbines across the globe that are operating fine,’ said Peter Wenzel Kruse, Vestas’s spokesperson. ‘But they’re not infallible. We’re doing what we can and learning from our mistakes.’

Farmer Keld Boye, who lives in Vig where the latest incident occurred on Sunday, was clearly shaken by the wind turbine’s implosion. ‘I drive my tractor and my wife rides horses out there,’ he said. ‘Just think if we’d been out there when it happened.’

Well, we’re lucky here … no one ever goes up on Green Mountain.

Posted in Pinnacle Wind Farm, Wind energy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Bats deaths at wind farms attributed to lung hemorrhage … aka – the bends! As we move full speed ahead, is the remedy in place?

Posted on October 15, 2009 by morgan

From Sciencentral.com – “Wind Turbines Cause Dark Nights for Bats”

“The big knock on wind turbines has been that they’re dangerous to birds. But researchers have found that they actually kill more bats, and the reason why has been a mystery–until now. As this ScienCentral News video explains, a study published today finds the bats are actually drowning in mid-air.”  Full text of finding at the link.

University of Calgary scientists surfaced the issue a year ago.  I couldn’t find evidence that the wind power industry has corrected the problem, but then maybe I missed the publication.

Can anyone help me out?

Posted in Bat/Bird Kills | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Federal Judge asked to halt Beech Ridge windfarm – a matter of bats.

Posted on October 15, 2009 by morgan

In a Washington Post video, “Retiree David Cowan, a longtime caving fanatic, is asking a federal judge to halt construction of the Beech Ridge windfarm, arguing that the windfarm will kill endangered bats. The lawsuit pits Chicago-based Invenergy Inc., a company producing green energy, against environmentalists who say the price to nature is too great.”

Video linked here – “Green on Green“

Posted in Bat/Bird Kills, Beech Ridge, Friends and Citizens Groups, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“Even if you accept the theory of man-made climate change, wind turbines are a rotten way to reduce CO2 emissions, or to improve energy security.” – Roger Helmer, MEP

Posted on October 15, 2009 by morgan

The title above is actually the beginning sentence of a post tody by Roger Helmer, Conservative Member of the European parliament and Honorary Chairman of The Freedom Association.  His post is titled “The Wind Farm Scam.”

In his post, MEP Helmer notes that beyond relying on massive subsidies “the bitter irony is that wind farms will do little — or perhaps nothing — to reduce CO2 emissions.  Because wind is unpredictably and continuously variable, wind power requires conventional back-up, and the more wind capacity in the system, the more variability, and the higher the required percentage of back-up to ensure continuity.  Even the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75% back-up required.  Generating industry players like E.ON say over 90%, while a recent House of Lords Report suggests that we’ll need 100% back-up.  The back-up will generally be gas-fired power stations, which will be run intermittently, variably and sub-optimally to compensate for wind variation — and therefore run inefficiently, with higher costs and emissions than necessary.  These higher emissions may well outweigh the CO2 emissions savings from wind.  Certainly Denmark, with the highest intensity of wind generation in Europe, has amongst the highest per capita emissions in Europe.”

Read his full post here:  “The Wind Farm Scam”

As a member of the European parliament, MEP Helmer, represents the interests of his 4.1 million constituents from in the East Midlands.”

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

“Wind turbines show how costly ‘free’ energy can be.”

Posted on October 15, 2009 by morgan

In commentary at Minnesota Public Radio Online, Ronald Reimer, an organic farmer in Ettrick, Wisconsin, writes today that “Most of what the public knows about wind turbines comes from the media.” That certainly seems the case here in the Alleghenies, as well.  He adds, “Without a grounding in the sciences of thermodynamics and economics, the average person, eager to be politically and environmentally correct, fixates on the concept of “free energy,” and closes his mind to further discussion of how expensive “free” can be.”

Mr. Reimer, a self-described “Citizen watchdog,” notes that “The public believes, more than it really knows, about wind turbines, and well-meaning advocates of wind as the solution to our climate and energy woes are unknowingly on a crash course with reality.”  He says that curious citizens “who dig a little deeper to learn the whole story, come off in the media as deluded malcontents or NIMBYs, though we back up our warnings with statistics, case studies, laws of physics, comparative research and personal testimonies of real people who suffer from proximity to turbines.”  Geesh, looks’s like he’s been reading the Keyser, WV Mineral Daily editorials.

Mr. Reimer notes that “Rural dwellers are “asked” to host wind turbines and to pay for transmission lines to furnish city dwellers with green power from wind. Investors make huge profits while taxpayers and ratepayers get to pay 20 percent more for their power. So who is this technology benefiting? For exactly whom is it “free?”

“Financially, wind energy is a losing proposition for most everyone who does not directly profit from the manufacture, siting, servicing, removal, financing or taxing of turbines, or from the disbursal of the electricity produced by them.”

Mr. Reimer says, “There are plenty of good health and safety reasons to zone huge commercial turbines away from residences, but the primary objections to wind turbines should be:

1) They don’t do what they’re supposed to do, i.e., replace energy generated by fossil fuels; in fact, they encourage more coal plants to be built. Because the power they produce can’t be stored, traditional sources of electricity must remain available to back up the turbines when the wind dies down.

2) Turbine manufacture, siting, operation and their transmission networks are environmental threats, not boons. We would be better off taking the land on which they are sited — plus the energy used and the lands mined to build them, the land used to transmit the energy they produce, and the money spent on investment incentives — and devoting all those resources to planting trees that would sequester carbon, and simply forgo the huge hidden carbon footprint associated with turbines.

3) Turbine technology looks suspiciously like a bailout of the heavy equipment manufacturing industry, and a transfer of taxpayer and ratepayer resources into the hands of investors.

4) In harnessing the wind we are destroying the beauty of local landscapes — worldwide — with mesmerizing icons of technology that distract our consciousness and ignore our need for a natural landscape.

Red flags should go up when we find the Sierra Club and General Electric Corp. coming down on the same side of an issue.”

Read Mr. Reimer’s full commentary here.

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

Mineral County Commissioners – Ready – Fire – Aim!

Posted on October 14, 2009 by morgan

If I ramble, I apologize.  It’s a fault I display when I’m stunned.

You see, the Keyser (WV) Mineral Daily News-Tribune Online reported today – “Commission 2-1 for wind farm,” and here’s sorta the way it played out.

After a closed meeting, Commissioner Pyle said, “I’ve been listening to all of this since 2002, and I’d like to move that we write a letter of support to the Public Service Commission supporting this project.”  Commissioner LaRue seconded.

According to the article, Commissioner Spiggle asked his fellow officials to postpone any decision until after the PSC holds the evidentiary hearing scheduled for Monday, Oct. 26 in Charleston.  He suggested that “the evidentiary hearings will bring out significant information.”

Commissioner LaRue, doing her best tortoise to hare morph said, “First we agreed to wait until after the public hearings, and now you’re asking us to do this.  I’ve read all there is to read about this. We’ve studied and studied and studied it.  No matter what we do, we’re not going to make everybody happy. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that we need jobs and we need the taxes.”

So, we’ve been studying this thing since 2002 and we’re two weeks away from critical evidence presentation and we can’t wait for two additional weeks.  Makes one wonder who lit the fire under the Commissioners rear ends.

If I were US WindForce and other proponents of the Pinnacle wind farm project I’d be asking “That’s it?  What the hell were you waiting  for?”

If I were the Allegheny Front Alliance and other opponents of the Pinnacle wind farm project I’d be asking “That’s it?  What the hell were you waiting for?”

I mean, after all … year after year and month after month and meeting after meeting and discussion after discussion and article after article and it comes down to needing jobs and tax money?  Why, exactly, did you waste our time?

The commissioners had to know way back then there would be jobs.  Seems fairly obvious since wind turbines the size of football fields weighing a few hundred thousand pounds don’t arrive already assembled.

Taxes?  Sure!  If a business person belches there’s justification for a new tax so construction of a $131 million project might be assumed to drop a few ducats into the kettle at the court house.

But am I now hearing that all the other issues, still unresolved, don’t matter?  Is that too harsh, or are we hearing they were simply outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction all the while?  That part doesn’t matter at this point, does it?

Here’s what does matter – both sides of the argument had a right, early on, to know what held the concern of the Commission.  There was really no purpose for the two sides to spend the time, effort and money to make persuasive arguments concerning numerous topics to folks who had no interest in anything other than tax money and jobs.

I certainly hope there is more to come about the discussion leading up to the decision to support the Pinnacle wind farm project.  I think the Citizens who expect their Commissioners to use resources productively deserve an explanation.  Commissioner Spiggle is right to question the project further and exhaust all information sources before lending our support.  Last I heard he was holding out for the full amount of revenue that was “committed” by US WindForce as the minimum acceptable.  Remember that little “If you make a promise, why be afraid to sign a contract to keep that promise?”  I hope the “suddenly tickled” duo aren’t selling us down the road on that also.

So, here’s my issue with the decision.

As the juggernaut of mountaintop tinker toys inches toward the finish line, these two Commissioners decided to give it a shove by taking the unnecessary and, in my mind, very questionable step of putting the County’s stamp of approval on a commercial project that not all Citizens they represent actually support.  Rather than the appropriate choice to endorse as private citizens, these two Commissioners, in an incredible display of their belief in their own self-importance as elected officials, assume to speak for me.  Had the Commission acted unanimously I may not have been happy, as Commissioner LaRue suggested, but I would have accepted that all of my officials reached consensus on this very critical issue.  Commissioner Spiggle’s reluctance tells me there is, perhaps, more to learn.

As far as I’m aware, the County Commission plays no formal role in the formal approval process.  The published reports I’ve seen to date only speak in terms of endorsement of, and not authorization for the Pinnacle Farm project.  Perhaps, I am ignorant of the role the Commissioners have played to this point, but my sense was that their formal endorsement was the only leverage available to bargain protection of the commitments, including the amount of revenue, the community can expect from US WindForce.  Hopefully, the Commissioners received that commitment because that bargaining chip was just played, and there’s no going back.

I have to admit I was surprised when the Keyser City Council rolled so easily and so early in the process.  They bought in early to the promise of extra cash, “jobs” and visions of tour buses driving down Main Street looking to purchase a t-shirt with a picture of Green Mountain topped with a propeller beanie.  But, I don’t live in town so I have little to say about their choices.  Plus, I don’t know if any of the units are actually within the boundaries of the city in which the members of the council live.  But that won’t stop them from selling t-shirts.

I do live in the county however, and I wonder what transpired since the online Mineral Daily News-Tribune Sunday article.  This blog actually challenged the writer’s “editorial” opening paragraph as potentially implying the Commission was hypocritical by not endorsing the project and still seeking to benefit from the funds to be derived.  But certainly a little nudge from a writer hell-bent on seeing his dream of Holland in Appalachia wouldn’t have caused the two Commissioners to suddenly endorse the project.  I’m sure they don’t mind a little criticism from the press.

So, what was it that caused the two Commissioners to jump on the wagon so quickly?

  • Did US WindForce finally agree to honor Commissioner Spiggle’s request that they sign a contract in support of their promises?
  • Did Commissioners LaRue and Pyle find some heretofore unseen performance map that moved the efficiency of the turbines to more than 15 – 30 % of nameplate capacity so we wouldn’t need to place 23 turbines on our ridges to achieve the performance of 3 to 6 units?
  • Did US Fish and Wildlife call and tell them all issues regarding bald eagles potentially flying into the turbine blades are resolved?
  • Perhaps the BWEC – (Bat and Wind Energy Cooperative), formed in 2003 by Bat Conservation International (BCI), the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the US Department of Energy (NREL) told them that, by some miracle, the turbine models to be installed at Pinnacle in 2010 will incorporate, yet to be developed, future designs deemed necessary to protect bat populations.
  • Maybe the two Commissioners somehow determined that Pinnacle would defy all wind farm installations in the world and actually replace a coal-fired power plant, make a profit without requiring massive subsidies or dramatically increasing the cost of electricity to consumers.
  • Or, perhaps, the Commissioners just don’t care about rate increases because the power generated here won’t stay here hence, that’s a problem for some other community.
  • Just maybe they also bought into the hype that tour buses will swarm, motels will spring up and Red Lobster will move into the old Jethro’s spot on 220.

I’m sure that will all come out in their comprehensive statement of support, since there’s no additional study required.

But, while we’re clearing the deck, perhaps the Commissioners can help answer a question that’s been on my mind.  It has been suggested that New Page, a major local employer and partner in the Pinnacle project, “will be able to burnish its green-energy credentials with the wind farm” and “If that helps NewPage  so they can hire one more person, or 10 or 100 … and increase sales, I feel we need to go with this … ,” (Councilman) Sowers said. “I just say it’s a win-win situation.”

This kind of discussion implies that New Page will derive benefit from the installation.  That makes perfect sense and is as it should be, even without knowing the details.  What remains foggy is the suggestion that New Page will maintain, or even hire additional workers as a direct result of the installation or, conversely that New Page will reduce the number of current employees or lose market share if the installation doesn’t move forward, as might be implied in Mr. Sowers remarks.  Did New Page ever make such claims?  Did the local news or the various citizen advisory panels ask New Page to confirm?  You see, making assumptions is one thing, but doing so from a position of influence, be it elected office or the media, requires a serious factual basis.  Perhaps Commissioner LaRue and Pyle received such confirmation from New Page and will share it with us.

Then there is the issue with project related jobs, and Lord knows we need jobs in the area.  It’s not at all my intent to minimize the “200 construction jobs, a half-dozen permanent jobs” or even the “150 construction and six permanent jobs“, depending on which of the News Tribune articles you choose to use.  The temporary jobs will certainly contribute at some level to the local economy for some period during the 9 month construction cycle outlined by Mr. David Friend of US Wind Force.  Perhaps the Commissioners have assurance that the vast majority of the “temporary” employees will be found locally.  Whether, as implied, there exists a work force waiting in the wings on the heels of the last installation at Mt. Storm or US WindForce has made arrangements to hire local folks, regardless of Union affiliation, from the local market, one could only hope.

I’ve heard there is support from various labor groups and assume the Commissioners got some assurance that the local work force would not sit idle as individuals from outside the area are brought in to make up the work force.  I also hope the half dozen full-time employees either come from the local job market or, at least, decide to live and pay taxes in WV.

Mount Storm could provide an excellent resource for study of actual utilization of local labor during a construction phase.  Perhaps the results have been published.  US WindForce must certainly have a good handle on the requirements and availability of local contribution to the effort since they are, according to their quick turn schedule, nearly mobilized and only waiting for the PSC to approve the project.  I suppose the two supporting Commissioners already have the labor issues iced as well, since there’s no need for further study.

I’m probably on shaky ground when I question if Commissioners Pyle and LaRue really assessed the impact of the timing of their unnecessary support of the Pinnacle project from their formal seats.  Providing an endorsement as an individual citizen to a project that fails to meet expectation can be dismissed with an “oh, well.”  Providing an endorsement as an elected official, effectively signaling to the PSC that the whole of the Mineral County Citizenry is on board without fully understanding all the “evidence,” is a risky game and has consequences.  For now, these elected officials have accepted the word of US WindForce that they will live up to the commitments long after US WindForce is gone from the scene.  The Commissioners, at the time of endorsement, at least as I understand, have no contractual agreement in place to insure that what was promised will be honored.  By endorsing the project prior to gaining that commitment, the Commissioners may have given away the only long term benefit to the Community – a commitment to firm tax revenue.

The consequence of the formal endorsement, should the project not live up to its commitment, may or may not create re-election difficulties.  It is possible that voters might question why, when the Commissioners were not required to do so, they chose to use the power of their office to endorse a commercial enterprise.  If, as they say, there is no reason for further study and all goes according to plan, there will be no issue.  On the other hand, should the project not live to expectations, it will be more than a disappointment that Commissioners LaRue and Pyle chose not to stand with Commissioner Spiggle as a force driving US WindForce toward insuring its financial, environmental and community commitments, prior to awarding the ultimate prize of the endorsement of the Mineral County Commission.

I really hope all goes well, because, unfortunately, there are no more cards to play.

I welcome getting hammered due to my ignorance if the issues I raised are, in fact, not issues at all.  If however, as seems to be the case, Commissioner Spiggle is not satisfied that all has surfaced that needs to be considered, I can only assume the Commissioners played their hand too soon.  Why, has now been added to my list of open questions.

Please report any broken links, errors or omissions in the comments section.

Posted in Pinnacle Wind Farm, Wind energy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Maryland Public Service Commission to review Western Maryland wind power proposal.

Posted on October 14, 2009 by morgan

According to Philly.com, “Maryland utility regulators are expected to consider a proposal for a western Maryland wind energy project.”

The article continues, Synergics Wind Energy wants to build a 50-megawatt wind energy farm on a mountaintop near Oakland in Garrett County. The Maryland Public Service Commission is scheduled to hear the case Wednesday afternoon.

An initial proposal by the company ran into permitting problems when the Department of Natural Resources insisted on conditions to protect habitat for rare and endangered species.

Earlier this month, Delaware regulators gave Delmarva Power the go-ahead to buy electricity from two planned Synergics projects in Maryland, including the Garrett County facility, as well a Pennsylvania wind farm.

A beautiful area under attack.

I highly recommend you go to stopillwind for information about the impact of wind power projects in the target area discussed above.

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

“Quote of the Month” – Courtesy of John Droz, Jr.

Posted on October 13, 2009 by morgan

Adding a comment to Dr. Michael Trebilcock’s recent article at the Financial Post, John Droz, Jr. offered that “Wind needs to be in our energy mix to the same degree that Twinkies need to be in our diet.”

Clear and to the point, Mr. Droz! … and thanks for the laugh!

Michael Trebilcock’s work can be found at the Financial Post online, linked here.  In an April, 2009 commentary, Dr. Trebilcock takes on the myth of wind as a viable power source in “Wind power is a complete disaster.”

Mr. Droz offers great perspective on wind power at his site – linked here, and at Wind Power Facts link listed under Wind Energy Resources on this page.  Mr. Droz also provides a very informative weekly free publication via email.  You can sign up to the growing list at his web site.

Posted in John Droz, Michael Trebilcock, Wind energy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Mineral County Commissioner: “If you make a promise, why be afraid to sign a contract to keep that promise?”

Posted on October 12, 2009 by morgan

This will be a little long, but sometimes clarifying a point takes longer than making it in the first place.  So please bear with me.

At the beginning of an editorial some months ago, Mineral Daily News-Tribune (Keyser, WV) writer Richard Kerns noted, “Two semesters in Maryland’s journalism grad school that I spent 10 years paying for, taught me that, as a human, which most reporters are, one cannot truly be free of bias. The trick is to keep it out of your reporting, as opposed to column-izing.”  In an article dated October 11, 2009 titled “Wind funds eyed for judicial annex” Mr. Kerns begins with this paragraph, “Although they have never endorsed the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm, the Mineral County Commissioners welcome the tax revenue the project would generate, saying they would dedicate the estimated $125,000 a year to a desperately needed judicial annex.”

It seems to this reader, having read some of Mr. Kerns previous work, he might be, perhaps unintentionally, planting a little seed in the opening of the article that could lead the reader to believe that the Mineral County Commissioners are a little hypocritical for being skeptical of the need, performance and financial viability of the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm, while, at the same time, discussing how, should the project move forward, the revenue generated from the installation might be used for the benefit of Mineral County.

Beginning his article with “Although they have never endorsed the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm … they welcome…” Mr. Kerns simply sets the stage for readers to perhaps see their Commissioners as weak and indecisive on the issue, while drooling over the potential for money to spend.  This serves no purpose but to cloud the factual content of the story, which I take as the Commissioners doing their job by challenging all aspects of what will be a significant, life altering addition to our community; while discussing options for the new tax revenue and working toward a commitment from US WindForce.  I’m frankly confused by Mr. Kerns’ intent.  Project approval, as far as I know, is pretty much outside of the Commissioners’ control.

Mr. Kerns notes in the next line that “The commissioners are also working with the Pinnacle developer, US WindForce, to develop a mutually agreed upon “floor” for taxes from the project, in the event that revenue falls below current projections as a result of future tax-rate reductions adopted at either the county or state level.”  That would seem a reasonable action in advance of an installation they can do little to prevent.  To construct a measure to require US WindForce to live to it’s promises seems reasonable.

Following this, Mr. Kerns states “Commissioner Wayne Spiggle, who acknowledges his “skepticism” about both the 23-turbine Pinnacle project and the wind industry in general, nevertheless said any public official would recognize the importance of a revenue source that promises to pump $11 million in taxes into the Mineral County over the next 25 years.  County schools are slated to receive about $308,000 a year from the project, for a total average tax windfall of $433,000 annually.”  I’m not sure if Mr. Kerns learned in writing school to put quotes around “skepticism” whenever it pops up in a sentence, or if Mr. Kerns simply wants to emphasize his “amazement” that  Commissioner Spiggle might hold a position counter to his own.  Mr. Kerns, if one hasn’t noticed, sees the Pinnacle project as a noble step toward the future.  For me, if Commissioner Spiggle did acknowledge his skepticism, the quotation marks serve no purpose.  But maybe I’m just picky.

By the way … hang onto that “promises to pump $11 million in taxes into the Mineral County” thought for a little while.

Mr. Kerns did offer this quote from Commissioner Spiggle, “There’s no question that for any county commissioner it would be fiscally irresponsible not to favor initiatives that increase tax revenue.”  Of course, we residents also expect our Commissioners to evaluate the source of such revenue.  One would hope that the source of any tax revenue would be generated from a profitable industry able to compete in the energy market by improvements in efficiency and reduced costs and not simply from tax subsidies provided by other government agencies and increased utility rates paid for by the citizens.  One would hope that our Commissioners are forever skeptical of the offerings of businesses that have a poor track record of performance on which planned revenues are based.  We expect our Commissioners to wade through the hype of the sales pitch and secure a commitment.  It shouldn’t be a stretch for WindForce to confirm their commitment since, according to Mr. Kerns, Scott Burgess, assistant director of property taxes for the state of West Virginia, confirmed that the estimates developed by WindForce were “very solid numbers.”

Interesting term “very solid numbers.”  Efficiencies for wind power are all over the map and even the Secretary of Energy Chu acknowledges wind energy’s unreliablity, noting that Bonneville Power in the Northwest “gets about one-fifth of its power from wind energy when the wind is blowing.”  “But when it stops blowing, that share drops to zero.” (The Wind Energy cart. Will the horse ever catch up?)”  Even the Department of Energy’s “West Virginia Wind Resource Map” carries this disclaimer, “Note: Wind resource at a micro level can vary significantly; therefore, you should get a professional evaluation of your specific area of interest.”

Similarly, Ofgem, Britain’s Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets, highlighted the “variability” of wind as a source of energy supply, and stated that the wind is “so variable in fact that the energy regulator is currently assuming that, in the future, windfarms are available for just 15pc of the time.”

Perhaps the independent professional evaluation recommended by the Department of Energy has, in fact, been done for the Pinnacle project and shared with the Commissioners, or better yet, the Citizens via the News Tribune.  Maybe I missed the publication.  But then, US WindForce must have some means of generating the “very solid numbers” on which they base their contribution.  Perhaps, Mr. Kerns can assist.

But back to Mr. Kerns article.  He notes that “Pinnacle opponents, pointing to other West Virginia counties that did not reap the promised tax benefits of wind farms, had challenged the WindForce numbers, saying they were inflated to make the project more appealing.”  To clarify, Mr. Kerns also noted that “Burgess, though, said the project most often mentioned in that regard, in Tucker County, predated a 2007 state law that firmly establishes how wind farms are to be taxed.”

So, why all the questions, Commissioners?  As Mr. Kerns notes, “With that tax policy pegged to the overall project cost, the $131 million Pinncale wind farm, to be located on Green Mountain just west of Keyser, would provide a major infusion for perpetually stretched county finances.”  Commissioner Spiggle commented that, “The presentation (WindForce’s Community Advisory Panel meeting this week in Elk Garden) confirmed that the publicized figures are correct.”

Hey, Put me in Coach!  I’m ready to play, today!

But wait!  Way down in the article where my ADD normally won’t let me go, after all the critical projects to benefit from this “total average tax windfall” are listed, I see this little gem, “One question mark that hovers over the equation, however…”  Well, that sure blew a fuse on my little “skeptical” meter!  Seems we have “two special tax levies that together form a substantial part of Mineral County’s 2.58 percent tax rate and, ominously, must be approved by county voters every five years. The fear is that voters, who have consistently rejected an additional levy for school projects, might view the Pinnacle revenue as extra funding that negates the need for the special levies, and vote against one or both assessments. If that happens, Pinnacle would also pay a reduced tax rate, and the $433,000 annual payment could be significantly cut.”

And there’s more.  “Spiggle also noted that Burgess, speaking at the Elk Garden meeting, referred to an active “wind lobby” in Charleston. It is possible, the commissioner said, that the wind industry might eventually prevail upon the Legislature to reduce the tax on wind turbines, which would also undermine local tax revenue.”  Hmmm!  So what are you gonna do about that?

“To address such concerns, the county is currently negotiating with WindForce to establish a minimum tax in the event that revenue from the project declines significantly, for any reason. A similar agreement was put in place for a wind farm in Greenrier County.”  Commissioner Janice LaRue confirmed “US WindForce is currently working on that.”  Sounds good!

The article confirms that “David Friend, vice president of sales and marketing for WindForce, said a draft agreement has been prepared for the commissioners, establishing $250,000 as a minimum annual tax contribution. Friend said the proposed minimum is “significantly higher” than the Greenbrier County figure,” adding, “We have heard what the commissioners have said about their concerns, and told them we would be happy to look at a ‘floor’ agreement.”  The article says “Friend noted that such an agreement would go “above and beyond” any state requirements. “We’re trying to show the commissioners and the public that we’re trying to be good neighbors,” he said.”

OK!  Are we done?  Of course not!  Here comes Commissioner Skeptical again.  Seems “Spiggle appears to be taking a harder line on those negotiations than his two fellow commissioners. He wants WindForce to agree to provide annual tax payments based on current projections for the life of the project, regardless of tax rates.”

Commissioner Spiggle said, “I know all three of us think the county should have a contract to provide what Commissioner LaRue calls a ‘floor’…,” and “If those numbers are correct, let that be the floor. If you make a promise, why be afraid to sign a contract to keep that promise?”  Hey, sorta like the one I told you to hold on to before … “promises to pump $11 million in taxes into the Mineral County.”  Perhaps Mr. Kerns can help us get to the mechanics of the calculation.

But, finally, that promise thing sounds pretty good to me, Commissioner!  Asking someone to live to their word?  What a novel concept!  Thanks for being so “skeptical.”  Thanks to the Commissioners for doing their job.

The full News Tribune article is here, for your convenience.

Posted in Pinnacle Wind Farm, Wind energy | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments