Comment

Comment by Martha thacker on March 10, 2014 at 4:09pm

"

 Our ability to develop wind energy projects is also contingent upon, among other things, negotiation of PPAs or access to liquid independent systems operator ("ISO") markets, availability of transmission lines with adequate capacity, turbine procurement, availability of financing, weather and satisfactory completion of construction, all of which may be beyond our control. Although we have entered into PPAs with utilities in many of the areas in which we are developing wind energy projects, we may not be able to secure additional PPAs for future projects. In addition, if we fail to construct a wind energy project in a timely manner or do not deliver electricity in accordance with the applicable PPA, the PPA may be terminated or we could be required to pay liquidated damages."

"We may not be able to develop our pipeline of development projects economically if there is a sustained material decline in market prices for electricity." Guess the 19% rate hike for "updates" in transmission lines kills two birds with one stone.

"Similarly, if there is a sustained material decline in REC prices, we may not be able to achieve expected revenues, which would have an adverse effect on the investment returns on our projects."

" Because WTI crude oil prices have increased substantially since we entered into our hedge, we have made payments of $3.5 million associated with this oil swap from inception of the swap through March 31, 2008 and had a marked-to-market liability of $20.0 million as of March 31, 2008." he he

 

"If our projects are unable to generate the amount of electricity required to earn the RECs sold forward or if we are unable for any reason to qualify our electricity for RECs in relevant states, we may incur significant losses." guess this is the reason lack of transmission line capacity. 2008 sec report.http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1434804/000104746908008563/a...

---

 

Comment by Kathy Sherman on March 10, 2014 at 1:12pm

I thought that 'tourism' is why they finally rejected one project, but they are not looking at it cumulatively. They are also not looking at the cumulative impact on grid reliability in Maine, and apportioning costs of new transmission which will likely be needed to keep the lights on in Augusta. I am not going to enter the ruckus on the comments to the original story, but I have counted river herring since 2007 and hydro is not to blame, or is so only partially - the timing just does not match, and the solution is to fix the runs. They are an important base to the food chain, but overfishing has more to do with cod. Industrial wind impacts from herring and salmon up are a concern too for real environmentalists. I doubt herring or other bait fish will deal well with shadow flicker. Herring spend the majority of their lives in open ocean and it is there that as by-catch they are at risk. Ontario seems to ramp hydro to balance fickle wind and mismatch of demand. Denmark would not be able to claim CO2 savings if the excess wind generation weren't 'stored' as hydro in Sweden and Norway. I did not realize that Quebec had so much installed wind, but it is the 'environmental attributes' not the electricity itself that will be sold in those PPAs. The developers claim that their projects will increase the supply in Maine and NH, op as if those two states will no longer need to draw from more southern generators. That's RENEW NE's we are all one big grid argument. Can someone please remind me how much electricity Maine imports? Lastly, regulatory changes have already reduced coal generation so the value of the RECs should be decreasing, but we will likely have MORE petro-consumption either as mobile generators or oil-natural gas for reliability and because of natural gas constraints. The laws don't count behind the meter or pre-existing renewables, i.e., distributed generation which was supposed to be the goal. Forests don't have to be cut down for PV - parking canopies at commuter lots and on rooftops can put it right near the load. A pro-big wind commenter talked about mining. - Have they seen how much copper goes into the cables, how about transmission towers?

Comment by Sherwin Start on March 10, 2014 at 11:48am

Has Anyone Within the State of Maine Government ever thought about for one Minute Just What affect building all of these Wind Turbines will have on the TOURISM Industry of the North Country?I belive that there have been Numerous Stud,ys done by the UM that have estimated the Value of the Revenue of this Source of Revenue and its in the 100,s of millons of Dollars Annually!If we build WIND Turbines on EVERY mountain in the State- and if The STATE Does NOt REAP any Revenue from the Power they Produce other than SALES Tax-HOw is the STATE Going to RECOUP all the Tourists Dollars that are going to be Lost??Does Tha mean the STATE Is going to have to RAISE other Taxes to Make up for this HUGH Loss of REvenue??!! As soon as the FEDERAL and State Subsidy's dry up-The Wind Power Development Consortium's will disappear!  

Comment by Kathy Sherman on March 10, 2014 at 11:15am

The REC issue is extremely complicated (to me) because they can and are sold out of state, raising the issue of whether the facility or the facilities to be financed by the long-term power purchase agreements with Mass and CT utilities should count. The generation is being double counted. I believe that the RECs are accurately trackef by NEPOOL, but they can be purchased by anyone and retired, they can be sold as 'green electricity' (extra cost is tax deductible, or they could be purchased as an investment by very banks you mentioned and held umtil the price goes up.

I don't know if this relates at all to the mill(s) you brought up, but it does illustrate a business purchasing RECs to'green up' their power supply. Walmart, Google, I think Citibank, etc. are purchasing wind RECs as rebranding as Green and Sustainable, and they probably do get a tax deduction for it. However, I highly doubt that they buy RECs generated in Northern New England for $25-$65/MWh when the national average was 66¢/MWh.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/03/03/monadnock-pape...
Forbes also had a piece that is a good follow on to Bryce's Congressional testimony on need for nuclear to cut carbon emissions. China is planning to more than double their nuclear power generation.

There is no doubt that the MA RPS is a cap and trade system - a fan wrote a piece gushing about it, and suggesting that California use it as a model. But where foreign banks fit in, I don't know. Foreign (and maybe domestic) pensions too.
The PTC surely does benefit the company if they need it. I am rusty on it but I believe FLP used the savings from their Texas wind factories (under different name) to build or expand generation that could add pollution to the Everglades.

Comment by Sherwin Start on March 9, 2014 at 2:48pm

MOre Importantly and to the Point-What is The Cost SAVINGS as compared to BURNING FOSSIL FUELS to Generate the SAME Amount of Electricity???

How Many BARRELS Of Oil has WIND Power REPLACED??

Comment by Martha thacker on March 7, 2014 at 2:51pm

Gary..keep googling..different with different phrasing..I saw that connection to GE..but there is more. I know that I have read in the past that Fl Power and Light had bought some assets...

Comment by Gary Campbell on March 7, 2014 at 11:33am

Eneron sold its wind energy division to GE. From 4/12/02 NY Times:

G.E. to Buy Enron Wind-Turbine Assets

General Electric has won a bankruptcy auction for the Enron Wind Corporation's wind-turbine manufacturing assets, with a bid of about $358 million.

General Electric won the court-supervised auction after increasing its offer by $100 million.

The GE Power Systems unit will pay $325 million in cash and assume about $33 million in debt.

Since filing for bankruptcy on Dec. 2, Enron has been selling assets to help pay creditors, which are owed more than $40 billion.

Enron Wind, based in Tehachapi, Calif., is one of the world's largest wind-turbine operators and is a profitable business. Sales at the Enron unit soared to about $800 million in 2001 from $50 million in 1997, Adam Umanoff, Enron Wind's chief executive, said in December.

Comment by Martha thacker on March 7, 2014 at 11:31am

Well..it looks like there is a connection between First Wind and Duke Energy. In the anti trust lawsuit brought against First Wind in NY, it was speculated that it was a shell company...just a tax write off. In seeing just who and what is behind them, I am beginning to wonder. 

NC is the home of Duke Energy. Don't think people know that Exxon owns them.. Exxon has the reputation of paying no taxes. 

The coal ash spill in NC  I wrote about down thread is threatening millions of people's drinking water from the Dan River. The Dan River feeds into Kerr Lake..a huge man made lake that is used for recreation. gorgeous...paid for by NC taxes. The gov. of NC worked for Duke Power about 20 years. He is dragging his feet on prosecution/investigation of Duke Power.(their gov baldaci , just different party) This is an indication of what is in our future with the transmission lines threatening lower ME. Not for power but for RECs that as far as I can find out , only benefit the corporations. Correct me if I am wrong. But the RECs have to be able to produce facts that energy is being produced. I would think that would be hard to do in ME, except for Mars Hill which feeds into the Canadian power grid.

Comment by Martha thacker on March 7, 2014 at 10:43am

And unfortunately I could not find anything documenting First Wind buying out ENRON assets except for this.

"Credit Suisse First Boston and The Blackstone Group advised Enron Wind Corp. and Enron Corp. on this transaction."http://www.enron.com/index_option_com_content_task_view_id_69_Itemid_34.htm

Credit Suisse , it was said, held the note on Stetson I and First Wind could not make their payments early on . Credit Suisse is also one of the banks under scrutiny for criminality. ..just like all the others First Wind does business with ..UBS ..Deutsche Bank out of Germany.

Deutsche Bank was found in several European countries to have done criminal activity re. cap and trade type investments. 

First Wind does change their name just like their name with the wind....every new construction. Credit Suis

Comment by Martha thacker on March 7, 2014 at 10:33am

Correction...First Wind had nothing to do with Duke Energy receiving a fine for violating law in migratory bird path deaths. Maybe it is only a matter of time ..and investors have some doubts. In my research , I did see that Duke Energy is owned by Exxon Mobile. So if a corporation of that general enormity could be sued , I am sure ME lawmakers who have done First Wind's bidding for so long have some concerns...also MPUC.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page