Wind Farm Investment Plunges With Power Prices in Nordic Region

Comment

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on September 5, 2015 at 12:59pm

If that annual increase was not factored into a project, that would be correct. But in the case of Bingham, these were set figures per year, though may be the average over the 20 years. But the Catch 22 of this, is the term "while producing".

Meaning ? Actual production at 25% annual average, they get 25% or while commissioned they get a pro-rated reduction? Pro-rated from NPR, or expected output? Many questions not asked or addressed. Kingsbury, though they will have Wind Power on their doorstep, still refused (so I was told) they wish to remain without a grid power system. (This could change in years to come which may come at a penalty from their ill gotten funds.) 

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on September 5, 2015 at 11:44am

Never forget every contract with a wind farmer has annual escalators; bid low and raise prices annually. It means the cost of wind power will be more expensive next year, and the year afterwards, and....

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on September 5, 2015 at 11:23am

I have not read the Federal statutes referred to in this article, however this smells of yet another, though probably already existing corrupt scheme.

http://www.novoco.com/journal/2015/09/briefs_retc_201509.php

First they get the PTC (public funds) starting from the date of project approval (unlike solar date of online) then they get the ITC's to give them a tax break, by investing our public funds.

We fund them and let them make a profit, they get a reduced income tax on that profit from public funds. Sweet Deal

Comment by Kathy Sherman on September 5, 2015 at 11:01am

5% return on investment doesn't sound so bad even if it is down from 2013, but what the article doesn't address is whether the economics are diminishing because sites with better wind resource are already built-out; environmental constraints including human health and quality of life which the Swedes have studied for the smallest of grid scale turbines for 15 years; etc.

Eric is spot-on about the RPS of other states making the huge difference for economics of wind generation in Maine. Oakfield and Bingham will fetch about 8 cents/kWh including 'environmental benefit', plus PTC and unknown escalators and unknown transmission costs, because MA DPU did not re-examine the deal as Maine PUC did. As of 10:33, wind generation was contributing all of 11.15 MW of the 13,942.5 load on ISO-NE. Pitiful for all those millions 'invested', and transmission upgrades and construction will be set by maximum capacity, not MWh, sadly.

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on September 5, 2015 at 9:35am

940 Kwh being the average Maine home power usage, would be about 11.28 Mwh annually. At .15 per Kwh (approx) CMP rates, that would be $150 per Mwh retail, or $50 wholesale to another distributor of the energy where they in turn make the extra $100. Less any REC's they may have purchased to sell their energy as Green should they be a Fossil Fuel based facility. With Maine REC's trading at around $4 it is profitable, however in other ISO-NE states they trade as high as $60+. So where I ask did the profitability go.