Eric Massa and an ill blowing wind
So, what’s the story with the wind farms of Cohocton? Have you driven down there? There are something like 30 of them dotting the hillsides by Route 17 heading through the Southern Tier. I think they’re beautiful. I love the idea of renewable energy being produced on such a large scale.
But, do they work? I’ve heard rumors that they have been constructed in an area that is not really a wind corridor and they don’t turn on their own, that there are generators powering those which are turning, to create the facade of functionality. (please note, the generators are rumor, I can’t find sources to back that up.)
So, why the wind turbines if they’re not producing energy? As usual, follow the money:
In 2006, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University undertook the most comprehensive review yet of Cape Wind’s public subsidies.
“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”
Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rogers said the wind farm would only receive government monies after it is up and working, and meeting certain production criteria.
“It’s all performance-based,” he said.
Really, Mr Rogers? (Not to be confused with Fred Rogers, who didn’t have a dishonest bone in his body.)
In September, after First Wind affiliates received $115 million in federal stimulus money, U.S. Rep. Eric J. Massa (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Barack Obama, calling the grants “very alarming” and saying the company “abused the public trust.
“No electricity has been produced for sale out of the projects,” but the company “has already collected production rewards for non-existent energy,” Massa told Obama.
Further, here is a video of Eric Massa responding to this issue at a town hall meeting:
“77 million dollars for a private, for profit adventure that has nothing to do with the taxpayer”
There is no one more enthusiastic about the possibilities of renewable energies in the form of wind power, than I. I’m heartbroken that, again, crooked corporations are running with this ball to the goal of profits without accountability. A quick buck made while the wool is pulled over the starry eyed gaze of a public wanting to believe in a path to the greater good.
Once again, thank you to Eric.
Related posts:
Taking issue with a number of items from this post -
1) In order to receive approval from the state and other authorities for a large wind project a detailed wind study demonstrating the expected output of the facility would have to be performed. The design of the wind farm itself (turbine locations etc.) would all be based on this study. If the engineering was flawed and the facility was under-performing, it would be a major issue for the owner/developer and investors and would quickly become public. Until then I would not put a lot of weight behind rumors that there isn’t enough wind in the area.
2) The rumor about generators making the blades turn is definitely false, this would not be mechanically possible and would serve no purpose. This rumor almost certainly originates from a lack of understanding about how wind turbines actually work, all large wind turbines have DC power generators inside them driven by the turning of the blades.
This type of thing demonstrates one of the bigger public relations problems with these projects, they are so large and visible to the public that rumors spread like wildfire and it is difficult to educate a community about how the facility works and what the ultimate benefits will be.
3) The Cape Wind project mentioned in quotes has nothing to do with the developer First Wind or any NY wind projects, you probably know that and only brought in the quote to introduce the larger debate about public subsidies for these projects, but it isn’t completely clear as included in the post.
4) There is a valid argument on both sides of the debate about whether large public subsidies should go to these wind projects, but they are complicated by the fact that few people have any understanding of how utilities and the electrical grid work, beyond the fact that wind turbines are somehow generating electricity. While a wind power facility may be developed and owned by private for-profit companies, the power is then ultimately sold into the systems of public utilities from which we all benefit, so it isn’t really accurate to make a blanket statement that it has nothing to do with taxpayers. Most power plants of all types are owned by private companies.
5) I’m a strong supporter of Eric Massa, and am highly critical of many tax-subsidy based cash grabs, but these energy infrastructure investments are usually geared towards the long-term and are highly complex agreements between the state, municipalities, developers, and utilities, so would caution against overly dramatic rhetoric like “crooked corporations are running with this ball to the goal of profits without accountability. A quick buck made while the wool is pulled over the starry eyed gaze of a public” without knowing all the details.
6) In every case I’m familiar with, the facility actually does need to be generating power to claim the federal Production Tax Credit, so if a company was fraudulently claiming the PTC for a non-functional facility, that would be a serious problem/crime and should obviously be investigated.
I thank you for your response. The information that you provide is very helpful in understanding this situation. I am not well versed in this, admittedly, and the rumor was stated as such. I believe that the Tax Credit is different than the subsidies from the Federal Government that Eric is discussing in the video. Am I correct in that?
There also looks to be a connection between the two wind energy companies in this quote from the article that I linked to.
The Massachusetts native who helped found controversial wind-energy developers Cape Wind and First Wind expressed surprise late last week at news that his one-time partner in a separate wind-energy company in Italy has been arrested and charged with fraud. “I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised,” Brian Caffyn said from Hong Kong, where he is now building wind-energy farms in China and the Philipines.
Didn’t have a chance to watch the video before making the previous post, you are correct that the federal stimulus money Eric is referring to is different than the Production Tax Credit, but the person asking the initial question does refer to the PTC.
Not surprising that one of the First Wind founders is also involved in Cape Wind, there are a limited number of major players in the industry. I just wanted to point out that the Cape Wind project is very different than the Cohocton or other WNY wind projects.
I disagree with a lot of the points Eric makes in the video, but he seems relatively well informed on the issue. I don’t think harping on the “you know we don’t have wind here” idea is very productive or likely to be borne out by science however. If you climb to the top of a 400 foot wind turbine on top of a hill, you will feel a great deal of wind even on the hottest, most stagnant day of summer. Maybe it won’t be enough to achieve optimal production, but it’s hardly the same thing as having ground level winds equivalent to putting your hand out the car window while going 25 mph.
I also think the “spare parts” line of opposition is a bit misguided. Industrial wind turbines are highly complex and need lots of maintenance and spare parts, if you do believe that the facility would be beneficial and successful, that isn’t a terrible thing to subsidize.
I certainly agree that with hundreds of millions of federal money going into these projects, the federal government should be insisting on transparency and should be diligent in investigating the true costs and benefits!
Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire for you, a lot of the executives at large wind development companies come from the energy industry. A lot of them are from Texas. A lot of them used to work for one particular company.
Guess which one?
Hint: Starts with “E” and ends with “criminal financial catastrophe”.
Yep, I noticed that connection, too!
“First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor, a former Enron executive, responded in a letter to Obama, saying that First Wind’s New York wind farms have produced 133,370 megawatt hours of clean, renewable energy. “We are proud of our work in New York and appreciate the grants we received,” he wrote.”
When I saw this post title I thought the ill-blowing wind was Massa paying himself and his wife $33,000 from campaign funds.
The link doesn’t go anywhere.
Here’s an updated link, the Buffalo News shifted some stuff around. http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/862520.html?imw=Y
Oh, the one where Massa’s wife was the campaign treasurer? A paid staff position. The one where they said nothing was done illegally and for a perspective - the one where 15K out of 2+ million raised.
Massa ran as a candidate fulltime. He had no other income and frankly was one of the most accessible people on the campaign trail. Something that has continued in office. I think his Communications director says it best.
“Eric did draw a meager salary at the end of the 2008 campaign to cover expenses after campaigning full-time for four years,” said Jared Smith, Massa’s spokesman. “There aren’t many people who have spent more time or effort working for the privilege of serving the families of their congressional district’s than Rep. Massa.”
This is the link you wanted.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/862520.html
You’re right, it is not illegal, just unethical. Apparently I like to hold members of the government to a higher standard than you do. It reminded me of the whole Powers fiasco.
Really? Nothing to see here Mike - Move On.
I did like how you lumped together a paid staffer AND the Congressman. Precious.
The stimulus grant money that was given to these projects is part of the grant in-lieu of tax credit provision that was contained in the stimulus package. The idea is that since there are a lot of tax equity financiers that no longer exist or are being incredibly cautious to the point of not investing, the government needed to do something to keep wind development (a major generator of construction, accounting, legal and some manufacturing jobs) going was to offer companies another option so they could get capital to finance projects.
I’m not sure of the status of these projects in particular but the reason they may not have sold any electricity yet is that they may not have gone through all of the testing and commissioning procedures that these types of projects go through. I will see if I can dig anything else up on this however. If anyone has further questions about renewable energy tax credits feel free to get in touch with me at editor@renewableenergyworld.com.
First of all, I do not think the turbines along 390 south of Wayland have been fully functional until just recently. If there is something other than wind making the turbines turn, why haven’t all of them been turning? Until just a couple months ago, there had been about 5 turbines that I had not seen turning in about a year.
On my past few trips to Elmira, I noticed that all of them are turning now. And they turn at rates from almost unnoticeable to flying.
They are a beautiful sight. Though I know some prefer their energy through mountain top removal.
Anytime there are tax subsidies, for projects just as the wind turbines, there will be negative unintended consequences. The most obvious will be be trying to profit off of the government money for projects that normally wouldn’t be viable. The subsidies also inhibit development by supporting projects that can not compete with the government funded projects leading to less innovation. The whole ethanol program is the perfect example of unintended consequences. Costs were artificially lowered while the affect on food prices was terrible. Also, the environmental benefits, in the end, just were not there. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted for a program that has not panned out.
“The subsidies also inhibit development by supporting projects that can not compete with the government funded projects leading to less innovation.”
Very good point.I hadn’t thought about that before. Somebody is obviously not doing his homework before handing out subsidies, like for Ethanol. Wider investigation has to be done before money is handed out, it would seem.
Thanks Mike.
Re the government funded programs - there is always the spin offs to consider right? Atomic Energy comes to mind, Internet, Tang (morning humor) spin offs from the space race, TVA and the highway system. Starting Private would not have gotten us here so quickly.
The question is really do the negatives outweigh the positives - not if there are negatives.
Fish as the first commenter observes: “In order to receive approval from the state and other authorities for a large wind project a detailed wind study demonstrating the expected output of the facility would have to be performed.”
You would think so, but Cape Wind has spec’d “discontinued” GE 3.6 MW wind turbines as the entire focus of State permits and certificates issued. The 4,000 page MMS Cape Wind draft and final EIS focus is on a “discontinued” wind turbine as the project Cape Wind. Taxpayers have been funding critical, hardware-specific studies being conducted by 17 Cape Wind permit reviewing Agencies, for years; and the project is phantom. And it has resulted in multi-millions wasted on the obsolete GE 3.6 MW wind turbine’s effect on radar, navigation; and it is the basis of all costs v benefits and adverse impacts evaluted on our multimillions.
The US Office of Inspector General has been investigating MMS review of Cape Wind for more than one year. An OIG report is in process and or pending.
Brian Caffyn is the original investor in Cape Wind and in First Wind, formerly UPC, that he founded. The driver behind IVPC is UPC.
Eight wind farms have been confiscated by the Italian government connected to IVPC as public subsidies are funding failing wind energy projects.
Thank you, Congressman Massa! If we had more representatives like you, there would be fewer victims of malfeasance and worse by our federal and state regulators and permit decision makers. You are a good steward of the planet and a true representative of tax and ratepayers.
Congressman Eric J.J. Massa’s letter to President Barack Obama dated September 11, 2009 speaks about Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts appointed Advisor on Climate, renewable energy and efficiency. Massa’s letter foretold events to come, (2nd link).
Even GE asked petitioned the courts for return of their investment in Enron Wind.
Wake up, people. Industrial wind energy is a scam!
http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/CohoctonWindmillsTOObama.pdf
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/11/17/mafia-tied-to-wind-fraud-in-italy/comment-page-1/#comment-162849
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2009/11/18/thousands-of-jobs-scammed-or-created/