New Judith Gap Wind Farm Causing Headaches on the Grid

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 06:45 , (11 Reads)

Just when it looked like smooth sailing for wind power generation, electric power companies, its main buyers, have placed limits on their purchases, citing the unreliability of the clean energy.

The wind power industry, in more ways than one, has become a victim of its own success.

A surge in wind power supply has raised concerns among regional utilities that a greater dependence on natural forces may destabilize their power grids.

Wind power has been tipped as a key alternative energy source to greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuel, and initiatives by local governments have led to its introduction around the country.

But with little demand left to fill at electric utilities and little chance of finding other buyers, many projects are likely to be stalled.

In Otsuki, Kochi Prefecture, two local government-backed projects for wind turbine facilities have been left up in the air.

Municipal officials wanted to introduce wind power to provide an economic boost to the fishing town, whose population is both aging and declining.

A Tokyo wind power company started construction of 12 turbines, which can produce 1,000 kilowatts of electricity each, earlier this year.

But just as the firm began testing wind conditions for two other projects, the expected purchaser, Shikoku Electric Power Co., decided to limit the volume of wind power it includes in its grids.

In February, the regional utility put a purchase cap of 200,000 kilowatts, a limit reached in just three weeks by rival suppliers. Hokkaido Electric Power Co. was the first to limit its wind power purchases. Its 250,000-kilowatt cap, introduced in 2002, was fulfilled by September.

Tohoku Electric Power Co. followed, setting a 520,000-kilowatt cap in September. Only 50,000 kilowatts remain to be bought.

Kyushu Electric Power Co., which plans to introduce a cap in summer 2006, has increased its purchases by 50,000 kilowatts annually in recent years. But suppliers scrambled to get a piece of the action last year, offering to sell a combined 700,000 kilowatts.

Industry officials say wind power suppliers have no other choice but to terminate projects if they cannot find customers. According to the Japan Wind Power Association, as much as 1.7 million kilowatts' worth of projects did not find purchase contracts from electric utilities in 2003.

The number of wind power facilities increased in response to a government policy to promote clean energy. The government has provided financial support since the late 1990s.

But the rapid growth means that the wind power industry now comprises some 20 private-sector suppliers. The number of local governments participating in a council to promote wind power has also grown to 49.

In terms of generation capacity, wind power reached 910,000 kilowatts as of March, a whopping 10-fold increase from a decade earlier.

Until recently, regional utilities have cooperated by purchasing all of the electricity generated by wind power suppliers.

But introducing too much of the electricity, whose supply can fluctuate wildly, can cause problems for utilities' power grids.

According to Tohoku Electric, which purchases about 40 percent of wind power generated nationwide, wattage can change between zero to 80 percent of its capacity within a single day.

Electric power companies worry a supply shortfall will result in blackouts, while excess supply may destabilize frequencies, which could cause malfunctions at factories, for example. To avoid such risks, utilities control supply by monitoring shortages and sufficiencies and compensate by raising or lowering supply at thermal generators by means of computer-controlled systems.

If there is no wind, the utilities must rely entirely on other facilities. And even when wind power can satisfy all of the demand, they must continue operating thermal generators to be ready for any abrupt shortfalls in wind power.

In response, utilities have started discussing the possibility of raising their purchase caps with the government.

Measures currently under consideration include storing wind power electricity in batteries for later use and a system to stop wind turbines when demand is low. But industry officials say both would entail huge costs.

Source: asahi.com

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/04/business/e01060406_02.txt

Wind Break By JAN FALSTAD - The Billings Gazette - 06/04/06

New Judith Gap wind farm causing headaches on the grid

The clean, green power from the Judith Gap Wind Farm that debuted last fall has been more intermittent than anticipated.

And that is causing problems for NorthWestern Energy, the utility that must balance supply and demand on its transmission lines.

“It’s more variable initially than we anticipated. But remember the facility has just gone through startup and there is a shake-down period,” said David Gates, vice president of wholesale operations.

In April, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council in Salt Lake City sent a letter to NorthWestern saying that its transmission system may have fallen 3 percent short of its minimum control performance standards of 90 percent. WECC, an organization representing 44 power companies, is part of a voluntary nationwide system to improve reliability on the nation’s transmission grid.

WECC spokesman Kwin Peterson said the letter is preliminary and carries no sanctions. The facts must be reviewed and proven, a process that can take three months.

“This is unconfirmed and ordinarily this information isn’t even made public,” he said.

The council sends out about a dozen of these letters every three months, he said.

Blowin’ in the wind

Joel Schroeder worked as project manager for Invenergy Wind LLC’s Judith Gap project, the largest of the company’s four wind farms. Reached at company headquarters in Chicago, Schroeder said wind is by nature intermittent.

“If you have a storm move in and the wind picks up, that will boost production, or if you have the opposite and the wind drops out, you’ll lose power,” Schroeder said. “It’s completely dependent upon the wind.”

Everyone knows wind power is variable and that other backup power from coal or hydro or natural gas is needed to fill in the calm times.

However, the hourly ups and downs are harder to manage than expected, Gates said.

“The wind’s blowing and in that hour, the output goes from 20 MW (megawatts) to 80 MW,” he said. “The average is 50 MW, but as control operator we have to manage that move from 20 to 80 MW (on the transmission lines).”

He said the utility expects performance to improve at the wind farm.

Power balancing

You can store water behind a dam. But you cannot store electricity, and that fact creates lots of challenges for delivering power and pricing power.

Engineers may have more elegant explanations, but you can think of a power transmission line as a teeter-totter.

To keep the board level, the supply of power sitting on one side must balance the demand sitting on the other side.

When there is too much supply, the utility has to sell power right now. When demand outweighs supply, the utility must buy more power right now.

Long-range power contracts that run for years are relatively inexpensive. But, like shopping at a convenience store, buying power on the spot market costs more, often far more.

So variability at the Judith Gap project is costing NorthWestern’s consumers more, they just don’t know how much yet.

Green power is cool

The Montana Legislature mandated that NorthWestern buy 15 percent green power by 2015.

As part of the move to alternative power, Invenergy Wind built the Judith Gap Wind Farm with 90 turbines towering 260 feet into the air. With approval of state regulators, NorthWestern Energy agreed to buy all of this Montana wind power for the next 20 years.

With output ranging from 135 megawatts to 150 megawatts, Judith Gap provides about 7 percent of the electricity NorthWestern needs to serve its 316,000 electrical customers. Another 70 percent comes from PPL Montana, which bought Montana Power’s dams and coal-fired properties.

However, after two PPL contracts expire in July 2007 costs are expected to rise significantly, especially in view of Thursday’s ruling in Washington, D.C.

The ruling said that PPL does not exert monopoly control in Montana and can charge market rates or the highest price the market will bear.

Future wind farms

On May 7, more than 30 energy developers, power company representatives and rural electric cooperative executives met in Helena with Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s staff to discuss Montana’s energy future.

One topic was how to build more wind farms, yet keep the transmission lines balanced.

Dave Wheelihan, chief executive of the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association, said the gist of that part of the conversation was that NorthWestern has had to buy more short-term power than expected to balance Judith Gap.

“You can go out and contract for it, but the pricing will be interesting,” Wheelihan said.

He said the utility has purchased another 15 megawatts of incremental power from Avista Energy to balance the load.

NorthWestern executives said that extra power is being paid for through retail customers rates, Wheelihan said. Wholesale customers like his members, the rural electric cooperatives, aren’t bearing the extra cost. Man Dies In Wind Tower Fire http://wcco.com/local/local_story_315152455.html CBS.com

Nov 11, 2005 7:34 pm US/Central

(AP) Slayton, Minn. A South Dakota man died and two people were injured Friday in a wind tower fire in southwestern Minnesota.

The Murray County sheriff's office received a call just before 10 a.m. reporting the fire at a wind tower east of Chandler, Minn., and that one person had fallen.

Benjamin James Thovson, 26, of Sioux Falls, S.D., died at the scene. He fell about 210 feet, Deputy Randy Donahue said. The other two were able to climb down and escape, but were taken to a local hospital.

When help arrived, Donahue said, "the wind generator was engulfed in flames."

The tower is owned by Dean DeGreeff, of Chandler, who is part of an eight-person private ownership group called East Ridge Wind Farm.

The three people on the tower Friday worked for Energy Maintenance Service LLC, based in Gary, S.D. They were installing a Suzlon Wind Energy Corp. wind turbine, the companies said in a statement.

According to at least one report, they were replacing a bolt when the fire started The Daily Globe of Worthington said. Donahue told the newspaper the fire resulted from the crew's work.

Energy Maintenance Service and Suzlon said they were cooperating with federal, state and local authorities in the investigation

contact Hugh Sharman @ Click here: Welcome to Incoteco

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gone with the wind

Letter in the Financial Times (London), May 24, 2005:

From Mr Hugh Sharman [Hals, Denmark].

Sir, in your editorial ("Glowing green", May 16) you wrote that "Denmark, which relies on intermittent wind power for nearly 20 per cent of its power, has stability problems on its grid".

Although it is true that the wind power we have creates "stability problems", it is not true that we inhabitants of Denmark rely on wind power at all.

Whenever west Denmark produces a lot of wind power, it simultaneously exports almost equivalent quantities along its strong inter-connections with Norway, Sweden and Germany.

In other words, in spite of wind turbines producing a quantity of power equivalent to more than 20 per cent of its domestic consumption, very little of this power is actually consumed in Denmark. Our country is covered in turbines, but I have calculated that in 2003, more than 80 per cent of wind output had to be exported to insure grid stability, leaving Denmark to consume about 4 per cent of its power from this enormous capacity of wind turbines.

There is an added irony here. Along with the country's lost natural amenities, the Danish consumer pays the highest tariffs for electricity in Europe. Much of these are hypothecated for the support of windmill owners. However, the wind wind power is sold on the spot market at rates that are much lower.

Thus there is a direct transfer of wealth from Danish consumers to consumers in Sweden, Norway and Germany, every time 1kWh of electricity is sold in this way. During 2003, this net transfer of wealth amounted to more than £100m -- or £40 per inhabitant.

Animals and plants Society

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.dmu.dk/International/NERI+home.htm Publications News

The Danish emissions of greenhouse gases increased in 2003

The total Danish emissions of greenhouse gases were 6 % above the Kyoto- baseyear in 2003. The increase in 2003 was primarily due to increased export of electricity. The Danish contributions to acid rain have fallen by 60 % since 1990.

National Environmental Research Institute 4/15/2005 Read more...

Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser.

National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark

Progress toward the Kyoto targets

Greenhouse gases

The changes in the emission of the Danish greenhouse gases are calculated in relation to the emissions in the base year. In accordance with the Kyoto Protocol Denmark’s base year emissions include the emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O in 1990 in CO2-equivalents and the emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 in 1995 in CO2-equvivalents. Furthermore, the removals by sinks are included in the net emissions. Removals by sinks only include sequestration due to afforestation since 1990. When reporting to the Climate Convention the net CO2 removals by forests existing in 1990 are included in the calculation also. Base 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2008- year 2012 (yearly) Emission and removals, Kyoto- protocol (CO2- equivalents [1000 Gg]) 69,6 80,0 73,8 76,2 79,7 76,7 90,0 80,2 76,0 72,9 68,3 69,7 68,9 73,9 Changes 10,4 4,2 6,6 10,1 7,1 20,4 10,6 6,4 3,2 -1,4 0,0 -0,7 4,3 compared to base year (CO2- equivalents [1000 Gg]) Changes compared to base year (%) 14,9 6,0 9,4 14,5 10,2 29,3 15,3 9,2 4,7 -1,9 0,1 -1,0 6,2 The table shows the Danish emission of greenhouse gases calculated in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol as mentioned above together with the changes compared to the base year. According to the EU Burden Sharing Agreement under the Kyoto Protocol Denmark is legally bound to reduce the emissions by 21% calculated on the basis of the base year emissions. In 2003 Denmark has increased the emissions by 6.2%. NERI P.O. box 358 Frederiksborgvej 399 4000 Roskilde Denmark Tel: +45 4630 1200 Fax: +45 4630 1114 E-mail: [email protected]

2005-04-15 This page is maintained by Henrik Bruun

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20051204/NEWS01/512040336/1002/NEWS

'Whoosh' spells uneasy progress

Many say wind power is good for environment, economy; others say turbines are noisy, nuisance

Misty Edgecomb Staff writer

(December 4, 2005) — Richard Foringer gives an ironic little laugh when he talks about being accused of "NIMBYism" — shorthand for "not in my back yard," or a selfish aversion to development.

Sitting at his kitchen table in Cazenovia, Madison County, he glances out the window to watch a 326-foot-high wind turbine's blades spin through the season's first snow. The behemoth, though not literally in Foringer's back yard, looms over his deck, just 1,000 feet from his house, on a neighbor's property. A slow, droning swish-thump is just barely audible through the walls and windows.

"You hear the whipping when a blade arcs. Sometimes it's like an engine running. You hear the gears creaking ... it's terrible," Foringer said.

"I'd sell the house immediately, but I don't think I could sell it now," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, they took away everything I had here ... it's all gone now."

Foringer's story is what many residents in rural western New York fear when they hear that a wind developer is targeting their town.

Many small towns lack zoning laws, and those that have them rarely mention such technologies as industrial-scale wind turbines — which are still uncommon in the United States, though older developments pepper the hillsides of western Europe.

The state is encouraging wind power for its environmental benefits, as today's best hope for affordable, renewable power. But, citing a long tradition of "home rule," it is leaving the details wholly up to local leaders.

Dozens of communities have been approached by developers, and many, overwhelmed at facing an industry relatively new in the state, have imposed moratoriums — only spurring developers to cross the town line and try again.

"The state created this monster, but they're not willing to do anything to control it," said Donna Farrington of Rochester, who expects that turbines will be built near the cabin she and her husband, Todd Sharrow, own in Prattsburgh, Steuben County.

"We're totally exposed," Farrington said.

Few regulatory hurdles

Like the gold, silver and land rushes of centuries past, wind power today has wide-open potential — and relatively few regulatory hurdles. The excitement among supporters is palpable: Finally, the promise of a future divorced from petroleum is being realized. As the cost of gas and oil has risen in recent years, wind is becoming more competitive, with prices that have dropped below those of natural gas, said Paul DeCotis of NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

Much of the benefit is due to subsidies, created in hopes of reducing dependence on foreign oil and cutting air pollution here at home. A federal tax credit for new wind developments completed by the end of 2008 can reduce costs for a new project by nearly a third. In New York, a state program that collects a fee from electric customers and distributes the funds to boost renewable energy has provided more than $11.3 million for new wind projects, according to NYSERDA.

The energy standard championed by Gov. George Pataki adds another level of urgency — the state must increase its production of renewable energy to 25 percent by 2013.

Supporters praise the state for its leadership, citing the growing concern over climate change and Albany's pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades.

But if New York is to meet its goals, wind energy is key. New York currently gets just more than 19 percent of its energy from renewable sources — mostly hydroelectricity — and less than 1 percent from wind. Meeting the 25 percent standard will mean adding 3,000 megawatts, or about 2,000 turbines, of wind generation over the next eight years. About 5,200 megawatts of new capacity already has been proposed, according to NYSERDA.

If just 3,000 megawatts of wind power replaces dirtier sources of electricity, that could keep 8.2 million pounds of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, out of the atmosphere, said Larisa Washburn of the Environmental Advocates of New York.

New York ranks 15th in the nation in terms of wind energy potential, based on both wind speed and open space. About 10,000 megawatts could be harvested — half on land and the other half offshore, in the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Lakes, says the American Wind Energy Association, the national trade association of the wind power industry.

Other approaches, such as solar power and hydrogen fuel cells, have potential, too, but the technology just isn't there yet. Wind is something we can do now, said Christine Vanderlan of Environmental Advocates of New York.

Critics, however, blame state leaders for creating an artificial rush that encourages developers to cut corners.

"Basically we have a governor saying, 'Let's do this,' and that has created almost a frenzylike push by companies and investors who want to get into this business for profit," said Tom Golisano, founder of Paychex Inc., who has dedicated some of his substantial personal resources to Save Upstate New York, a campaign against wind development.

"The green in this isn't green energy, it's money," said Sharrow.

None of the critics interviewed for this article said they opposed wind energy in theory. But turbines that are nearly as tall as Xerox Tower, the highest point on Rochester's skyline, don't belong in residential neighborhoods, they say.

"Most people have this vision of a little wooden windmill," Golisano said. "When they find out they're the size of a 20-story building, it's a whole different ball game."

Small town feels blow

Sixty miles southeast of Rochester, residents of Prattsburgh are living the wind debate every day. The dirt roads that meander over rolling hills are dotted with signs that identify residents not as Republican or Democrat but as pro- or anti-wind.

"It has been a battleground down there," said John Saint Cross of NYSERDA. "By nature a turbine can't be hidden. People want their power, but they don't want to see power plants."

Two companies, Ecogen and WindFarm Prattsburgh, have proposed a combined 120 turbines in this small town and its nearby neighbor, Italy. Many residents would see multiple turbines out their windows, and several believe that the towers, taller than the Statue of Liberty, could stand just 1,000 feet from their homes.

"They're plopping them in between people's houses," Sharrow said.

It makes for controversial projects, but that's the geographic reality of wind development in New York, explained Bruce Bailey, president of AWS Truewind, an Albany consulting firm.

Less than 1 percent of New York's land is suitable for wind turbines — that is, offering average wind speeds exceeding 15 mph, open space for the turbines and nearby electricity transmission lines. Most of that is along the high ridges of the Finger Lakes region, the same areas in high demand for summer cottages and retirement homes.

"What's going to happen when all the out-of-town people sell at a loss and leave?" said Ruthe Matilsky of Rochester, who has a summer home in Prattsburgh. She said a majority of the town taxes are paid by part-time residents.

Bruce Taylor, on the other hand, has volunteered to lease land for as many as five turbines on his Prattsburgh farm, all within view of the bed-and-breakfast that provides much of his income.

"It's like telephone poles," said Taylor, who has visited wind farms at Fenner, Madison County, and Wethersfield, Wyoming County. "Your mind kind of blocks out the turbines and you see the beauty of the land."

The good, the bad

Indeed, wind turbines are very much in the eye, or ear, of the beholder.

In Fenner, Donna Griffin pastures her cows near the turbines, watches them out her front window and sells T-shirts to the tourists who have inundated this small farm town. The noise that has annoyed Richard Foringer so much that he hopes to sell his house doesn't faze Griffin. "If you have a car going by or a flock flying over ... it drowns it out," she said.

But Wayne Danley, who lives across the ridge in Cazenovia, is considering legal action over a turbine so close to his home that it wakes him up at night.

"There's a flickering effect when the sun goes down. It's like you're out on the dance floor at a club," Danley said, describing the result of the sun shining through the blades at dawn and dusk that is known as "shadow flicker."

In Prattsburgh, supporters of the wind farms say that problems are greatly exaggerated and predict a $15 million windfall in new jobs, payments in lieu of taxes and a fund to help subsidize heat for low-income residents.

"I would say that 95 percent of the community is supportive," said Kim Lambertz, who has lived in the town for 11 years and now works for WindFarm Prattsburgh. "When Tom Golisano came down to tell the people of Prattsburgh what's best for them, that galvanized a lot of people" in support of wind farms.

Those who lease land for turbines can count on thousands of dollars in annual income. Many see the developers as saviors for a farm community that can't attract big industry.

"The wind farm brings money into the community that doesn't come out of our pockets," Taylor said.

But without statewide standards for wind farms, many residents fear the worst, Golisano says — corporations running roughshod over homeowners while local leaders, pacified by donations that are small change to wind developers, look the other way.

Golisano says Save Upstate New York is only getting started. And he predicts that lawsuits are inevitable.

Cynthia Cole of Prattsburgh agrees. The financial gains don't balance out what would be lost, she said.

"What are we going to get — a couple lawn-mowing jobs?" Cole said. "I want to look out my window and see God-made hilltops. ... I don't want this man-made technology looming over the hill."

[email protected]

HEATHER CHARLES staff photographer Two wind turbines pierce the skyline in Fenner, Madison County. Some call them good neighbors, others are less charitable.

What's at stake # For environmentalists, reduced air pollution and less reliance on foreign oil.

# For residents who live near wind farms, potential loss of property value and quality of life.

# For residents who lease land for wind farms, increase in annual income.

# For towns that host wind farms, improved finances from new jobs and payments in lieu of taxes.

Background How important is wind power? One megawatt of wind power can power 340 homes. Used in place of coal or oil to generate electricity, that single megawatt prevents the release of 2.7 million pounds of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas; 3,672 pounds of nitrogen oxide, which contributes to smog; and 9,918 pounds of sulfur dioxide, which leads to acid rain. The two wind farms proposed for Prattsburgh, Steuben County, with a total of 120 turbines, would generate 180 megawatts of power, enough to power more than 61,000 homes in New York state.

Sources: American Wind Energy Association, Environmental Advocates of New York, Ecogen. Click on this story to hear more opinions in the debate. On Page 16A

# A graphic shows areas where wind turbines are being proposed, and just how big they really are.

# Stories examine impact of turbines on communities and the environment.

Click here: Latest Local News... - Peterborough Today: News, Sport, Jobs, Property, Cars, Entertainments & More

PRISON SECURITY:

Wind turbine 'is irritating prisoners'

A WIND turbine which produces electricity for 4,000 homes is being switched off in the early mornings because it irritates inmates at a nearby top-security prison. Energy firm bosses agreed to halt the three rotating blades on the 260ft tower next to Whitemoor Prison, near March, after becoming concerned that there could be "security problems" if prisoners were getting upset. Longhill Energy, which turned on the £1 million turbine five weeks ago, said it had agreed to the periodic switch-off after talks with prison officials.

Director Martin Alder said: "I suppose the bottom line is that it's a matter of security. We don't want to upset prisoners.

"The problem is at this time of year, the sun hits the blades of the turbine at a certain angle and creates flickering shadows over parts of the prison. "Some of the prisoners complained that the flickering was irritating them.

"We've discussed the problem with the prison authorities and agreed to turn the turbine off for a few hours in the early morning until about 9am. The problem only occurs at certain times of the year when the sun is low.

"We're hoping that in the long-term, equipment can be fitted which will stop the turbine automatically when the sun is at this problem angle. "Until we've got that new technology in place, we've decided to opt for an old technology solution and switch it off at certain times.

"'Shadow-flicker' is a recognised problem with wind turbines. That's why they aren't built near housing developments. And we want to be good neighbours."

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that HMP Whitemoor is in discussions with the turbine company over the operation of their wind turbine. "The Prison Service is reaching an agreement whereby the wind turbine does not interfere with the smooth running of the prison."

09 April 2005

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20060222/NEWS/602220377/1003/NEWS02

Lightning strike wrecks Searsburg turbine blade

February 22, 2006

By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff

SEARSBURG — A 66-foot blade on one of the 11 wind turbines on Mount Waldo in Searsburg broke in half last Friday after it was struck by lightning during a fierce wind storm that raked the state.

Green Mountain Power spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure said that the wind facility was shut down at the time of the lightning strike because of the high winds. She said the turbines and blades were "feathered," or facing into the wind to minimize resistance during the storm, which knocked out power to thousands of Vermonters.

Schnure said it was the third time the Searsburg turbines had been struck by lightning since the facility started operating nine years ago, and the second time the turbine damaged Friday had been struck.

Schnure said that she didn't know whether the fiberglass and wood blade had simply dropped to the ground by the turbine tower, as was the case the other time a turbine blade broke in half after being struck by lightning, or that it had been thrown a great distance.

Schnure said she wouldn't know the location of the broken-off blade until she was able to talk to the maintenance man, who witnessed the lightning strike.

But the incident prompted the chairman of the Londonderry Planning Commission to call for a state investigation of the incident. That panel is reviewing plans for the state's largest commercial wind facility on Glebe Mountain.

Peter Pagnucco of London-derry said while Searsburg was relatively remote and posed little danger to the public from breaking turbine blades, that wasn't the case for the Londonderry- Windham facility.

He said skiers at Magic Mountain Ski Area would only be 400 feet from one of the proposed turbines on Glebe Mountain.

And Pagnucco noted that the Glebe Mountain blades at 153 feet long would be more than twice the length of the smaller Searsburg blades.

Pagnucco noted that the town remained very concerned about potential "ice throw" from turning blades on turbines.

David O'Brien, commissioner of the Department of Public Service and the recipient of Pagnucco's letter, said the state was in the information-gathering stage into the incident. At this point, he said, the department knew little about the Searsburg problem.

Schnure said that photographs of the blade showed what the company considered lightning damage.

Since the first lightning strike, the company has kept a couple of $80,000 replacement blades on site, but she said replacement and repairs would have to wait until there was no wind.

Southern Vermont was hard hit by high winds on Friday, and Stratton Mountain — about 20 miles north of the wind facility —said it recorded wind gusts of 143 miles an hour Friday morning.

Jon Zimmerman of Vermont Environmental Research Associ-ates, who helped develop the Searsburg facility, said wind gusts were measured at 90 miles an hour at the Searsburg facility on Friday. He said the turbines had withstood stronger winds.

He said the turbines were designed to withstand wind gusts of 150 miles an hour.

Zimmerman said the old folk adage about lightning not hitting the same spot twice wasn't true in Searsburg.

He said that the turbine with the broken blade was one of the more productive turbines at the site. It is one of four turbines at a higher elevation and thus had stronger winds.

Robert Charlebois of Cata-mount Energy, the Glebe Moun-tain project developer, said that his proposed machines and blades would be grounded, unlike the Searsburg blades.

The Searsburg project does have a lot of lightning protection equipment, but not on the blades, Schnure said.

http://www.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D8FKHPF80

Wind towers near Minot need fixing

The Associated Press - Tuesday, February 07, 2006 · advertisement · MINOT, N.D.

Wind towers south of here are undergoing repairs.

The wind generators on the east side of U.S. Highway 83, about 10 miles south of Minot, have not been spinning to produce electricity for the last couple of months. Crews have been working to replace gear boxes.

Wind Turbines Kill Raptors, Lead to Rat Infestations

Written By: James Hoare Published In: Environment News Publication Date: February 1, 2006 Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Predictions by bat experts that expanded industrial wind farms in West Virginia will increase numbers of disease-carrying mosquitoes and crop-destroying grasshoppers, locusts, and moths are not the only expected ecological consequences of expanded wind farms. Giant wind turbines take an even greater toll on birds, including many endangered species and birds of prey instrumental in controlling rodent populations.

According to the December 18, 2005 Riverside, California Press-Enterprise, up to 1,300 birds of prey are killed each year at Northern California's Altamont Pass wind farm alone.

Rat Infestations

Residents near California's smaller San Gorgonio Pass wind farm report that even in an area with far fewer wind turbines than Altamont Pass, the declining number of birds of prey associated with the wind farm is causing an ever-worsening rat infestation. According to the Press-Enterprise, longtime residents Nancy and Peter Wright have witnessed a steady decline in golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, and barn owls near their San Gorgonio-area home. At the same time, report the Wrights, rats have begun taking over.

"The only thing that's changed out here is the presence of the windmills," Nancy Wright told the Press- Enterprise.

Peter Wright reports he must engage in "rat wars" on daily basis. The rats nest in his palm trees and devour the backyard citrus he used to pick and eat.

"It's a regular job, rat catcher," Peter Wright told the Press-Enterprise.

Rats Invading Homes

Another San Gorgonio resident, Xandi Shaw, has brought three new cats to her home in an attempt to keep the rats at bay. However, "other than the coyotes, there's nothing out there rats are scared of," Shaw told the Press-Enterprise. "I've never seen it as bad as now."

Other neighbors report rats becoming so prevalent and bold as to move right into area homes and establish nests.

Daniel Patterson, a desert ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity in Joshua Tree, California, confirmed it is commonly believed the deaths of birds of prey at wind farms lead to booming rat populations.

"It's possible there is a connection; it needs to be investigated," agreed Kelly Fuller, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club's California/Nevada Desert Committee. "All of nature is connected: You pull on one place, it moves in another."

Other Sources Greener

"All forms of power entail environmental trade-offs," said Alex Avery, director of research and education for the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues. "Wind power fares especially poorly in this equation.

"Wind turbines are absolutely devastating to wildlife," Avery explained, "and in particular to wildlife that greatly benefits humans. Small birds and bats control harmful insects such as disease-carrying mosquitoes and crop-destroying moths, while birds of prey control rat populations. For all this environmental damage, wind turbines produce only intermittent, undependable, and quite expensive power."

Other energy sources are much "greener," Avery said. "Nuclear power, with zero emissions and a very small ecological footprint, is perhaps the most environmentally friendly power source," Avery noted. "Beyond that, hydropower produces far more power, far more cheaply, and with a similar or reduced environmental impact as compared to wind turbines."

-- James Hoare

http://www.wayneindependent.com/articles/2005/04/15/news1/news1.txt County to Rule on Wind Farm Tax Appeal Within Week BY DIANE LT BOOTHE [The Wayne Independent – Honesdale, Wayne County, PA] April 15, 2005 WAYNE COUNTY - The Wayne County Commissioners will give their response over the Waymart Wind Farm tax appeal [held April 14 in the old county court room] within three days to one week after reviewing facts presented from both sides. From among approximately 30 attendees, Ray Vogt, Donald Goetz, Jim Parker and Ron Dustin were the only citizens to stand during the opening public comment period. Vogt brought to the attention of the Commissioners that it has been mostly he and Goetz attending Commissioners' meetings with concerns about FPL Energy. He requested that the Commissioners look behind him (Vogt) and see just how many concerned citizens there really are here today. Goetz pointed out, "Your (Commissioners) own resolutions and regulations state that any attorneys who represent the appellant must be registered in the state of Pennsylvania." Parker made an argument stating, "If I were to put up a wind mill on my property, I'd have to pay taxes on this as an improvement to my property. Why should it not happen to FPL Energy or any other entity that is putting up buildings on their property?" Dustin recounted, "They (FPL Energy) led us to believe we would get a substantial amount of money from them by way of taxes and now they come up with kind of a loophole in it, wanting to get some sort of an exception." Hearing Appeal Wayne County Chief Assessor John Nolan was called to explain the process of his conclusion for the tax bills sent to FP, Energy in 2004 and 2005. He began by reading the assessed site and improvement values for 2004 per wind turbine, "The site value is $3,000, the improvement value is $126,430 for a total of $129,430. This is for the 2004 tax appeal. For the 2005 tax appeal [per wind turbine] the site value is $40,000, the improvement value is $1,260,000 for a total of 1.3 million dollars." [2005 total tax assessment for 43 wind turbines is $55,900,000.] The reason given for the assessment change was the recently conducted countywide reassessment. Nolan explained his arrival at such numbers, "The site value was determined by the income that Florida, Power and Light states to the lease holders, for the lease of the land, the place of structures there. The improvement values are based on the reproduction costs. That information was acquired from the building permits."

When the attorney representing FPL Energy, Thomas J. MacNeely questioned Nolan if the manner in which he came upon his assessment figures for 2004 and 2005 was the same for both, without an actual appraisal of the sites in mention, but, rather on what the costs were to build them Nolan responded, "That's correct." Through further questioning by MacNeely, "Under the assessment I just showed you [2004], the land has a value of $3,000 and there is also a separate designation under improvements which shows $40,000. So this notice of reassessment was for both the land and the improvement, not just for the difference of the site?" Nolan explained the two different year assessments as, "In 2004, the land value was $3,000. That's where we put the site value. In 2005, we moved the site value to the improvement site. They're both the same thing." MacNeely still attempting to receive clarification asked, "Even though the property assessment showed that the approvements [improvements?] were assessed at $40,000 and the land was assessed at $3,000, what you are saying now is this notice actually just shows that the site value was changed from $3,000 to $40,000?" Nolan responded, "That is correct." In 2004, Nolan stated that there was a tax bill issued on the site only, not on the improvements. He brought up the agreement with FPL Energy that, because of ongoing litigation and based on income, the site tax would be paid and that no tax bill had been issued on the wind mills until litigation had finished. The second part of this article will be in the next issue of The Wayne Independent. ______http://www.wayneindependent.com/articles/2005/04/18/news1/news1.txt Wind Farm Owner Argues its Case at Assessment Hearing BY DIANE LT BOOTHE [The Wayne Independent – Honesdale, Wayne County, PA] April 18, 2005 EDITOR'S NOTE: This is part two of the Waymart Wind Farm Tax Appeal that was held in the Wayne County Courthouse on April 14 at 11:00 a.m. WAYNE COUNTY - After Wayne County Assessor John Nolan spoke about how he came up with the assessment numbers pertaining to the Waymart Wind Farm consisting of 43 wind turbines: it was FPL Energy's turn to explain why they were appealing. Robert Scanlon is an attorney with a law firm in Juno Beach, Florida helping FPL Energy with their property tax issues. He was unable to represent the company during the April 14 appeal as a lawyer since he was not certified in the state of PA. He did participate as a witness for the company. Scanlon said that originally the first assessment they had received was in January 2004. That statement read $129,430 for the real estate. The reason for the company's problem with this amount as explained by Scanlon was: "That value had no relationship to the income that the land generates to the owners of the land. That's putting a value that is more in line with what you would value as a piece of equipment. So our original protest was for that first assessment." The hearings and discussions began soon afterward. In April, 2004, the company received a tax bill that did not indicate any improvement values had been added. It only mentioned a $3,000 assessment and the company paid that amount, Scanlon said. He continued to tell the succession of assessment bills FPL Energy had received. The next one was described as a county-wide reassessment in July of 2004, implicating the amount was for the year 2005. This time, the wind mills were listed as improvements at $40,000 per wind mill and no value on the real estate, leading the company to believe that was to be their new payment. Another assessment was received for the first time around March 17, 2005 raising the wind mill assessment to 1.3 million dollars. This came as a shock to FPL Energy and to Scanlon, who stated: "We feel that is an illegal spot assessment because there has been nothing done [at those sites] between July of 2004 and March of 2005 to call for a new assessment on improvements. We really don't have a problem with the appraisal of property that capitalizes ground rent value." He explained their conviction on taxation of the wind mills: "Our basic position is the wind turn generator which is what we call these big pieces of equipment and machinery are excluded from taxation as machinery and equipment." Scanlon stated that the tower and the foundation are the roots of it and all work together, without one you could not have the other. Wayne County Solicitor Lee Krause spoke to Scanlon, clarifying the reasons and methods used for assessments that seemed to be causing FPL Energy's confusion. Scanlon seemed unable to understand Nolan's testimony or Krause's clarification and stated he (Scanlon) could only go by what was on the assessment papers. Solicitor Krause next questioned Scanlon on whether he had ever corresponded in any way or have any understanding or agreement with the Wayne County Board of Assessment or himself (Krause) pertaining to the appeals. Scanlon stated that he had not. Solicitor Lee Krause continued: "Are you familiar in your company with a person by the name of Pat or Patricia Mokia?" Scanlon responded, "Yes, she is one of the staff attorneys." Krause went on asking: "If I were to tell you that the discussions and negotiations that went on between myself on behalf of the Assessment Board and Pat Mokia would be very well into the understanding why you did not get a tax bill. Would you be able to understand that sir or were you purvey [privy?] to Pat Mokia explaining this to you?"

Scanlon replied: "I have talked to Pat several times and that has never been explained to me, why we did not get a tax bill." Krause added as he returned to his table: "Well, perhaps when you go home you should do that." [Part 3 of the appeals will begin in the next issue of The Wayne Independent.] ______http://www.wayneindependent.com/articles/2005/04/19/news1/news1.txt FPL: Added Taxes Would Be Detriment to Wind Farm BY DIANE LT BOOTHE [The Wayne Independent – Honesdale, Wayne County, PA] April 19, 2005 WAYNE COUNTY - This is part 3 of the Waymart Wind Farm Tax appeal that was held April 14 at 11:00 a.m. in the Wayne County Courthouse. Wayne County Solicitor Mr. Lee Krause was questioning Mr. Scanlon (witness for FPL Energy) on his knowledge concerning any negotiations between himself (Krause) and a Ms. Pat Mokia (works in legal firm for FPL Energy) that would explain why Mr. Scanlon had not received a tax bill as of yet. When Mr. Scanlon had replied no, Mr. Krause suggested when Scanlon go home, that maybe he should speak with her. As stated in part 2 issue of the appeal hearing, Robert Scanlon is an attorney with a law firm in Juno Beach, Florida helping FPL Energy with its property tax issues. Mr. Scanlon was unable to represent the company during the April 14 appeal as a lawyer since he was not certified in the state of PA. Mr. Scanlon expressed the opinion of FPL Energy was that the value of the land could not be increased because there is a wind turbine generator on it. He added that the land should be valued as if the turbines were not there. Ms. Henrietta Marie Gurri McBee FPL Energy Group company Business Manager Ms. McBee explained her job with the wind energy company and her educational background: "I work for FPL Energy. I have been employed by FPL Energy or subsidiaries thereof for over 22 years. I have three degrees: A Bachelor in Industrial Engineering, a Masters in Industrial Engineering and a Masters in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance." She stated she is currently a Business Manager with FPL Energy and was assigned to oversee the financial results of projects east of the Mississippi. Presently, this involves wind farms in the states of West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

The 43 Waymart wind turbines became operational in 2003. Ms. McBee displayed various diagrams showing how parts of the wind turbines are used to turn wind into electrical energy. Commissioner Donald Olsommer (supported by Commissioner Robert Carmody) asked Ms. McBee what amount of income is generated by the wind turbines in Waymart. The estimated income was given at $7 million dollars. Ms. Mcbee tacked on to that income an expense of $6.5 million a year without a tax bill being included. Should a tax bill of $1.3 million be attached to her current expenses, Ms. Mcbee stated, "this project (Waymart Wind Farm) is no longer viable." She informed those at the appeal hearing that she has for 2005, already told FPL Energy due to low winds and freezing conditions during January and February, the company could expect a net loss at the Waymart Project. Commissioner Tony Herzog responded to the woes of FPL Energy's loss of targeted income as being planned for in any company, with a buffer for income loss expectancy. Ms. McBee was questioned as to whether or not FPL Energy wind farms pay taxes in other states? Speaking strictly for the projects she is responsible for, Ms. McBee said that the project in West Virginia has [to?] pay taxes. There are two counties in West Virginia involved with wind farms from FPL Energy, Tucker County and Preston County. Those wind farms began operation the same year as Waymart. Ms. McBee further stated that Pennsylvania State is the only state that collects a huge (as she described it) franchise tax. The amount FPL,Energy pays Pennsylvania State in the form of a franchise tax is $269,000 as a total for all 43 wind turbines at Waymart Wind Farm. When telling her understanding of conversations pertaining to any sort of payment from FPL Energy regarding the Waymart Wind Farm, Ms. McBee stated: "The project provided a gift agreement in addition to the payment of all taxes that had been paid and all future taxes would continue to be paid. It was simply a gift agreement. That's what we had been discussing." Ms. McBee said that when the assessment of $3,000 per wind mill in 2004 had been paid by her company, it was believed that the year 2004 had become a closed issue. Negotiations concerning future discussions of the agreement were taking place but she added that the process was not clear to her. She admitted that Wayne County Assessor Mr. John Nolan had tried to explain the process to her but to no avail. Solicitor Krause questioned Ms. McBee in depth on the complete engineering of a wind turbine. When he asked her the life span expectancy of such a project, her response was twenty years. Ms. McBee explained also that each easement contract with the different property owners in Waymart is individual. Neither Ms McBee nor FPL Energy's acting attorney would disclose any financial agreement between the property owners and FPL Energy. The wind energy company's lawyer Mr. Thomas J. MacNeely did agree that records would be turned over if a court order was presented. In part of her description about the wind turbine tower, Ms. McBee explained: "The primary purpose of the tower is for communication of the cable links in bringing down the numbers of electricity and communication of the computers between the bottom and the top of the equipment." With regards to the base of the tower Solicitor Krause asked Ms. McBee how often they need to be replaced. She stated although they are not suppose to need replacing during the life of the project, she recently replaced one and is getting ready to replace eight more. The project she was speaking of is just over two years old. It is known as the Backbone Mountaineer Project. Ms. McBee began to explain a financial agreement between FPL Energy, Canaan Township and Clinton Township: "Before the property tax came out, there had been negotiations for agreement between Canaan Township and Clinton Township. We give them a floor, if they don't make a certain amount of money from their taxes then Waymart makes it up in a difference, it's about $50,000 for both townships and all payments have been made and are up-to-date." It was Commissioner Herzog's contention that there are three taxing bodies and if FPL Energy dealt with one, they should deal with all three to which Ms. McBee responded: "FPL never dealt with the townships directly. When we purchased these properties, the developer had already made those agreements. N.P.W. (National Wind Power) and Orion and when we were sold the property, we were told that all agreements were in place. That everything was good to go and we could start construction." The last witness for FPL Energy was Mr. Jack Patcella Jr. He qualified as an expert appraiser pertaining to all sorts of subjects. His downfall was that he had never appraised a wind turbine and was therefore not accepted as a reliable source by Wayne County Solicitor Krause pertaining to the case at hand. Mr. Patcella Jr. was excused without testifying, outside of his past appraisals. The commissioners were expected to reach a decision within a week and may announce that decision at their regularly scheduled meeting today or Thursday. The Wayne County Commissioners' meeting is held every Tuesday and Thursday beginning at 10:30 on the third floor of the Wayne County Courthouse. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14379562&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6 04/20/2005 Wayne County windmills generate over $347G in tax By Andrew M. Seder, STAFF WRITER [Scranton Times Tribune, Scranton, PA] HONESDALE -- The owner of 43 windmills towering over the western Wayne County landscape was hit with a tax bill of more than $347,000 Tuesday after an appeals board ruled portions of the devices are subject to local levies. The decision by the Wayne County Assessment Appeals Board, which could be appealed to the county court by owner Juno Beach, Fla.-based Florida Power and Light Energy, could result in the dismantling of the windmills. The company hinted last week that if the windmills were taxed it might pull the plug on the operation and close the wind farm. FPL Energy has not paid taxes on the windmills during the appeals process. During Tuesday's meeting, the board assessed the total value of the windmills at $11.6 million, or $269,800 each. The board ruled that while some components of the windmills are tax-free, energy producing equipment, other components are not free of tax. Each of the concrete bases the windmills are perched on and all 43 of the 215-foot high towers that the turbines are attached to are real estate and do not manufacture electricity, the board determined. If the assessment stands, FPL Energy would owe two years' worth of taxes to Clinton and Canaan townships, Wayne County and the Western Wayne and Forest City Regional school districts. With the new assessment, the potential tax windfall would be greatest for the Western Wayne School District. It would collect $134,579 in 2005 taxes and $153,136 in 2004 taxes. Thirty-nine of the windmills are within that district's boundaries. In 2005 taxes, Wayne County would collect $24,708, Clinton would reap $2,482 and Canaan would receive $2,698. Taxes for 2004 would also be levied. The bill for Forest City Regional was not immediately available. The unanimous decision comes after several deliberations were held among board members following an assessment appeals hearing last Thursday.

The appeals process began last summer when FPL Energy challenged the tax assessments of its windmills. During last week's hearing FPL Energy officials claimed the windmills and all adjoining components were tax exempt under a state law that rules energy producing or manufacturing equipment is nontaxable. Mary Wells, a spokeswoman for FPL Energy, said she had not received official notification of the decision and declined comment. According to figures company officials testified to, the Waymart wind farm has the capacity to generate revenues of $7 million per year. Expenses run about $6.5 million per year, they said. http://www.wayneindependent.com/articles/2005/05/20/news1/news3.txt Wind Farm Owner Appeals County Tax Ruling By KEVIN OWEN KEARNEY – The Wayne Independent HONESDALE - The owner of the Waymart Wind Farm has filed court papers seeking to overturn a ruling that mandates taxes be paid on the 43 turbines in Canaan and Clinton townships. A county assessment appeals board ruled April 19 that Florida Power & Light had to pay $20,240 in taxes for 2004 and $269,800 in 2005. During a hearing prior to the ruling, FPL had argued that the turbines were not subject to taxes because they are machinery and equipment independent of real estate. FPL maintains that the taxes are excessive and surpass the market value. In an appeal filed Wednesday in Wayne County Court, FPL said the board erred in its ruling because "uncontradicted evidence" presented at the hearing concluded the turbines should be excluded from taxes. That evidence, according to court papers, showed the nacelle, generator, computer, data and electrical cables, tower, blades and foundation are one integrated and necessary piece of machinery and equipment with the sole purpose of generating electricity. Further evidence showed that, in 2004, FPL had received $3,000 in tax bills based on an assessment of the land and nothing else, and the bills were paid and accepted, according to court papers. The property's initial assessment, dated Jan. 12, 2004, established the total value at $129,430. A reassessment of the property in 2005 established a total value of $1.3 million. FPL appealed the assessments and had a hearing before the board of appeals, comprised of the county commissioners. FPL maintains the board's decision April 19 constituted a "spot assessment" that was inadequate. "The weight of the factual evidence ... showed that no assessment of (the turbines) had been made in 2004, despite the fact the wind turbine generators had been operating since October 2003," Wilkes-Barre attorney Thomas J. MacNeely, representing FPL, says in court papers. FPL spokeswoman Mary Wells said Thursday that FPL paid all its taxes - about $373,000 in township, county and state franchise taxes - in 2004. FPL is asking the court to do the following: declare the property value as excessive; declare that the board's decision illegally assesses machinery and equipment in violation of state law; declare the decision constitutes spot assessment; and reestablish the total assessed value. The county commissioners said at their bi-weekly meeting Thursday that they had yet to review the appeal.

Board of Assessments Hears Arguments From Waymart Wind Farm Owner By DIANE L.T. BOOTHE/Staff Writer – The Wayne Independent [Wayne, PA] – Nov. 16, 2005 WAYNE COUNTY - The Wayne County Commissioners' meeting on Tuesday quickly switched over to the Board of Assessments and Revision of Taxes to hear an assessment appeal from the Waymart Wind Farm, L.P. for their 2006 taxes. Representing the Wind Farm was Thomas J. MacNeely, Esq. from Rosenn, Jenkins & Greenwald, L.L.P. Community Outreach Manager, Mary Wells sat in the back and did not speak during the tax appeal hearing. The grounds for the tax appeal were stated in a memorandum presented at the hearing: “Wind turbine generators are machinery or equipment contained within industrial establishments that are excluded from taxation as real property. The assessments are illegal for increasing market value as a result of the placement of machinery and equipment on these sites. The assessments violate uniformity of taxation, since the machinery and equipment are excluded from taxation under the Public Utility Realty Tax. The assessments constitute illegal spot reassessments. The assessments exceed market value for the property.” Mr. Barnett stood in for Wayne County Chief Assessor Mr. Nolan as he was unable to attend the meeting. The appeal filed with the board encompassed 43 parcels of land, the pad and tower on each parcel. Attorney MacNeely cited sections of law or court cases such as: 72 P.S. §5452.201(a); BFC Hardwoods v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 771 A.2d 759, 763 (Pa 2001); BFC Hardwoods, supra, at p. 764; Allegheny Energy Supply Co. V. Green County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 837 A.2d 655 (PA Cmwlth. 2003); 72 P.S. §5453.201; Appeal of the Borough of Aliquippa (Jones & Laughlin Tax Assessment Case), 175 A. 2d. 856, 861 (PA 1961); Allegheny Energy, 837 A.2d at 669; Shenandoah Mobile Co. v. Dauphin County Bd. of Assessment, 869 A.2d 562 (PA. Cmwlth 2005); F & M Schaeffer Brewing Co. v. Lehigh Co. Bd. of Appeal, 610 A.2d 1, 6 (PA 1992) In re PP&L, Inc., 838 A. 2d (PA Cmwlth. 2003); F & M Schaeffer Brewing, supra at p.6; Public Utility Tax Act; 72 P.S. §8101-A(3); Article VIII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; Parsowith v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Revenue, 723 A. 2d 659 (PA 1999); Vees v, Carbon County Bd. of Assessment, 867 A. 2d 742, 747 (PA Comwlth. 2005); Radecke v. York Co. Bd of Assessment Appeals, 798 A. 2d 265 (PA Comwlth 2005); Radecke, supra, at 268 and Hershey Entertainment and Resorts Co. v. Dauphin County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 874 A. 2d 702. On page nine of the “Memorandum in Support of Waymart Wind Farm L.P. Tax Appeal,” under Valuation, it is alleged that: “The 2006 assessments of the forty-three (43) wind turbine sites illegally include the value of machinery and equipment as real property; the assessments illegally enhance the value of the rural property for the placement of machinery and equipment on the site; the assessments do not reflect market value; the assessments exceed market value; and the assessed land values are not uniform with other land values in the area.” The memorandum ends with what attorney Thomas J. MacNeely feels should be a fair assessment after explanations are given in previous pages: “The total tax assessment to Waymart for each turbine site should be set in a range of $31,000 to $45,000.” The current 2006 assessment stands at $282,410 per turbine site. The complete memorandum is 15 pages. The decision from the Board of Assessment Appeals of Wayne County was to keep the assessment of 2006 and indefinitely for the Waymart Wind Farm, L.P. located in Clinton and Canaan Townships as they were before the appeal. During an interview after the hearing, Ms. Wells explained: “...we reached a settlement on our 2004-05 taxes...with the county and with the two school districts and we made a payment to the county for that settlement...that settlement was approved by the court but the court did not weigh in on who is right and who is wrong. They never really heard that case, all they did is agree that the settlement was reasonable and they approved it. “So there is no ruling from the courts on whether we're right or the county is right....What we hope is to come up with a permanent solution to this problem rather than have this occur every year...” http://www.wayneindependent.com/articles/2005/11/16/news1/news2.txt