Wind Power Talk

Resource site for links discussing issues around wind mill turbines - and particular focused on the Allegheny, West Virginia, projects and protest campaigns

Monday, April 26, 2010

Revenue from Mt Storm Wind Turbines supporting jailing of judges?

As previously noted - the South American Banking cartel that lent $180M to the Mt Storm project includes Venezuela as one member.

So what do people in West Virginia feel about the fact that such loan repayments are in part tacitly support Hugo Chavez actions?

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Wind farm projects in USA - who gets the money?

As we have seen with the Mt Storm project - the money spent on turbines and then the revenues from the electricity often follows unexpected paths. And the use of LLC company shells for all these projects prevents any recourse.

Once again Gamesan is cited in this Washington Post article - and the four Senators would do well to study existing projects when drafting regulations to ensure that stimulus dollars are not ultimately being syphoned off to overseas concerns. Percentage construction quotas need to be wary of "assembled in USA" labels where in fact the components are manufactored elsewhere and the actual amount of "assembling" amounts to just unpacking shipping crates and repackaging for final delivery as has happened in the car industry.

In the Mt Storm case revenues from the project are going to pay the loan underwritten by Venezuela and a South American banking consortium. Again this is very easy scenario to see reoccurring once a project secures stimulus funding and can then secure immediate loan credits with kick backs to the parent company.

In West Virginia's case we see that the opportunity to create local manufacturing jobs is lost to neighboring States, and then even the electricity revenue is going elsewhere! Truly a lose-lose scenario for the priviledge of having your landscape dotted with other peoples wind turbines!

Monday, February 15, 2010

US DOE colludes with Wind Turbine Project developers on house price impacts

The US Department of Energy needs to refund the $500,000 it spent on its study on the impact of wind turbine farms on property prices.

When it blantantly manipulates information to distort the message it portrays it is no longer operating in the best interests of citizens by providing objective data that can inform decision makers.

Instead it is intentionally attempting to deceive citizens about the actual reality and promote special interests positions.

It is one thing if the DOE clearly states - study funded in part by industry groups - but quite another to spend tax payers money and not reveal the biase.

Unfortunately this is a trend across the US government and hence in future citizens will not be able to believe anything their government publishes as a study - except for knowing that such studies are flawed - and the trick is to discover who influenced or caused the study to be made in the first place.

Here with have a classic example of this in action.



Serious questions raised concerning the credibility of the results

NEW HAMPSHIRE (February 15, 2010) -- Real estate appraisal experts are challenging the scientific credibility and accuracy of a recent US Department of Energy ('DOE') report on the effect of wind power projects on property values. A new paper[1] asserts that well known flaws in the methodology used in the study raise serious questions concerning the credibility of the results, and the DOE report's authors failed to follow well-developed and tested standards for performing regression analyses on property sales.

The Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report[2] titled "The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi- Site Hedonic Analysis" released December 2009 generated media headlines[3] claiming "Wind farms have no effect on property value." The report asserts that an analysis of residential home sales across the United States found no evidence that home prices surrounding wind facilities were "consistently, measurably, and significantly affected by either the view of wind facilities or the distance of the home to those facilities". While the authors acknowledge that individual homes in proximity to the towers may be negatively affected, such impact was declared "either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact".

The authors relied on a methodology known as Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis.

The DOE study caught the attention of Mr. Albert Wilson[4], a valuer of environmental impacts on business and real estate with more than 25 years experience who has specifically studied hedonic analyses of real estate for more than a decade, and has taught and written extensively on these impacts and methods.

"I have no opinion concerning the effect of wind power projects on residential property values," Wilson told "However, I was compelled to respond professionally when it became apparent that the latest report by the Department of Energy was predicated on flawed methods - flaws that are well known in the literature but apparently ignored or missed by the report's authors."

In his paper, "Wind Farms, Residential Property Values, And Rubber Rulers"[1] Wilson writes that the underlying methods used in the development of the DOE study raise serious questions concerning the credibility of the results. In particular, the authors failed to follow any of the well-developed and tested standards for performing regression analyses on property sales.

"There are literally thousands of possible real estate regression models. Absent published and recognized standards on the validation of data, model development and testing, and calibration of the model against the real world market, a regression may be nothing more than a rubber ruler that can be stretched to provide a desired result," he wrote.

And since any hedonic analysis depends entirely on the accuracy and reliability of the regression used, if the underlying regression does not conform to recognized standards, Wilson argues there can be no independent assurance of that accuracy or reliability.

Offering specifics on the study's flaws, Wilson is highly critical of DOE's nationwide approach whereby thousands of real estate transactions were examined in communities surrounding wind power facilities spread across the United States. The authors consolidated all of these markets and treated them as the same with little consideration of basic differences. For example, sales prices in areas of declining population and therefore decreasing demand-a majority of the areas examined-are not directly comparable to sales prices in areas of increasing population and therefore increasing demand. Even within the ten communities identified in the DOE report, such aggregation of markets is questionable. In Washington State, which was used as the base for comparison to all other areas in the study, the authors aggregated the urban market of Kennewick with the rural market of Milton-Freewater -- two very different areas some 42 miles apart!

Wilson was clear when he wrote, "The failure to recognize and account for the need for homogeneity of markets is a common failing of hedonics."

The DOE study completely ignores this point by creating an average sales price representing houses from nine states and at least 20 different markets -- a gross oversimplification that Wilson asserts cannot provide for the specificity required to answer a micro-question such as an influence on sales price from a highly localized condition i.e. distance to or view of a wind energy project.

This problem becomes even more significant when, as Wilson points out, less than 10% of the sales transactions used in the Report had any view of turbines, and only 2.1% had a view rated greater than minor. In fact, the study is dominated by transactions where no influence is reasonably likely. While the author's of the DOE study claim their analysis is "data-rich", in fact, their claim is an overstatement of the situation because of this issue.

The DOE study was three years in the making and cost taxpayers at least $500,000. It is difficult to see how the public was served by an exercise that failed to follow even the most basic requirements for regression analysis which is the foundation on which hedonic methods are based.

About Industrial Wind Action Group seeks to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information and analysis on the subject is available through its website To subscribe to the weekly newsletter, visit


Lisa Linowes

603-838-6588 603-838-6588





Saturday, October 10, 2009

Federal lawsuit filed against Beech Ridge Energy stops 40% of turbine construction

The Federal lawsuit filed against Beech Ridge Energy and its parent corporation by Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy and others will culminate with an evidentiary trial starting October 21st in Greenbelt, Maryland. MCRE’s attorneys, of the nationally recognized public interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, charge that the Beech Ridge industrial wind energy facility will very likely kill and injure endangered Indiana Bats – a patent violation of the Endangered Species Act. The only way in which a party can cure such a violation is to obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before any deaths or injuries occur, which Beech Ridge Energy has failed to secure from the Service at this time.

To our knowledge, this is the first wind energy project to be challenged for violating the Endangered Species Act, and it puts Greenbrier County in the national spotlight on these important wildlife issues. Previous studies have shown that industrial wind turbines on forested ridges in the east kill thousands of bats annually. In fact, Beech Ridge Energy concedes that approximately 135,000 bats could be killed during the twenty-year operation of the project. Despite this staggering figure, Beech Ridge Energy’s staff have testified previously that Indiana bats were not likely to be killed by the project because pre-construction surveys did not establish presence of the species on the project site.

However, the discovery process leading up to this October trial has exposed evidence to the contrary. Ultrasound survey techniques that identify bat species by their unique call sequences were conducted in 2005 by Beech Ridge Energy’s subcontractor, but the existence and results of these surveys were never disclosed to the federal or state wildlife agencies, nor the West Virginia Public Service Commission. Two of the nation’s leading bat biologists, Drs. Lynn Robbins and Michael Gannon, have recently analyzed that previously unreleased data and confirmed the presence of Indiana bats at the Beech Ridge project site.

Turbines had been slated to go up in August, but because of the efforts of MCRE and others, 40% of phase one turbine erection and 100% of phase two turbine erection is on hold until the issue has been fully litigated and decided in the US District Court.

Because this effort has not come without a price, MCRE appreciates any and all contributions that have been made to sustain this effort to protect our community and our natural environment. Your continued financial support for MCRE can be mailed to: MCRE, P.O. Box 1, Williamsburg, WV 24991 and info is available online at:

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Shell Marked Guilty

Ever wondered why oil companies want handouts to put up wind turbines?  To offset their less than perfect record in environmental care is definately a major factor - hoping that people view them with a favorable aspect and continue to therefore buy their oil products. 

Seems like Shell Oil is being highlighted by a major campaign to point out their true record.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Gathering storm of over 1,000 turbines threaten WV

The Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County, WV are compiling an inventory of the industrial wind projects being considered for the Allegheny mountains area in WV.

There are two documents - the area map with projects marked:

and then the details of each project:

These documents show the extent of the damage planned. None of this would be occurring of course without the government tax subsidies that make the unviable energy logic possible.

Given the dismal track record of the wind power industry elsewhere in WV it would obviously be a travesty if any of these further projects were anything but summarily dismissed.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Model Wind Project - Martinsburg, WV - Burch v Nedpower - Circuit Court hearing 10th November, 2008

Today in court the lawyer for Nedpower stated that the Mt Storm project was a model wind power project that would be used as a yard stick over the next 50 years for how to run a successful wind turbine project that contributes to energy independence. He also stated that the project was now worth $500M (up from the originally projected $180M costs).

Oddly enough he also stated that Nedpower has no employees and no cash reserves or assets except the certificate of approval from the West Virginia PSC. In essence Nedpower is a shell company, but somehow it manages to pay the lawyer and his firm to represent them, and run the entire Mt Storm Industrial Wind operation. Magic?!?

So enquiring minds wonder just what a Model Wind Turbine project is, and how the three companies involved - Nedpower, Shell WindEnergy, and Dominion Power could make such a claim? Especially as they have not yet published any figures on the electricity that may have generated to date, nor any revenue they may have received, nor annual power generation estimates based on established wind pattern data from the telemetry on each of their installed turbines. Originally the project was stated to provide electricity for 70,000 homes annually. At the cost of $500M sounds like a bargain!?!

So considering what Nedpower, Shell WindEnergy and Dominion Power have actually done to date it would appear that the following are what makes up a Model Wind Turbine project based on their actions.

Model Wind Project with 50 year operational plan

  1. Setup Corporate shell company with no funds, run by proxy by lawyers to head project.
  2. Only asset is a certificate of approval for project from PSC and leases gained from local land owners with pay offs; all so the shell company cannot be sued.
  3. Take $300M in tax payer electricity generation credits and avoid having to post any public liability bonds. Avoid being labelled as a public utility company.
  4. Take $158M in foreign investment and debit burden of $9M annually with a South American banking cartel.
  5. Purchase turbines from a partner company in Spain and ship them across the Atlantic
  6. Use out of State cheap contract labor for most of construction. Avoid union labor.
  7. Wreck local access roads and do not fully reimburse State DOT for necessary rebuilding of the road.
  8. Sneak project past local regulations and restrictions by avoiding undue public notices or assess during planning permission process. Hire fake expert witnesses to testify on minimal wildlife impacts and huge wind generation capacity.
  9. Promise major benefits to local county in tax and jobs. Buy off local schools and community leaders with paltry donations.
  10. Locate turbines whereever you please in complete disregard to sensibilities of local residents, view shed and overall public nuisance.
There we have it Top 10 ways to run a model wind turbine project, set by NedPower, Shell Wind Energy and Dominion Power.

Seeing the project is such a model of success, perhaps the citizens of Grant County should consider leveeing a substantial new tax on the project to offset the lost revenues from home building and other scenic tourism revenues that they are now losing because of the success of the wind turbine project?

Related links:

Continued road damage and construction:
Environmental impacts:

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Financing details revealed by Nedpower / Shell WindEnergy

Over $185 million senior secured financing that will support construction and operation of NedPower Mount Storm LLC was arranged in November 2007. Dominion Power and Shell WindEnergy have joint 50/50 ownership of the project. Interestingly the original cost was estimated at $300M alone, but some of that missing funding is coming from the US government subsidies via the rate subsidies and tax incentives. However with the weakened dollar to the Euro and the purchase of Spanish turbines from Ganesa along with the jump in diesel prices effecting construction costs and transportation something would appear to not be all adding up. Public disclosure of the current project budget has not happened.

"Fortis and BBVA will structure, underwrite and syndicate the construction facility, which will be converted into a 15-year senior secured term loan at the onset of commercial operations scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2008. The facilities launched in November 2007".

Nedpower have been trying to claim the Phase 1 of construction is now complete - however recent pictures from the site show that this is not the case. Clearly also commissioning and testing with the Mt Storm power plant to facilitate power switching has not yet started. They have also yet to comply with FAA regulations on hazard warning systems for the 390' high structures. No filing has been announced by the FAA and the current hazard lighting consists of only two small red lights, one at either end of the line of turbines.

As a partner Dominion Power seem to have a struck a sweet deal with the financing including "The project has entered into two identical power swaps, fixing the electricity price for five years". This means that as the price of electricity goes up the project will be getting the same fixed price that is less than market value for power being generated and Dominion will pocket the difference. This will further erode the viability of the project. On the other hand it is harder to sell wind power generated electricity on the regular daily spot market for the grid because of the uncertainty of generation. So having a guaranteed buyer is probably the attraction for Nedpower.

But then project viability and energy generation don't appear to be considered as priorities by those sponsors of the project. The intent appears to be farming out as much profit for themselves and their partners and minimizing the costs - as can be seen by their willingness to wreak a public road with their heavy construction vehicles and then dodge having to pay to replace the road (the PSC left it open for the project to negotiate "arrangements" with the WV DOT but these have not been made public).

So who exactly is funding the Mt Storm project? "BBVA is one of the top four banks in the Eurozone in terms of market capitalization and is one of the main international banking groups in Latin America with leading subsidiaries in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. The bank is also present in the world's main financial centers through its New York, London, Frankfurt and Tokyo branches and representative offices.
Fortis Merchant and Private Banking is a division of Fortis, a global financial services firm".

As with the purchase of original Spanish turbines we see US tax dollars and revenues being syphoned off overseas - now also to offshore banking groups in interest payments and revenue agreements. Interest alone on the $185M loan is likely to be in the range of $9M+ annually.

Would someone please mind explaining how this is all helping the people of Grant County and West Virginia?


Sunday, July 13, 2008

New Wind Power book - story in pictures

People facing the challenge of deciding about wind power in their own community need to see first hand what it means to those already coming to grips with living with an industrial wind project in the mountains of West Virginia.

This book by David Webber paints the details in pictures that show directly what impacts locals can expect in a mountain region of the eastern United States.

The book illustrates a project being underwritten by Shell WindEnergy and showcases how a high end multi-national corporation is being represented by its project on the ground.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Coming soon to a mailbox near you

As you walk up your driveway to the mailbox you are aware of a 390’ high structure in your eye view. Whereas before you had a clear field of view over relaxing fields and trees, now your vision is distracted. As you approach your mailbox a large moving shadow rapidly flicks over you, followed by another and then another and then another. The huge moving blades in the suns light provide a constant effect that is both distracting and annoying. Your senses simply hone into this constant movement and there is no way to shut it out of your minds eye. A little voice inside your self-response alerting systems keeps chirping “Watch Out!” and you cannot switch that off.

Well now you have gotten over the shock value of living next to an industrial wind turbine, maybe you are ready for more technology in your life? How about microwave towers for cell phone communications or emergency response teams or high definition TV and radio? Why not? Your once rural area is now an industrial park anyway, so what does a few more poles and towers matter now?

And remember your driveway and small country road? Well it’s now been widened and graded and 50’ wide access roads carved away from it to provide clearways for giant tractor trailers. And the deer you used to enjoy so close to your home? Gone, gunned down by hunters who before could not penetrate the area but now have free and easy access with open lanes to shoot hapless wildlife from. Now deer start up and move off immediately from any human nearing them (deer and road).

That small country road also is no longer the simple drive it once was. Now it’s more like an army vehicle testing course. With the heavy equipment vehicles on it literally tearing up the surface on inclines and slopes large sections are now barely passable. So you have to weave from one side of the road to the other to find even tarmac. And what about towing in your boat or camper? The uneven camber makes low slung loads bottom out in many places, so now you have to have someone ahead of you to hold up traffic while you are negotiating around the worst sections.

Why not complain to the DOT? Sure go ahead. We did that last year and they spot patched and re-surfaced areas, but now whole new areas have been damaged instead. Seems like the turbine company controls that whole process anyway, and they are not rushing to pay for repairs each time they damage the road. The DOT even seems to let them re-route the road as they please. They were adjudged to have turbines too close to the road so that literally the spinning blades pass directly above the edge of the road. So what is their solution? Relocate the sites of the turbines perhaps? Of course not, simply dig up the original road and in its place put a detoured temporary gravel section instead.

But doesn’t all this create local jobs for people who need them? That seems to be the clarion call around these parts. In fact the turbine company uses it often to gloss over the fact that they want to do pretty much as they please around here. Come to find out that the federal government is paying millions of tax dollars to support this whole Nedpower/Shell WindEnergy venture. So what else in your community is not getting done because the money is spent already? Is this project really cost effective or is this just a boondoggle and public relations exercise for a large mega-corporation, subsidized by the tax payers?

Turns out that the numbers game may actually have worked against the mega-corporation as the exchange rate of the US dollar to the Euro has almost halved since the wind turbine project was conceived and approved and the funding calculated. The turbines and parts are being purchased from Spain and the Ganesa company and shipped to West Virginia. Every cost has escalated, right down to the cost of diesel to haul the parts from Baltimore by rail and road to the construction site. But most importantly the turbines which once cost $1.25M each are now effectively costing twice that when the price is fixed in Euros rather than dollars.
Nedpower optimistically said the entire system would be operational by the fall of 2007. Well here we are in 2008 and it is obvious that not all the turbines are even installed yet. Not to mention completed their equipment testing and integration with the power plants own switching station so that electricity can actually be generated in a controlled way and feed into the grid.

Looking at the current state of installation one could estimate that it will be well into 2009 before they are ready.
Another concern is safety to both aviation and migrating birds. The turbines across the mountain top currently only have two working red hazard warning lights visible at night. This despite the fact that even during the day turbines disappear into the low cloud and mist and being a gross violation of FAA regulations on high structures and hazard light requirements.

The biggest concern is that this whole project simply becomes uneconomic. The pay back period was previously somewhere around 10 years. But now they must have a better idea of actual wind conditions on the mountain and the likely yield. Wind conditions are really only ideal in the fall and otherwise are intermittent and inconsistent for the rest of the year. An annual yield of somewhere in the region of 20% would be typical for this mountain location. So yes – over $300M of tax subsidy is being spent overseas for systems that only work 20% of the time. Your car would not be much of a purchase if it did that.
Now if you double the unit costs through the exchange rate hike, your cost recovery time goes out to twenty years which is past the lifetime of the equipment. Suddenly investors will be jumping ship as there is no way they can recover their money. This leaves just mega-corporations left who can write off to tax against profit and do creative accounting to shift moneys between Spain and the USA. Does this all sound like its going to create sustainable jobs in WV? There are clearly much better things to spend a $300M subsidy on if that is your goal.

And whose brainchild is all this anyway? One Mr. Hieronymous Niessen who I’m sure is right now pouring over maps of rural mountain areas looking for the next one to pass his brilliant schemes off on. Fortunately though the internet now allows people to find out first hand exactly what these projects entail and educate themselves on the choices they face (

So what was your life once like back in those tranquil old days before your property area became an industrial wind energy site?

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Beautiful Pendleton County - Comments to USFS

In their open letter to the US Forestry Service the Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County call out numerous issues with mountain top wind turbines that are simply not considered by typical wind industry expert studies when reckoning the costs and impacts of these devices. In looking to establish the true costs and determining if any net good comes from these devices in mountain top settings the FBPC conclusion is that they do not.

You can read the full letter here.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Pendleton County Mobilizes - December 7th meeting

A visit to neighboring Grant County will show how serious a threat wind projects are becoming for Pendleton. Last weekend I stood on the observation tower at Spruce Knob and saw 22 wind turbines on the Mt. Storm project, turbines are also visible from the Germany Valley overlook. If you are concerned about this or have other concerns, plan to attend the meeting Friday December 7 at 7 pm at the Library.

WHEN: Friday December 7 at 7 pm
WHERE: Pendelton County Public Library Lower Level
Do your realize that had the PSC Commissioners not used wisdom in their June 22, 2007 decision to refuse to permit Liberty Gap's application the project would most likely be near completion. Up to 50 huge turbines more than 400 feet tall would now sit atop Jack Mountain from the WV-VA state line northward to Moatstown.  The construction would have taken place during the driest summer local residents can recall.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: what would be the affect of the removal of up to 20,000 gallons of water a day from our streams for about 4 to 6 months as indicated in Liberty Gap's application. How would our county and downstream farms, residences, fisherman, wild life and others tolerate the removal of such a quantity of precious stream water?

While wind project claim to be "green" they continue to dismiss their own environmental impacts as 
justifiable to save the planet from global warming.  
You simply cannot have it both ways.  If you care about the planet that much then you will also be sensitive enough to ensure that your industrial projects minimize their own footprints.  The lesson of the past hundred years of abusive mining projects show that fragile mountain wilderness areas while they may be windy compared to others locations, are by definition the worst places to locate industrial projects of any kind.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Delmarva Power rejects Wind Power as too expensive

Not just West Virginia but now Delaware has woken up to the true costs of wind projects and the unsurmountable problem of 30% availability and need for 70% of the time buying electricity on the spot market to offset.

Notice the only country with major offshore windpower - Denmark - has two giant neighbors in Norway and Sweden who sell them hydro-generated electricity. In other words for Denmark - who would otherwise be buying all their electricity from partner countries - offshore wind is offsetting their trade balance costs - because their own traditional in-country generation capacity is minimal.

Everywhere else in the world - there is no offset - so the result is in effect paying for electricity TWICE! Traditional generation and then wind as well.

Fortunately everyone is waking up to this craziness and the impact on their electricity bills.

Delmarva Power is calling for studies on alternatives.  Just like for West Virginia biomass is one mentioned option to achieve sustainable 20% generation capacity.  Unlike West Virginia, Delmarva power is actively calling for review of these other sources.  

See news article here.

Friday, November 09, 2007

West Virginia is no longer wind industry dumping ground

West Virginia has woken up to the real facts behind the wind industry and its rosy claims.

Congressman Mollohan has sent a hard hitting letter commenting on the State Energy plan on industrial wind to DOE Herholdt.

In the letter Mollohan gives facts and figures that show that wind turbines simply do not contribute significantly to any real sustained energy production nor reduce carbon emissions enough for the investment and their own impact on West Virginia environment.  

Furthermore they are incompatible with the State's heritage and 
open spaces image, towering hundreds of feet over the landscape and cutting gapping habitat fragmenting lines with access roads.

Clearly West Virginia now has to look seriously at alternates that really do leverage resources that provide sustained alternative energy with real job creation and low carbon emissions. That alternative is everywhere in the State - wood.

The US is lagging woefully behind Europe in developing high efficiency sustainable wood energy systems. See this UK success award for just one example. There is simply nothing in the West Virginia energy plan that even seriously considers these opportunities.

Now is the time for investment in developing a real plan for West Virginia with funding to the University of West Virginia to do the research and studies on sustainable wood energy systems.

The full text of Mollohans letter is here.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Shell WindEnergy / NedPower flagrantly ignore WV PSC contract terms

Dominion and Shell WindEnergy Inc (owners of the company, NedPower Mount Storm LLC) have announced the first phase of their project - 82 turbines producing 164 megawatts, or enough electricity for 41,000 homes - is under construction at a site near Dominion's Mount Storm Power Station. It is scheduled to begin operation in the fourth quarter of 2007 (see -

Notice this a "nameplate" capacity rating - and typically wind turbines produce only 25% of rating - so that means 10,000 homes in reality - at a cost of 82 turbines @ $2M each = $164M, which is $16,400 per home.

These new 2 MW Gamesa G8x turbines have been built in Spain and shipped 5,000 miles to Mt Storm.

Unfortunately they never had approval for this. Instead the PSC approved use of 1.8 MW turbines.

Of course NedPower is so convinced that the PSC is in love with their project - they never even bothered to notify the PSC on this change of equipment, nor seek their permission, nor consider that these bigger turbines may not meet PSC approval because of the greater impacts they will have environmentally. No doubt Nedpower feel that these new 2 MW units are a valid substitution that does not require authorization or notification to the PSC.

Clearly this is in complete violation of their existing contract and further illustrates that NedPower is a project out of control. A complaint was filed today to the PSC on the damaged caused to 5 miles of public road by NedPower, and further complaints are expected.

- visitors: