Tags
CFRA, cost of renewables, cost of wind power, online poll, Ontario, Ontario economy, poll, wind power
Radio station CFRA is holding an online poll on the economics of renewable power–wind and solar–take the poll here
02 Thursday Apr 2015
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
CFRA, cost of renewables, cost of wind power, online poll, Ontario, Ontario economy, poll, wind power
Radio station CFRA is holding an online poll on the economics of renewable power–wind and solar–take the poll here
02 Thursday Apr 2015
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, electricity bills Ontario, electricity prices, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, energy poverty, Feed In Tariff program, HOEP, Ontario, Ontario deficit, Ontario economy, Ontario hydro bills, Parker Gallant, wind farms, wind power, wind power contracts
Financial Post, 2015
Parker Gallant, the former banker who several years ago launched FP Comment’s prophetic Ontario’s Power Trip campaign against the province’s expensive and pointless electricity industry reforms, has some new advice for the government. As the price of electricity soars, Ontario industries and consumers are being hammered by rate increases that seem never-ending. In an open letter today to Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, Mr. Gallant lists a few easy initiatives the government could undertake to stop some of the madness and save consumers billions of dollars. Terence Corcoran
LETTER FROM PARKER GALLANT
April 1, 2015
The Honourable Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Energy,
Legislative Building, Queen’s Park, Toronto ON, M7A 1A1
Dear Minister Chiarelli:
Re: Dropping Ontario’s Price for Electricity
I have noted the difficulty you have experienced over the past several months trying to convince the media and the general population of Ontario they should simply bite the bullet and accept the fact that electricity prices will continue their above inflation climb. Having studied the situation I believe I have come up with some suggestions that would allow you to move things in the opposite direction.
First I suspect that Premier Wynne and Finance Minister Sousa exerted considerable pressure on you to come up with a scheme to help out the 500,000 to 700,000 “low-income” households in the province experiencing what is generally referred to as “energy poverty.” While the plan recommended came from the Ontario Energy Board and was altered somewhat by yourself I believe I have a better plan.
More on that later in this letter.
I also suspect that the Premier and Finance Minister told you unequivocally the OCEB was finished at the end of the year as they wish to wave better deficit numbers in front of those pesky credit rating agencies. The $1.2 billion that went to keep electricity rates down, a little bit, would no longer be available and they made that clear to you.
While you did your best to dance around the issue associated with the upcoming big jump in our electricity bills I could see the criticism was troublesome for you. As a result I believe my suggestions on what you should do will put some spring back in your step.
Here they are:
Recommendations to reduce future ratepayer bills
Conservation spending for the period 2015 to 2020 is forecast and budgeted at $1,835 million so drop it and that will provide close to $400 million annually that can go to reduce electricity prices.
Next, cancel the acquisition of the 500 MW of renewable wind and solar that you instructed IESO to acquire. That will save an estimated $200 million annually in future costs that would increase our rates.
I note there are 510 MW of wind generation contracts awarded that have not yet obtained their REA from the MoE and I recommend you also cancel those. I estimate that would provide relief from future increases of another $200 million per annum. I would suspect the costs of exiting these will be nominal.
Needless to say the cancellation of the above 1,010 MW of renewable energy will reduce future power surpluses meaning the HOEP might show some upward movement. That would allow all the dispatched wind and solar, spilled hydro, steamed off nuclear and idled gas to be sold via the market place to our neighbours. I estimate we could sell anywhere from 10/15 TWh annually at a price of somewhere around $40 million per TWh which would earn revenue of $400/600 million annually.
I would also cancel the new OESP plan which is estimated to cost $200 million (including a new administrative bureaucracy costing $20 million) annually.
Now if you do the math on the above the amount of money your portfolio would save in the future and also generate new income it totals $1.7 billion.
You could than use some of that $1.7 billion to both decrease electricity prices and provide relief for those suffering from “energy poverty.”
My recommendations on those two issues follow:
Recommendations to relieve “energy poverty”
First you should instruct the OEB that the .12% allocated to the LEAP program be increased immediately (providing you have completed the other recommendations) to 1% which will immediately make over $30 million available to the social agencies for relief purposes. You should also increase the maximums per household to $1,000 and instruct the OEB that the Return on Equity and/or Return on Assets for the LDC are to reflect a reduction to accommodate this.
Second you should drop the TOU off-peak rate from 7.7 cents per kWh to 5 cents per kWh. The cost of this would be about $350 million. It would also benefit many of those “low-income” households meaning they would no longer suffer from “energy poverty.” The other benefit is that the ratio of offpeak to on-peak would be much closer to the 3 : 1 ratio that the Auditor General suggested it should be and get more people to shift their use. It would also benefit our business community.
The cost of the two above recommendations are less than $400 million meaning ratepayers will be better off by avoiding future rate hikes and seeing some relief on existing rates. At the same time the TOU pricing will provide a clear signal that usage should shift preserving the “conservation” theme.
I certainly hope you will give my suggestions some serious thought and I do look forward to your response.
Yours truly,
Parker Gallant
30 Monday Mar 2015
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
adverse health effects wind farms, adverse health symptoms wind farm, Big Wind documentary, CanWEA, Shawn Drennan, transformer stations, TVOntario, wind farm, wind power, wind turbines
TVOntario is showing the new documentary film Big Wind again on Tuesday, March 31st, at 10 PM
The film documents the legal struggle of one farm family in Ontario about to be surrounded by over 100 wind turbines and two transformer stations, and other communities already dealing with the effects of living near the huge power generating machines.
Key interviews include former nursing teacher Norma Schmidt, whose sleep was so disturbed she became ill and had to leave her job; she and her husband are now unable to live in the family home. Another is with a farmer who has a turbine on his property, and thus receiving lease payments; he said “We decided we weren’t going to be bothered” by the turbine.
One wind developer was interviewed for the film but Head Office later tried to have all the recording erased; last week the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA, the lobby group for the developers in Canada) claimed it was too bad no wind developers were interviewed for the film!
A podcast of Big Wind, and a special edition of The Agenda which featured a panel discussion on the effects of wind power on communities, are available on the TVOntario website at TVO.org
27 Friday Mar 2015
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Canadian Wind Energy Association, cost benefit wind power, EDP, EDP Renewables, electricity bills Ontario, electricity rates Ontario, energy poverty, green energy, Green Energy Act, Ottawa wind concerns, The Agenda, TVOntario, wind farms, wind power
March 27, 2015
TVOntario’s public affairs program, The Agenda with Steve Paikin, dealt with the controversy over the implementation of Ontario’s push for power generation from wind this week, with an edition of the show, followed by the debut of new documentary film Big Wind.
Ottawa Wind Concerns’ chairperson (and Wind Concerns Ontario president) Jane Wilson was a guest for the entire Agenda program, which is available online at http://tvo.org/video/211902/wind-power-wind-problems.
The documentary is also online at TVOntario’s website, at http://tvo.org/video/211702/big-wind
There are opportunities to comment at both links.
27 Friday Mar 2015
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Bob Chiarelli, CFRA, electricity bill increases, energy poverty, hydro bills Ontario, Large Renewable Procurement Ontario, Not a Willing host, Ontario consumers, Ontario electricity bills, Ottawa, Ottawa wind concerns, Steve Madely CFRA, wind farm, wind power
After “boasting” that projected electricity bill increases will result in $120 more on electricity customers bills a year yesterday in Toronto, Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli is a guest on CFRA’s The Home Page at 1 p.m.
Morning show host Steve Madely disputed Chiarelli’s math on his CFRA show this morning, saying by his calculation, the increase in electricity bills will be at least $140…and that Ontario consumers can ill afford it.
Chiarelli acknowledged that the increases are due to Ontario’s “investment” in “green” energy.
That doesn’t make economic sense, says Ottawa Wind Concerns Chair Jane Wilson. “Wind power which is today less than 4% of Ontario’s power capacity, actually represents 20% of the utility cost,” she says. “And because Ontario has a surplus of power, we are exporting a significant part of that at a loss to the United States, while we are paying wind power developers billions. Yet consumers are being asked to pay more–this is just nuts.”
Ontario opened its new contracting process for large renewable power projects on March 10; it is not clear whether a large wind power generation project will be proposed for the rural Ottawa area. The City passed a resolution in 2013 saying it did not support a wind “farm” in North Gower, and demanded a return of local land use planning powers that were removed by Ontario’s Green Energy Act.
Call in to the radio station at 613-521-8255, and listen at 580AM in Eastern Ontario, or live online at cfra.com
ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
13 Friday Mar 2015
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Eastern Ontario, IESO, Large Renewable Power projects, law suits wind farms, legal action wind farms, renewable power, wind farm noise, wind farm North Gower, wind farm Otrtawa, wind power, wind power development
The long-awaited resource documents for the new Request for Proposal (RFP) process for Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) were released this week.
Wind Concerns Ontario is again undertaking a review of the documents (the basic LRP/RFP is 100 pages long) but the following are changes from draft documents released last fall:
The point system for community engagement is also now known. The points for Rated Criteria are 80 points for community engagement and 20 for aboriginal interest. There are two levels of possible support from the Project Community – a Municipal support resolution or a Municipal Agreement. If there is an agreement but no support resolution, the proponent could get 40 of the 80 points. Failing that, they could claim 30 points if they have support from 75% of the landowners for abutting properties to the project and the connection line.
Deadline for submissions is September 1, then proposals will be evaluated and successful proponents notified November-December, 2015.
Ontario communities should know within the next few weeks whether a wind power developer plans to submit a proposal for a utility-scale wind power development.
The Government of Ontario has still never performed a cost-benefit analysis or impact study for large-scale wind power development, or of its renewable energy policy in general, despite the advice of two Auditors General to do so.
Eastern Ontario has a “green light” for renewable power generation projects. Already, EDP Renewables has announced plans to develop more turbines in South Dundas and North Stormont. The company that previously put a proposal forward to do a 20-megawatt wind power project in North Gower-Richmond did not qualify for the 2015 contracting process, but 41 companies did qualify. In a recent edition of the Ontario Farmer, a North Gower area farm owner said he though wind power was a waste of money but that if he were offered money he would put them on his property (though not where he lives).
Ottawa Wind Concerns remains active in monitoring any proposals that might come forward, and we continue to have a law firm on retainer.
ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
Follow us on Twitter @northgowerwind
10 Tuesday Mar 2015
Posted in Health, Wind power
Tags
adverse health effects wind turbines, federal Minister of Health, Health Canada, Health Canada brochure, Health Canada study results, Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety, Minister of Health Canada, wind farm, wind farm infrasound, wind farm noise, wind power, wind power lobby, wind turbine noise
Health Canada headquarters at Tunney’s Pasture–not in touch with the reality in Ontario, says Wind Concerns Ontario
Wind Concerns Ontario has sent a letter to the federal Minister of Health, Rona Ambrose, expressing concern about the mailing of a promotional brochure connected to the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health study. The study results were released in a summary (no peer review, no actual report or paper) last November, but the brochure was not sent out until February 2015, by Canada Post Unaddressed Admail. The timing is unusual, coming so long after the study results release, and coinciding with Ontario’s new procurement process for large renewable power projects. It is also very unusual for a research team to create and release a brochure. That brochure is misleading, Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson said in the letter to the Minister. “It’s not true, as the brochure says, that there are no health effects from the wind turbine noise and infrasound–there are, and the study summary says that. It says 16.5 percent of people studied who live within 1 km of a turbine were experiencing distress,” Wilson said. Wind Concerns Ontario met with Health Canada/Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety staff the day after the study results were released, and advised that the draft brochure not be released. “We told them that the disclaimer on the brochure, which explained that the study results were ‘preliminary’ and unreviewed, was not prominent enough,” Wilson said. “We also asked why they weren’t going back into the study communities in person, as is normal practice for scientific research teams, rather than sending a brochure.” Wind Concerns said that the study summary, and now the brochure, strain the credibility of Health Canada and the federal government in Ontario. “The fact is, the conclusion being promoted in the brochure from this study–that there are no health effects–does not coalesce with the real-life experience in Ontario communities,” Wilson said. “The people of Ontario were hoping that their federal health department would pull out all the stops to find a reason for the many, many reported health problems related to wind turbine noise—instead, they got short shrift in this study, and now an unnecessary and misleading, taxpayer-funded promotional brochure that functionally supports the wind power development industry.”
04 Wednesday Feb 2015
Posted in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Canada, Government of Canada, Minister of Finance, Natural Resources Canada, Natural Resources Canada study, Pan-Canadian Wind Integration Study, Parker Gallant, wind energy, wind power
Looking to put chicken coops right across Canada?
Reprinted from Wind Concerns Ontario
Last week, in researching his series on the Canadian Wind Energy Association’s campaign to influence Ontario citizen attitudes toward wind power, and recommendations for the lobby group’s “Ontario campaign,” Parker Gallant discovered via the Ontario Lobbyist Registry that CanWEA disclosed publicly it has received funding of $663,000 from the federal government.
The funding is presumably for CanWEA’s role as lead proponent of a $1.7-million Natural Resources Canada project called the Pan-Canadian Wind Integration Study, “that will evaluate how large penetration of wind energy could be integrated on the provincially run Canadian electric grid and show the challenges and opportunities in doing so. “
In the first paragraph of the NRCan page on this study, which names CanWEA as the lead proponent, is a significant error. CanWEA’s mandate is most decidedly NOT “to promote the responsible and sustainable growth of wind energy in Canada.” CanWEA itself says its mission is “to ensure Canada fully realizes its abundant wind energy potential on behalf of its members.”
In other words, as any specialized industry group does, CanWEA’s goal is to represent and promote the interests of its members.
It is not an environmental organization.
Why, we ask, is an industry group, with some very well-financed members, that states outright its goal is to act in the best interests of its members, receiving government financing to further its members’ fortunes?
A question for your Member of Parliament. And the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Finance (Joe.Oliver@fin.gc.ca ).
04 Wednesday Feb 2015
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
Consumer Policy Institute, FIT, George Smitherman, North Gower wind farm, Ontario, Ontario government, Ontario Power Authority, Pierre Poilievre, Prowind, subsidies for wind power, wind farm subsidies, wind farms Ontario, wind power, wind power subsidies
From the Financial Post Comment, February 4, by Brady Yauch, executive director the Consumer Policy Institute
When the Ontario government launched its Green Energy Act (GEA ) in 2009, it promised “new green economy jobs” and ” a wide range of economic opportunities.” Then Minister of Energy George Smitherman argued that the GEA would be a boon to Ontarians of all stripes: “We see opportunities in our rural communities for farmers, not just to lease their land for big companies that are the proponents of wind farms, but indeed for clusters of farmers to see themselves as investors in projects…. the emergence of thousands of smaller green energy projects—microgeneration—in urban as well as rural areas.”
Yes, everyone would need to pay a little more for renewable power, the public was told, but the benefits would be widely shared, for the ultimate benefit of all. As it turned out, power rates didn’t go up a little – they soared. And the subsidies weren’t widely shared among the folk – a handful of billion dollar companies pocketed most of them, most of them outside the province.
According to an analysis by the Consumer Policy Institute and Energy Probe, 90% of the wind subsidies went to just 11 companies, 80% of the subsidies went to nine companies with annual revenues over $1-billion, 60% of the subsidies went to six companies with more than $10-billion in annual revenue.
As for the province’s claim that it wants to create an Ontario-based “green economy,” less than 10% of subsidies to wind generators went to small-scale or local owners.
Since 2006, when the province first started subsidizing wind turbines, the province has provided more than $1.92 billion in subsidies. This act of corporate welfare is far from over.
According to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) – the provincial agency in charge of energy planning and contracting – the province has signed deals for another 2,630 MW of wind energy to come on stream in the coming years, on top of the 3,065 MW already in commercial operation. All of that generation will receive above market rates courtesy of ratepayers for their output. In total, the amount of subsidies to wind producers could hit $8-billion over the next decade and $13-billion over the next 20 years.
The list of companies receiving the lion’s share of subsidies reads like a “who’s who” in Canada’s energy sector and corporate heavyweights. Brookfield Renewable Energy (a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management), Enbridge and Transalta alone accounted for about 38 percent of all subsidies handed out to wind generators. Those companies combined brought in $54-billion in total revenue in 2013.
Samsung, which posted $217-billion in revenue last year, is expected to triple its wind capacity in Ontario – and the subsidies that go along with it – in the next couple of years.
The damage to ratepayers for such policies has been significant. Since 2009 – when the GEA was introduced – ratepayers in Ontario have seen the commodity cost on their energy bills climb dramatically, with the regulated price of power over that time having increased on average by 56%, or just over 9% annually – more than five times the rate of inflation, making electricity price increases worse in Ontario than elsewhere in Canada.
To make matters worse, the high rates being pushed onto ratepayers has lowered demand for electricity across the province in recent years. That means Ontario now has a significant surplus of power, which it then exports to neighbouring jurisdictions at a loss. Ontario ratepayers are now subsidizing the energy consumption of households in America and other provinces.
Nearly everyone is losing when it comes to renewable energy in Ontario – except for those few companies that planted industrial wind turbines across the province and are receiving billions in subsidies for their effort.
Brady Yauch is an economist and the executive director of Consumer Policy Institute. bradyyauch@consumerpolicyinstitute.org
NOTE from Ottawa Wind Concerns: The Library of Parliament, on request from MP Pierre Poilievre, estimated that IF the wind power project proposed for the North Gower-Richmond area of Ottawa by Germany-based Prowind had gone ahead (it almost reached approval), the 20-MW project would have cost Ontario ratepayers $4.8 million per year.
21 Wednesday Jan 2015
Posted in Renewable energy, Wind power
Tags
community wind farms, wind farm, wind farm bankruptcy, wind farm leaseholders, wind farm leases, wind power, wind power bankruptcy, wind power scam
This should be shared with anyone you know who owns agricultural acreage and might consider a wind turbine lease…
In Australia, the wind industry is in total melt-down, with many of its “BIG” players on the brink of financial collapse.
And the dreadful “uncertainty” about the willingness of governments to continue fleecing power consumers and taxpayers – in order to keep throwing massive subsidies at the greatest rort of all time (which, on the wind industry’s pitch will be needed until kingdom come) – has resulted in the collapse of more than 120 wind industry suppliers in the past two years, “including 88 from Asia, 23 from Europe and 18 from North America” (see our post here).
In Germany – despite the fact the the wind industry there has pocketed the lion’s share of at “least half a trillion € in subsidies” – German investors are taking a flogging: “37 percent of wind farms are losing investors’ money” and “two thirds are in deficit or just about cover their running costs” (see our post here).
Around the world, wind farm investors are being fleeced by the same types of hucksters and weasels that run outfits like near-bankrupt Infigen (aka Babcock and Brown); and the smarmy gits that set up so-called “community wind farms” – praying on greed and gullibility in their efforts to pocket $billions in REC Tax/Subsidies.
The scam is the same the world over: pitch numbers that show returns that are too good to be true (they are) and watch the suckers beat a path to your door: greed trumps common sense often enough.
As PT Barnum said: “every crowd has a silver lining” – an adage put to great effect by wholesale fraudsters like Bernie Madoff in scams often tagged “Ponzi” schemes; named after Charles Ponzi – who would have taken to the wind industry like a duck to water.
Madoff – who ended up with a 150 year stretch in stir for his share-market shenanigans – would, no doubt, be pleased to know that the wind industry has followed his “model” and is keeping the Ponzi “dream” alive.
Wind power outfits routinely base their expected returns on pumped up wind forecasts – thereby way overstating their anticipated gross returns (see our posts here and here and here and here).
While, at the same time, lying about their true operating costs (see our post here), which start to tack up pretty quickly when it’s revealed that turbines last less than half the time claimed: with an ‘economic’ lifespan of 10-12 years, as opposed to the 25 years wildly claimed by fan makers (see our posts here and here).
Or, in the case of top-flight German manufacturer, Siemens – less than 2 years – one of it’s latest batches required wholesale blade and bearing replacement, starting almost as soon as they cranked them into gear (seeour post here) – Siemens blaming “harsh weather conditions both onshore and offshore” – as if its fans had been designed to run inside aircraft hangars ….
Like all inevitable financial collapses, the dread-disease is spreading fast: a bunch of Minnesota farmers have just lost their shirts – having thrown their hard-earned at a pair of wind power outfits that have just hit the wall; and gone completely ‘belly-up’ on the prairie.
Owners of two Minnesota wind farms file for bankruptcy court protection
Star Tribune
David Shaffer
7 January 2015
Power to people on the prairie — it’s the idea, born in Minnesota, that farmers should own some of the wind turbines spinning above their fields.
But that idea has turned into a financial loser for about 360 farmers and other landowners who invested in two small wind farms more than a decade ago near Luverne, Minn., in the windy southwest corner of the state.
The companies that collectively own the two Minwind Energy projects filed for reorganization this week in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Minnesota. The owners stand to lose their investment, and the wind farms eventually may have to shut down, according to regulatory filings.
It is the first of the state’s approximately 100 operating wind power projects to seek bankruptcy protection, and the case is raising questions about whether the small-scale wind farm model still works in an era of ever-larger wind-generating projects.
“The wind business is not for the faint of heart,” Beth Soholt, director of the St. Paul-based trade group Wind on the Wires, said in an interview. “These are big energy facilities … It is a long-term contract with utilities that expect you to produce. A lot of things can go wrong.”
The Minwind wind farms, with 11 turbines that went on line in 2002 and 2004, made a profit until 2012, and are still operating, according to its financial reports. The electricity is sold to Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy and Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based Alliant Energy under long-term deals. Some of Minwind’s power is fed into a giant battery built by Xcel near Luverne to store electricity for when the wind doesn’t blow.
Minwind has told federal regulators that the turbines have needed extensive repairs, including main bearings, and the company no longer can afford the upkeep. To make things worse, Minwind got into a jam with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for not filing certain paperwork since 2006. The result is a $1.9 million regulatory liability that has left a potential buyer uneasy about signing a deal to acquire the wind farms.
Minwind’s attorneys have told the government that the owners were “unsophisticated” in regulatory matters, and should be excused from the filing lapse. Some of the owners also had invested in the former Agri-Energy ethanol plant in Luverne, which was sold in 2010 to another biofuel company.
“None of the owners has had any experience in the power sector, except through ownership and operation of the facilities,” the company’s Washington-based legal team led by Margaret Moore said in a regulatory filing.
But federal regulators didn’t buy the lack-of-sophistication argument. Indeed, the company led by President Mark Willers, Luverne businessman and farmer, has long been credited with creating an innovative business structure with nine separate limited-liability companies allowing investors to take advantage of federal wind energy tax credits, a now-discontinued state assistance program for small wind projects and USDA grants.
Willers declined to comment in detail, but acknowledged that the company was tripped up by a rule change that FERC made eight years ago — a time when the company didn’t have a Washington attorney on retainer to watch for such things.
In its bankruptcy case, the Minwind companies filed for reorganization, a process that allows companies to shed liabilities. That potentially could clear the way for a sale to a turbine repair company. Under a proposed deal, the wind farms would be sold for the cost of the remaining debt with no additional return to investors, Moore told regulators.
It is unclear how much individual investors will lose.
State support for small wind
Minnesota has long supported community-owned wind farms, and more than 30 of them have been built, according to state data. Most have less than 20 turbines, a fraction of the size of large wind farms built by major energy developers.
Soholt of Wind on the Wires said there have been long-standing concerns about whether small, community-owned wind farms have set aside enough funds to maintain wind generators for the typical 25-year operating agreements. But she said Minwind’s case is the first she heard of a small wind power company facing those troubles.
Michael Bull, who had a top state energy post during the Pawlenty administration, said that in the mid-2000s, Minnesota policy on small wind farms changed. The direct state subsidies ended, and state officials paid more attention to whether small companies could sustain the long-term maintenance needs of wind farms.
“My sense is that the industry got pretty sophisticated — a lot of more sophisticated as the projects got larger,” said Bull, who is now policy and communications director for the Center for Energy and Environment, a nonprofit that promotes energy efficiency.
Carol Overland, a utility attorney based in Red Wing, Minn., who was not involved in Minwind, said it’s possible that other small wind power producers could get caught in similar regulatory, maintenance and financial struggles as the Luverne-area wind farms.
“Small wind development is a good thing, but it developed in Minnesota in a way that was not in the public interest or the interest of the people developing it,” said Overland, who has challenged transmission and wind power projects on behalf of affected landowners.
Star Tribune