Barriers to Wind Energy Development in

New England

January, 2010

Supervisor: William Ellis

Senior Visiting Fellow, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

Student: Adrian Horotan

Master of Environmental Management Candidate, 2010, Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies, adrian.horotan@yale.edu
In writing this paper I greatly benefited from the thoughts of: Bill Ellis, Jason Gifford, Bob
Grace, Jeff Keeler, Anastasia O'Rourke, Mark Rodgers, Tim Rosenzweig, Frank Sabatino,
Allen W. Schindler, Jeramy Shays, Martha Staskus, John Zimmerman. I thank them for their
time and expertise.
1/40
Table of Contents
1. Summary and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 3
2. Wind Energy Potential and Installed Capacity .................................................................................... 3
2.1 Wind and Renewable Energy Incentives in New England ............................................................. 3
2.2 US and New England Wind Resources......................................................................................... 4
2.3 Wind Energy Development in US and New England..................................................................... 6
3. Wind Energy Barriers in New England................................................................................................ 7
4. Local Opposition to Wind Development.............................................................................................10
4.1 Local Opposition to Wind Development in New England..............................................................10
4.2 Local Opposition to Wind Development – a General View ...........................................................11
4.2.1 Who Makes Up the Local Opposition to Wind Development?................................................11
4.2.2 Wind Opposition Arguments..................................................................................................12
4.3 Case Study: Cape Wind...............................................................................................................14
4.4 Case Study: Sheffield Wind Farm ................................................................................................17
4.5 Case Study: Searsburg Mountain ................................................................................................17
4.6 The Effects of Local Opposition on Wind Project Financials ........................................................18
5. Lack of Transmission Infrastructure...................................................................................................19
6. New England Renewable Portfolio Standard Laws and Impacts on Wind Energy Development........21
6.1 How Much Wind Does New England Need? ................................................................................21
6.2 Renewable Energy Imports..........................................................................................................23
7. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................23
8. Appendixes .......................................................................................................................................25
Appendix 1 – Expert Interviews .........................................................................................................25
Appendix 2 – New England Wind Resource Map...............................................................................26
Appendix 3 – List of Operational Wind Projects in New England........................................................27
Appendix 4 – Detailed Interviews Results ..........................................................................................28
Appendix 5 – New England Wind Power and Population Centers......................................................33
Appendix 6 – New England Wind Projects Subject to Local Opposition .............................................34
Appendix 7 –Local Groups Opposing Wind Developments from Wind-Watch.org..............................35
Appendix 8 – 20 Miles Transmission Constraint Map Impact on Available Wind Resources ..............36
Appendix 9 – Potential Transmission for a 12,000 MW Wind Development Scenario ........................37
Appendix 10 – How Renewable Portfolio Standards Work.................................................................38
9. References........................................................................................................................................39

2/40
1. Summary and Objectives
Wind energy is widely seen as the only renewable energy technology that can currently compete on
cost with new fossil fuel generation. Since 2001, about 27,000 mega-watts (MW) of wind capacity have
been installed in the United States, producing the equivalent electricity of about 20 large coal fired
power plants. New England, however, has only 142 MW of installed wind capacity (AWEA, Wind
Projects Database), despite some of the most aggressive renewable energy incentives in the country.

This paper provides an overview of the status and the main barriers for commercial wind energy
development in New England. I interviewed seven wind energy experts from the region in order to
identify and analyze the main barriers to wind development. Appendix 1 provides a list of the experts
interviewed and the interview questions. I also used several case studies to illustrate some of the main
conclusions. The paper contributes to the fields of energy policy and technology diffusion.

Wind is the only renewable energy resource large enough and readily available to satisfy the renewable
energy policy mandates in New England. New England is behind the rest of the US in developing its
wind energy potential mainly due to local opposition and lack of transmission infrastructure.

Local opposition to wind development is a significant phenomenon in New England leading to increased
project development costs and duration, significantly affecting the project returns.

The lack of transmission to northern Maine locks out 52% of the potential wind capacity in New
England. Intense recent regional planning activity towards developing transmission to the resources in
northern Maine is a signal of the sense of urgency and importance given to renewable energy
development by the political leadership of the region.

New England has to develop at least 3,000 MW of wind capacity in order to satisfy the renewable
energy mandates by 2020. This will be hard to achieve given the local opposition and the transmission
constraints.

The paper is structured as follows: section 2 situates wind energy in the context of renewable energy
development in New England, and assesses its current level of development. Wind is the main form of
renewable energy available to fulfill the region’s policy mandates. This section identifies a gap in wind
energy development in New England compared to the rest of the United States.

Section 3 identifies local opposition and transmission constraints as the main barriers to wind
development in New England. This section is based on interviews with several wind energy experts
from the region.

Sections 4 and 5 then analyze further the two main barriers to wind energy development in New
England: local opposition and transmission constraints.

Section 6 argues that there is a significant risk that New England states will fail to achieve their
renewable energy development mandates due to the barriers to wind development described in the
sections 3, 4 and 5.

Section 7 provides conclusions and avenues for further research.

2. Wind Energy Potential and Installed Capacity

2.1 Wind and Renewable Energy Incentives in New England
In a series of bills between 1997 and 1999, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maine passed
the earliest renewable energy mandates in the nation, blazing a trail that 32 other states, including the

3/40
other three New England states of Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire have followed since
then (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency Website). New England states
Renewable Portfolio Standard laws mandate that 4% of the electricity used in the region -- or over 4,000
giga-watt hours (GWh) -- come from renewable sources such as wind, solar or biomass in 2009. That
percentage rises automatically in the coming decade to 16% by 2020 representing over 20,000 GWh
(The Brattle Group, 2009).

To date, most of the renewable energy in New England has been produced using biomass and landfill
gas. For example, in 2007, the total renewable energy mandates of 2,700 GWh in the states of
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island were satisfied with renewable energy from biomass
(55%) and land fill gas (30%); wind power accounted for 13% and other sources for 2% (CT Department
of Public Utility Control, 2009; MA Department of Energy Resources, 2008; RI Public Utilities
Commission, 2009).

The region is, however, already using almost all its available biomass and landfill gas facilities to satisfy
the renewable energy mandates. As the mandates grow the only renewable resource large enough to
fill the gap and readily available in the region is wind.

Wind dominates other renewable resources in the project mix in the interconnection queue at the
Independent System Operator of New England (ISO New England). Currently there are 432 MW of
biomass and 87 MW of land fill gas projects in the interconnection queue. Using capacity factors of 66%
for biomass and 48% for landfill gas, these projects would account for around 2,900 GWh of the 20,000
GWh of renewable energy mandated by 2020. In contrast, there are 3,650 MW of wind projects
currently in the interconnection queue. Using a 30% capacity factor, these wind projects would account
for about 9,600 GWh if they become operational (ISO New England Interconnection Request Queue).

2.2 US and New England Wind Resources

In order to compare wind development in New England with the rest of the United States, I start by
determining a working estimate of the wind potential in New England and United States.

The available wind power in a certain area is a function of many variables and assumptions such as: the
accuracy of wind speed measurements; the granularity of the estimation; the height at which the wind
power is estimated; the land excluded from estimation for various reasons (transmission constraints,
environmental, closeness to human centers, terrain topography etc.); and the technology assumptions
for efficiency and power losses.

Onshore wind resources in New England are concentrated on the ridges of the Appalachian Mountains.
A significant part of this resource is located in Maine. The wind usually blows from west to east in these
areas, giving the north – south oriented ridges excellent exposure. In certain areas -- such as New
Hampshire’s White Mountains -- the particular topography leads to a significant acceleration of the wind
speed over the ridges, not always reflected in wind resource maps.

For offshore wind resources, sea depth is an important consideration as current technology only allows
commercial development in relatively shallow water -- up to 50 ft depth. A significant part of the areas
with shallow depth and good wind resource in New England is located around Cape Cod.

Table 1 shows a summary of various sources of on-shore potential wind resource (measured in GW) for
United States and New England.

United New England

Source Notes
States (GW) (GW)
Elliot, D. L., Wendell G. L. L., Gower, G.L., Assumed 33% wind capacity
3,800 33.3
1991 factor.
NREL’s WinDS database 8,000 18.2
4/40
(http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/winds/pdfs/wind
s_data.pdf)
NREL’s WinDS Cost of Wind Transmission
Includes transmission
Access Data 718 23
constraints.
(http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/winds/)
Includes transmission,
Sustainable Energy Advantage, 2008
environmental and population
(http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpower/m
NA 9.4 density constraints. An
eeting_summaries/103007_summary_files/Wi
additional 8.1 GW is estimated
nd_Task_Forece_103007_workpapers.pdf)
off-shore.
Levitan & Associates, 2007 (http://www.iso- Does not consider any
ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/othr/sas/m NA 59.8 constraints. Estimates an
trls/may212007/levitan_wind_study.pdf) additional 33.974 GW off-shore.
Filters: Population density lower
than 3,788 people/sq mile,
Levitan & Associates, 2008 (http://www.iso-
clusters larger than 2000 acres
ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/prtcpnts_c
NA 14.64 and closer than 20 miles to an
omm/pac/mtrls/2008/may202008/lai_5-20-
existing transmission line. The
08.pdf)
study also estimates an
additional 9.5 GW off-shore.
This is a potential scenario of
ISO New England, 2009 (http://www.iso- maximum development by 2030
ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/prtcpnts_c rather than an assessment of
NA 7.5
omm/pac/reports/2009/eco_study_report_draf wind potential. The study also
t.pdf) assumes possible an additional
4.5 GW off-shore.
Table 1

Table 1 shows a wide variability between the different studies on wind resource potential for the region.
I use the more conservative (lower) scenarios. For the U.S. as a whole, I use NREL’s WinDS Cost of
Wind Transmission Access Data project Base Case scenario, a recent national dataset with
conservative transmission capacity constraints assumptions. For New England, I use the estimate
prepared by Sustainable Energy Advantage for the Maine Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power
Development in 2008, a recent dataset that has conservative assumptions and includes land and
transmission constraints.

New England has about 9.4 GW wind power onshore potential representing 1.31% of the total 718 GW
onshore wind power potential of the nation. NREL’s WinDS database puts New England’s shallow
offshore (water depth lower than 50ft) potential at 8.5 GW, or about 8% of the total national shallow
offshore potential of 104.5 GW.

Table 2 shows a summary of the wind potential data for the U.S. and New England from these sources.

Wind Potential (GW) US New England %

On Shore 718 9.4 1.3%
Off Shore (<50ft) 105 8.5 8.2%
Total 823 18 2.2%
Table 2

Appendix 2 shows a wind map of New England with different colors outlining the various wind classes.
Wind industry experts classify the quality and quantity of the wind resource in a certain area by the
average annual wind speed and assign wind classes to different areas.

5/40
2.3 Wind Energy Development in US and New England
Wind has been the fastest growing form of generation capacity in the US over the last few years
reaching 42% of new generation capacity in 2008 (AWEA, 2009). Figure 1 shows the growing
importance of wind as an electricity generation technology.

Source AWEA, 2009 Figure 1

After an initial burst in the early 1980’s, on-shore wind energy in United States went through a long
period of zero growth in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Growth resumed in 2001 under the impact of favorable
tax credit policies and continued at an accelerated pace. However, the pattern of growth was not
smooth. Policy inconsistencies generated by the federal production tax credit (PTC) expiring temporarily
had a visible negative impact on the capacity added in 2002 and 2004. Growth resumed as soon as the
PTC was reinstated. At the end of 2009 there were 31,109 MW of wind capacity installed in the US
(AWEA, Wind Projects Database).

In contrast, wind energy in New England started growing again only after 2006. At the end of 2009 there
were 142 MW wind capacity installed in New England (AWEA, Wind Projects Database).

Appendix 3 shows the list of operational wind projects in New England. Most are relatively small --
under 1 MW -- and would be classified as “community level” projects.

Figure 2 shows the ratio of the installed wind capacity to the total wind potential for New England and
the US. The installed capacity figures are from AWEA’s Wind Projects Database and from New England
Wind Forum Website (www.windpoweringamerica.gov). The potential wind capacity figures used are
described in section 2.1 above.

6/40
 Installed Capacity as a % of Potential Capacity
5%

Leading to a lag to
4%
the national wind
development
3%

A 5 year delay in
2%
up-take for New
England
1%

0%
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

US without NE % of Total Potential Capacity NE % of Total Potential Capacity

Figure 2

At the end of 2009, New England had developed only 1.5% of its potential wind capacity compared to
4.4% for the national level. Also, New England wind capacity started growing in 2006, about 5 years
after the rest of the United States.

The experts interviewed for this paper also unanimously agreed that New England is behind the rest of
the Unites States in developing its wind potential. Figure 3 outlines the answers to the question “How is
New England doing compared to the rest of the United States in terms of wind energy development?”

How is New England doing compared to the rest of the

United States in wind energy development?
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Ahead of the rest of About the same Behind the rest of the
the US US

Figure 3

“New England is ahead the rest of the United States in terms of policy incentives for renewable energy
and carbon. It is however behind in terms of development” said one of the experts interviewed.

The following sections explore the barriers and constraints that explain this lag in development.

3. Wind Energy Barriers in New England

The interviews undertaken for this paper focused on identifying the barriers to wind development in New
England and the underlying factors specific to the region that generate these barriers. Appendix 4
shows the detailed results of these interviews.

The three main barriers to wind development in New England were identified as:

7/40
• Local opposition;
• Lack of transmission; and
• Lack of available resources / land.

Figure 4 shows the answers to the question: “What are the top three barriers to wind development in
New England?”

What are the top three challenges / barriers to wind development in New England?

0
Local Lack of Lack of Availability of Project costs Lack of Variability and
opposition transmission available long term PPA's (harder to build financing other hidden
infrastructure resource / land wind farm and costs.
transmission to
ridges /
offshore)

Figure 4

The following underlying factors contributing to these barriers were identified by the interviewees:
• Population density driving development close to population centers;
• High visibility -- or large ”view shed” in the industry language -- driven by wind resource position on
mountain ridges or off-shore in shallow water close to the shore;
• Conflicts with recreational land uses;
• Higher land values in New England;
• Local opposition to transmission projects;
• Total size of wind resource not being large enough to justify large transmission projects;
• Transmission is not available in areas with large wind resource like northern Maine;
• Building transmission to mountain ridges is expensive;
• Resource is often located on conservation easements or public land; and
• Smaller land parcels available in New England.

Figure 5 shows the relationship between these key drivers and the barriers to wind resource
development in New England.

8/40
 High visibility driven
by wind resource on
mountain ridges or
close to the shore
Conflicts with Higher land
recreational land values in New
uses England

Higher population
Local density in certain
opposition parts driving
development close
Local opposition to population
to siting centers
transmission
New England
is behind its
potential in
wind
development Lack of Smaller
Size of wind resource
not large enough to Lack of available land
justify large transmission resource / parcels in
transmission projects land New
England

Wind resource
often located on
Building wind
conservation
projects on easements or
mountain ridges public land
or off-shore is Transmission
expensive not available in
northern Maine

Figure 5

Most of the drivers identified overlap or have common underlying factors. For example the “Large view
shed” and the “High Cost of building wind projects on ridges and offshore” have as a common origin the
specific location of the wind resource in New England -- on the top of the Appalachian ridges or
offshore.

To summarize, I identify the following factors as being key to shaping the barriers to wind energy
development in New England:
• Higher population / residential development density;
• Specific location of the wind resource at the top of mountain ridges and off-shore;
• Attitudes to land development and a tradition of local independence; and
• Size of wind resource / lack of transmission to northern Maine.

Population and residential density in New England are significant factors especially in Massachusetts,
Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. These four states have 4.9 times more people per square
mile and 11.9 times more people per mega watt of wind energy potential compared to the rest of the
U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau Website; Elliot, D. L., Wendell G. L. L., Gower, G.L., 1991). While residential
density is not an issue in northern Maine, the lack of transmission is the main barrier for that area.

The high residential density found in New England eliminates some potential sites altogether and drives
siting wind projects closer to population centers sparking local opposition. It also drives higher land
values and smaller land parcel sizes compared to other parts of the US, making project development
more expensive.

The location of the wind resources in New England -- at the top of mountain ridges or in shallow water
off-shore -- drives higher project costs. Building roads, transmission and also installing the wind turbines
on top of mountain ridges is difficult and expensive. Wind turbines located on top of mountain ridges are
9/40
also visible from long distances causing local opposition to “landscape industrialization” and frequent
conflicts with recreational land uses such as hiking or hunting.

A tradition of viewing landscape as a public good combined with local independence create a favorable
background for local opposition to wind development in New England. People in many parts of New
England care intensely about their landscape and will fight to preserve it. Town meetings are an
important part of governance in many New England towns allowing citizens who oppose development to
express their opinions and act for slowing down or even canceling wind projects.

Even if the wind resource potential in northern Maine is significant at 27 GW (Levitan & Associates,
2008), some of the experts interviewed for this paper believe it is still too small to justify the cost of
building new transmission lines to the population centers in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Appendix
5 shows the location of the wind resources in New England and the population centers where power
needs to be transported.

The barriers identified as well as the underlying factors specific to New England combine to cause
higher project costs, longer project development times and reduced number of sites available for wind
energy development.

In the next sections, I analyze in detail the local opposition barrier and the transmission constraints to
wind development in New England. I chose to focus on these two issues as there is little that can be
done to address the “Lack of available resource / land in New England”.

4. Local Opposition to Wind Development

4.1 Local Opposition to Wind Development in New England
Local opposition was unanimously identified by the interviewed experts as the main barrier to wind
development that is specific to New England. The following underlying factors significantly contribute to
local opposition:
• Higher population density in New England forcing development closer to population centers;
• Conflicts with established recreational land uses in New England;
• High visibility driven by resource located on top of mountain ridges or shallow off-shore; and
• Higher land values in New England combined with the fear that presence of large wind developments
would impact land values.

"In New England there is a ‘tug of war’ in terms of wind energy, a fight between very strong state
incentives and acute local opposition phenomenon" said one of the experts interviewed. “Our Lempster
project in Maine took 4 years to finish, double the time similar projects were taking in New York,
Midwest or Texas around the same time" said another interviewee.

One of the most famous examples of local opposition in New England is the Cape Wind project in
Nantucket Sound. The project faced formidable hostility from some of the most affluent and connected
residents of Nantucket Island and Cape Cod, causing the project developers to spend more than 9
years and 30 million dollars trying to get the approvals to build it. A brief case study on Cape Wind can
be found in section 4.3. Less well known than Cape Wind, but perhaps a better example for illustrating
the hurdles that wind projects have to overcome on a regular basis, is the Sheffield Wind Farm in
Vermont. A brief case study about the Sheffield Wind project can be found in section 4.4.

Struggles like Cape Wind or Sheffield can seem like isolated scuffles. In fact, 24 of the 35 wind projects
larger than 1 MW constructed or in development in New England -- or 83% of the mega-watts planned -
- faced local opposition such as direct challenges in local public meetings, nuisance complaints, delays
in the permitting process, lawsuits and even vandalism. Appendix 6 shows the list of wind projects in
New England commissioned or in development that have been subject to local opposition.

10/40
When asked how the local opposition phenomenon will change in the future, interviewees agreed that it
will continue at the same level as today. Increased familiarity and awareness that would lead to a higher
acceptance are likely to be offset by the need to build projects closer to population areas as available
sites away from population areas are developed. Building transmission lines to northern Maine would
help address some of the local opposition issues by opening up to wind development areas that are
very sparsely populated.

When asked how project developers could address the local opposition issues, the experts interviewed
recommended: siting projects away from residential areas or close to communities who value the tax
income; using public relations; starting with the favorable groups inside the communities; starting to
approach the local community early; and being prepared for a long project development phase.

When asked how policy makers can help address the local opposition issues, the experts interviewed
agree that making the siting process more transparent and predictable would be the most helpful. “The
problem in New England is that there is no specific permitting process for wind. Wind is approved using
an approval process for other generation facilities. The first projects took a long time in all states" said
one of the experts interviewed. The experts interviewed also mentioned that, as the state regulators and
the local communities learn more and more about wind with each project, approvals can be expected to
take less time and effort.

Asked if state governments should intervene more forcefully in the local siting process, many of the
experts interviewed said that a state level siting process that would overrule the objections raised by
local communities would not be a good idea. Wind developers don’t want hostile communities next to
their projects.

4.2 Local Opposition to Wind Development – a General View

This section focuses on understanding the local opposition phenomenon in more detail: who is it made
of, how does it act, what are the main arguments and what can wind developers do about it.

Local opposition to wind development in New England is a particular case of a global phenomenon.

4.2.1 Who Makes Up the Local Opposition to Wind Development?

Vehement local opposition to infrastructure development is often referred to, somewhat derisively, as
‘NIMBY’, from Not-In-My-Backyard. In a strict sense, in order for the local opposition to be called
NIMBY, one would have to assume that the proposed development is useful for society, but that the
people who oppose it locally don’t want the costs associated with living next to it. NIMBY is often used
by many observers as a catch-all phrase for what is in fact a complex social phenomenon.

Local groups of concerned citizens make up the biggest portion of opposition to wind energy
development. These groups usually intervene in the siting / permitting phase of a wind project looking to
cancel or slow it down. A recent Department of Energy report (DOE, 2008) estimates that 10% to 25%
of planned wind energy projects in the US are not built or are significantly delayed because of local and
environmental concerns.

Local opposition groups typically use several types of strict local ordinances to stop wind energy
development including:
• Unrealistic setbacks from residences and public right-of-ways;
• Prohibition of waiver agreements between adjoining landowners;
• Setting sound thresholds relative to ambient levels instead of an absolute level;
• Requiring multiple studies incurred at the developer’s expense; and
• Imposing onerous bonding / insurance requirements (Lantz, 2009).

11/40
It may look like each community is finding its own way to resist the erection of wind machines. There
are organizations, however, that seek to turn these potentially isolated skirmishes into coordinated
insurrections. An example of such an organization is National Wind Watch (National Wind Watch
Website), based in the Berkshire Mountains of rural New England. National Wind Watch Website
provides links to 299 wind opposing organizations from around the world, 137 of which are in the US,
and 26 in New England. Appendix 7 shows the list of these local wind opposing groups.

The best practices and political guerilla tactics to fight wind development, National Wind Watch offers
on its web site, throw some light on the way local opposition works. The website advises opponents of
wind projects to:
• Credibly threaten with a law suit against both the project developers and the neighbors leasing the
land to the project;
• Approach the local representatives and inform them on the perils of wind development;
• Find out who's for the proposal on the town board and start vocally supporting their opponents;
• Contact the local press;
• Deny any benefits wind energy may have in order to “avoid the ‘NIMBY’ trap” -- being called selfish
“over your lost view”;
• Drive a wedge between the environmental groups that support wind energy as a way to reduce
carbon emissions and the local conservation groups that may favor preserving the local landscape;
• Pass local ordinances “to regulate -- or even ban -- large wind turbine construction before wind
development comes around”.

4.2.2 Wind Opposition Arguments

Local opposition arguments against wind development are directly related to the comfort or the well-
being of the local community in the vicinity of an intended wind development. Some of the specific
concerns raised are:
• The altering / industrialization of landscapes;
• Impacts on land value;
• Noise;
• Impacts on wildlife; and
• Other health and local concerns such as shadow flicker and TV interference.

Each of thesearguments is now discussed in turn:

Landscape Industrialization
This argument focuses on the “ugliness” of the wind turbines. For example, one anti - wind advocate
described wind farms as “jumbo-jet-sized wind towers dominating every ridge line in sight like a giant
barbed wire fence” (Rosenbloom, E., 2006). Other local anti-wind advocates focus on the environmental
impact during the construction phase, usually from building roads and power lines and general nuisance
caused by heavy machinery and construction crews. An example of a photographically documented
case is the Cefn Croes wind development in Wales, England (Cefn Croes Website).

Industry expert Paul Gipe (Gipe, P., 2004) makes the following recommendations for wind developers to
address arguments related to landscape industrialization:
• Follow best practices during construction and clean-up;
• Avoid erosion from over constructing roads;
• Follow aesthetically pleasing guidelines for the turbines and the project; and
• Promptly repair or remove turbines / towers that are not functional.

Land Values
Local anti – wind advocates fear that, because the wind turbines would be visible from their property,
the value of their property will decrease. This argument is related to the landscape industrialization and
usually attracts the attention of local communities.
12/40
A recent study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Hoen, B. et al, 2009) collected data on
almost 7,500 sales of single family homes situated within 10 miles of 24 existing wind facilities in nine
different U.S. states. The study found “no conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread
property value impacts that might be present in communities surrounding wind energy facilities.” The
authors argue that “neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities
is found to have any consistent, measurable, and statistically significant effect on home sales prices.”

Industry experts such as Paul Gipe (Gipe, P., 2004) recommend that wind developers approach this
highly emotional issue with openness, transparency and concern.

Noise
Concern over wind turbine noise is another serious argument against wind development. All wind
turbines make noise, “Blades swish, gears whirr, generator hums/whines” explains industry expert Paul
ile (Gipe 2004). Because noise is accurately measurable, it often becomes the focus of wind
development opposition.

Wind turbine noise is usually somewhere between 60 to 100 dBA (decibels) depending on the wind
speed and distance from the source (Gipe, P., 2004). As a point of reference, wind through trees at 100
ft distance have a noise level of 55 dBA, while a jet engine at the same distance has a noise level of
120 dBA (Gipe, P., 2004). It has been observed that local communities react mainly to noise exceeding
the ambient noise at the location by a certain amount (above 10-20 dBA) and not necessarily to the
absolute levels of noise from the wind turbines (Gipe, P., 2004).

Wind developers can address concerns or complaints about noise by (Gipe, P., 2004):
• Selecting wind equipment to reduce noise;
• Reduce rotor speed and use variable speed operation;
• Use acoustic insulation, seal the nacelle that houses the generator;
• Use complex noise modeling;
• Be candid and considerate in addressing noise complaints; and
• Do not try to hide the truth – the turbine will usually be heard from nearby.

Wildlife Impact
Like many other structures erected by humans, wind turbines can cause bird and bat mortality.

Figure 6 summarizes a study cited in a recent DOE report (DOE, 2008) that argues that relative to other
causes, overall wind energy impact on bird mortality is actually very low.

13/40
 Figure 6

Bird and bat deaths caused by with wind turbines can sometimes be a significant concern, particularly if
they affect certain species populations. An example is the Golden Eagles population reportedly affected
by the wind development at Altamont Pass in California (Gipe, P., 2004). The DOE report cited above
(DOE, 2008) also mentions a particular worry with impact on bats as they have a relatively lower
reproduction rate.

Industry experts agree that the best ways to address concerns related to wildlife mortality are early
engagement of the environmental community and the fish and wildlife administration coupled with solid
environmental impact assessment on wildlife populations before starting the project. Developers should
simply stay away from environmentally sensitive sites.

Other Impacts
Other concerns raised by local wind opposition are:
• Shadow flicker (i.e. the moving shadow thrown by the spinning blades on nearby buildings);
• Public safety (falling towers, falling blades, throwing ice); and
• TV / Radio interference.

4.3 Case Study: Cape Wind

The Cape Wind project, the first offshore wind project in the US, has a proposed 468 MW capacity and
consists of 130 wind turbines, located in the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. The site is located in
federal waters, some 6.5 miles away from Hyannisport. It has very good wind resource, is sheltered by
the Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard islands and the water is shallow enough to allow construction
using existing mono pile technology.

The project was originally announced in the fall of 2001 by energy entrepreneur Jim Gordon. The
project is still in development phase after having been the subject of the most spectacular regulatory,
legal, and public-relations battles with local wind opposition in the history of wind development in the
United States. The project is now the subject of a best selling book (Williams, W., Whitcomb, R., 2007),
a Harvard Business Case (Vietor, R., 2009) and many reports and newspaper articles.

The local opposition to the Cape Wind project organized around The Alliance to Protect Nantucket
Sound. The main objections brought against the project as well as some responses from the Cape Wind
14/40
project and from third parties such as The Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation Authority, The
Massachusetts Audubon Society are outlined below (Sources: Cape Wind Project Website; Alliance to
Protect Nantucket Sound Website; Vietor, R., 2009).

1. The development of the Cape Wind project on public land without a competitive bid or involvement of
the public in selecting more appropriate sites is a violation of public trust.

The answer from the Cape Wind project developers to this charge is that the project site is ideal for
wind development both because of the wind resource, water depth and shelter, and also because it is
located away from shipping, flight and ferry routes. Cape Wind is following all the relevant rules and
regulations in siting the project.

2. The development would hurt fishing, tourism and property values on Cape Cod.

In answer to the fishing concerns, the US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statement
concluded that “There will be minimal or no adverse impacts on fishing. Due to the wide spacing for the
wind turbines, the physical presence of these structures should not interfere with fishing activity. The
presence of the turbines may enhance fishing for certain species such as Atlantic cod, black sea bass,
and scup” (Cape Wind Project Website).

Regarding tourism, a study financed by some of The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound board
members found that tourism on Cape Cod may be negatively impacted. The Cape Wind project
supporters point to the fact that the study was financed by the project opposition and may have be
therefore biased. Supporters believe that the project will actually be beneficial for tourism as people will
come to see first offshore wind development in the US.

3. Environmental hazards, especially impact on birds.

Cape Wind funded several avian impact studies. Massachusetts Audubon Society also conducted 6
avian impact studies. The US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statement concludes that
“There is less bird activity over Horseshoe Shoal than in many other areas of Nantucket Sound. The
estimated small number of birds killed by wind turbines is unlikely to cause bird population declines.”
The Massachusetts Audubon Society concurred with these findings in support of the project

4. The project would cause visual pollution. On a clear day residents on the coast would be able to see
the wind turbines.

There is no direct answer to this objection. While there are best practices that reduce the visual impact,
perception seems to be driven by the position on the development: supporters tend to find them
beautiful while people who oppose them tend to find them ugly.

5. Safety concerns related to shipping traffic, recreational and fishing boats and airplanes.

In response to sea navigation safety concerns Cape Wind agreed to put in place several safety
measures (constant communication with the Coast Guard Air Station, light and sound signals) designed
to reduce the probability of any events. The US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact
Statement finds that the project “will not substantially adversely impact general commercial/recreational
vessel navigation or ferry operations” (Cape Wind Project Website). Also, related to the air traffic safety
the FAA issued a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” (Cape Wind Project Website).

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound organized itself very quickly after the announcement of the
intention to build the project in 2001 and is very well funded (Vietor, R., 2009). Most of the advocates
against the Cape Wind project are rich and influential people that own properties on the waterfront in
Nantucket and Cape Cod such as the late Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressman William Delahunt,
15/40
former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and famous late TV personality Walter Cronkite. Other
organizations opposed to the project are: Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, several Cape Cod
towns, local tourism and business organizations, recreational boating and fishing groups, local
conservation and wildlife protection groups and local commercial fishing groups (Vietor, R., 2009).

The main local group supporting the project is “Clean Power Now”. The positive environmental effects
from displacing carbon emissions attracted support for the Cape Wind project from 27 environmental
organizations including Greenpeace USA, NRDC, Audubon Society and the Conservation Law
Foundation. Other individuals or organizations that support the project are: several scientific leaders,
several college and university affiliated organizations, several local towns and elected officials, some
health organizations and several local labor and business organizations.

Many of the project supporters perceived the local opposition arguments as hypocritical for two reasons.
The first is that the sudden preoccupation with protecting the environment of some of the local
opposition members looked suspect. ''It's tough to listen to the same fishermen who have hurt the
habitat by over dragging the bottom of the sound waving the flag of environmentalism'' said Dick Elrick,
a Barnstable councilman quoted in a New York Times Sunday Magazine Article (Burkett, E, 2003). The
same article mentions the owner of the Hyannis marina, one of the most active enemies of the project
“that infuriated many Cape environmentalists when he expanded the Hyannis Marina by erecting
corrugated metal hangars along the harbor” (Burkett, E., 2003).

The second reason for the perceived hypocrisy is the conflict between the arguments around protecting
the Nantucket sound environment and the increasing general concerns about threats to the
environment caused by climate change due to carbon emissions to which renewable energy such as
wind could be a potential solution. In the view of many project supporters, the local opposition is made
of very rich people with properties on the water fearing that being able to see wind turbines “one inch
above the horizon” would reduce their property values (Burkett, E., 2003).

The attempts of the US congress to stop or delay the Cape Wind project offer a rare insight into how far
political influence can get involved. The Harvard Business School case (Vietor, R., 2009) mentions the
following attempts:

1. Senator John Warner of Virginia (son-in-law of Rachel Mellon, one of the more famous project local
enemies) asked the head of the Army Corps or Engineers (“The Corps”) to withhold approval of a data
tower meant to collect wind data in 2002. This request was ignored and The Corps approved the tower.
2. Senator John Warner of Virginia also attached a rider to a 2004 appropriations bill for Iraq that would
prohibit The Corps from spending any money to permit offshore wind projects. Senator Warner
withdrew the amendment when news of it reached the press.
3. Congressman Don Young of Alaska attached an amendment to a bill reauthorizing the Coast Guard’s
operating budget that required the Coast Guard to approve the navigational safety of any offshore wind
project in 2005. Later that year, Young changed this amendment to prohibit any offshore wind farm
within 1.5 nautical miles of any route used for a ferry system. Under pressure to explain the seemingly
arbitrary 1.5 miles distance in 2006, Young clarified that his specific target is the Cape Wind project.
That same amendment was later changed to allow the Governor or Massachusetts veto power over the
project. In a continuation to this debate, in 2006, Senator Ted Kennedy voiced his opposition to the
Cape Wind project on the senate floor. The final amendment that was approved required the Coast
Guard to provide reasonable terms and conditions for navigational safety with regard to an offshore
wind energy facility in Nantucket Sound.

After winning several court battles, and benefiting from strong support from Massachusetts citizens
including the newly elected Governor Deval Patrick, the Cape Wind project completed the State and
Local permitting process in the first half of 2009. As of the end of 2009 the project is expecting
completion of the Federal Permitting process.

16/40
4.4 Case Study: Sheffield Wind Farm
Less famous than Cape Wind, but perhaps better for illustrating the hurdles that wind projects have to
overcome on a regular basis in New England, is the Sheffield Wind Farm project in Hardscrabble
Mountain, Vermont.

The project developer first filed for local approval in October 2005 for a 50 mega-watts project involving
20 wind turbines. The project had local support. Residents of Sheffield approved in a 120 to 93 vote a
non-binding resolution in support of the project in December 2005. The project developer then applied
in February 2006 at the state level for a ‘Certificate of Public Good’. After listening to objections and
environmental concerns raised by the local opposition organized as Ridge Protectors Inc., the project
developer reduced the size of the project to 40 mega-watts, made some other design changes, and re-
applied in September 2006. The Vermont Public Service Board approved the project almost a year
later, in August 2007, after additional changes to the project design, including turning the 2,700 acres
around the project from actively managed forest to conserved bear habitat.

The local opposition group appealed the decision and also challenged, in front of Vermont’s Supreme
Court, the Public Service Board’s authority to approve the project. The final hurdles were lifted in
February 2009 when both Vermont’s Public Service Board found again in favor of the project and
Vermont’s Supreme Court ruled that the Public Service Board was authorized to approve the project.

The same month the project was approved, the Burlington Electric Department signed an agreement
with the project developer to buy 40 percent of the power and the renewable energy certificates from
the Sheffield Wind project for the next 10 years under a fixed-price agreement.

The Sheffield Wind Farm is still waiting for a storm water approval, the last approval needed before
starting construction. Like most wind projects in New England, the Sheffield Wind Farm will likely end up
taking more than four years from initial filing to starting construction.

4.5 Case Study: Searsburg Mountain

The Searsburg project in Vermont was the first grid-connected wind project in New England. The project
started operations in 1998 and is an example of a successful wind development in New England. The
project consists of 11 turbines with a peak power of 550 KW each located on the ridge of Mount Waldo
in Vermont. The project belongs to Green Mountain Power (GMP), a utility serving 90,000 customers in
Vermont (VERA, 1998).

The project enjoyed a high level public acceptance and tested large wind machines in the harsh climate
conditions of New England. The high public acceptance of the project was driven by the site specific
attributes, the permitting and development approach taken and by being the first project developed in
New England (VERA, 1998).

The specific attributes of the Searsburg mountain site that had a positive impact to the public
acceptance of the project were (VERA, 1998):
1. Good wind resource;
2. Closeness to roads and transmission;
3. The land around the project site is heavily forested and mainly used for logging. There are no hiking
trails in the area. The area is not recognized for its uniqueness or wilderness value; and
4. The area is sparsely populated and views of the facility from the main road in the area are limited.

Some of the permitting and development approaches that had a positive impact to the public
acceptance of the project are (VERA, 1998):
1. The developer recognized the difficulties of siting wind turbines at the top of ridges in an area known
for “protecting the environment and discouraging the development of high elevation regions” (VERA
1998). As a result the developer went through a long site selection process looking to minimize

17/40
“conflicts with the scenic and ecological values of mountaintops by seeking input from various
community and environmental groups, state agencies, and individuals” (VERA, 1998);
2. Multiple bird and black bear environmental impact assessments were conducted both before and
after starting operations;
3. Public opinion surveys and public information campaigns were conducted prior to construction, during
installation and after starting operations;
4. The transmission line and the transformer station have been sited away from the local road and
masked with vegetation; and
5. School visits and tours make the site an ongoing local attraction.

One notable result of the public opinion surveys was to show how public acceptance of the project
improved after the project was built. This seems to confirm the hypothesis that under certain favorable
conditions, such as the already mentioned benign topography, familiarity can lead to higher acceptance.

Low temperatures, ice accumulation on the turbine blades, lightning damage and extreme wind are the
main climate stresses to the wind machines on the mountain ridges of New England. This project used
several innovations such as special steel, heaters and painting the blades black to avoid cold weather
damage or ice accumulation (VERA, 1998). Thorough grounding, electronic fuses and shunting devices
were also used to avoid lightning damage (VERA, 1998). In spite of all these extra protections the
Searsburg project was not spared damage from the harsh climate. Multiple damaging lightning events
were noted (McCoy, T. et al, 2000) and a turbine collapse was registered in 2008.

Deerfield Wind, a subsidiary of the Spanish utility and renewable energy giant Iberdola, is working at a
project to expand the Searsburg wind farm by 34 MW adding 17 new turbines around the current site
(Green Mountain Power, 2007). Green Mountain Power is expected to sign a Power Purchase
Agreement to buy at least 50% of the energy produced by the Deerfield project (Deerfield Wind Project
Website). Deerfield Wind has started developing the project in 2006.

The permitting process for the Deerfield expansion has moved, however, very slowly and was subject to
several challenges from local opposition on environmental and nuisance grounds. A draft Environmental
Impact Assessment was released in early 2009 by the US Forest Service. As of the end of 2009, the
project is still waiting for a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board.

4.6 The Effects of Local Opposition on Wind Project Financials

Local opposition has two main impacts on wind projects: it extends the development phase and
increases the cost incurred for this phase. But how significant are these impacts on the overall project
financials? And is this enough to stop wind developers from pursuing projects in New England? My
hypothesis is that the impact on project financials is large enough to stop wind project developers from
pursuing projects in New England.

In order to properly test this hypothesis I would need to analyze and compare actual development cost
data across multiple projects within New England and elsewhere in the US. Such data is, however,
proprietary to wind developers and probably treated as a trade secret.

What I can do, however, is to test this hypothesis using an illustrative, generic wind project. I analyzed
two scenarios: Scenario 1 with no local opposition; and Scenario 2 with significant local opposition; and
compared the equity returns for the two scenarios. The key assumptions that are different for the two
scenarios are the project development cost and project development phase duration.

For Scenario 1, I assume a development cost of 4% of the total project cost or about $ 82 / KW. The 4%
ratio of development cost to total project cost figure is the upper limit of the 3-4% ratio characteristic for
wind projects outside New England, based on conversations I had with people at two wind developers.

18/40
For Scenario 2, I assume a development phase cost of $280 / KW or about 12% of the total project cost
of $2,250 / KW. These figures are from a presentation by a senior financial executive at First Wind, the
most active wind developer in New England, and are considered typical figures for the region.

Several of the experts interviewed for this paper mentioned that the development phase takes about 4
years in New England, about double the time it takes in other parts of the United States such as Texas
or the Midwest. This seems to be confirmed by the case studies and the data on the projects currently
in ISO New England interconnection queue.

To summarize, I used an 82 $ / KW cost and 2 years development phase for Scenario 1 and 280 $ / KW
and 4 years development phase for Scenario 2. Other assumptions include:
• $ 1,970 / KW construction and financing costs;
• 50 MW project size;
• $ 100 / MWh as a total price for the electricity and potential renewable energy credits revenue;
• $ 9 / MWh O&M cost;
• 30% capacity factor;
• 80% leverage, payable over 20 years in constant installments with an interest of 7%.

Table 3 shows the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) calculated for the two scenarios.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Variance

Total Project
16% 13% 3%
Cashflows IRR
Equity (Developer)
30% 18% 12%
Cashflows IRR
Table 3
While the total project IRR suffers only a 3% drop from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2, the equity IRR (the
return for the developer) suffers a dramatic drop of 12%. This drop is explained by the fact that the
development phase is usually not covered by bank financing but financed from by developer equity. As
equity requires a higher rate of return (usually between 15% for public equity and 30% for private
equity) this is an expensive source of financing. The situation is made worse by compounding this high
hurdle rate of return for two extra years.

This example illustrates how delays and cost increases due to local opposition can keep wind
developers out of New England.

5. Lack of Transmission Infrastructure

“Transmission is just not in the right place. Resource is available in Maine, on sizeable land, away from
human population centers but there are no transmission lines and no local power demand" said one of
the experts interviewed for this paper.

A study of New England’s wind potential done by Levitan Associates for ISO New England (Levitan &
Associates, 2008) analyzes the wind energy potential in New England. Table 4 shows the impact of
introducing a 20 miles to a transmission line constraint. Appendix 8 shows the same impact on the map.

State Potential Wind Capacity Potential Wind Capacity 20 Miles Eliminated due to Transmission Eliminated due to
Unconstrainted (MW) Transmission Constraint (MW) Constraint (MW) Transmission Constraint (%)
ME 26,904 2,422 24,482 91%
VT 6,822 5,568 1,254 18%
MA 6,585 4,132 2,453 37%
NH 6,125 2,072 4,053 66%
RI 653 446 207 32%
CT 35 0 35 100%
Total 47,124 14,640 32,484 69%
Source: Levitan & Associates, 2008 Table 4

19/40
A 20 miles transmission constraint takes out 69% of the resources in New England and more than 90%
of the resources in Maine. As Maine is the most sparsely populated state in the region it is, at least in
theory, spared of the intense local opposition to wind developments in the other parts of New England.
The transmission constraint issue boils down to building transmission capacity from Northern Maine to
the load centers in the South of the region in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Appendix 6 shows an
overlay of the wind resources and the current transmission available in Maine. “New England could
achieve a significant penetration of renewable energy if transmission were available to transport that
energy to the load centers” (The Brattle Group, 2009).

The experts interviewed for this paper identified the following factors driving transmission infrastructure
barriers:
• Transmission to northern Maine is not available. Transmission is generally available elsewhere in
New England but the local opposition and land issues are intense challenges there;
• Building transmission to mountain ridges or to off-shore resources raises the costs of the project;
• Size of wind resource in Maine may not be large enough to justify large transmission projects; and
• For building transmission there are local opposition issues similar to the opposition to wind projects.

The experts interviewed identified the following tools developers could use to address the transmission
constraints:
• Lobby federal, regional and state policy makers;
• Build own transmission when appropriate; and
• Bundle project(s) and transmission into one Power Purchasing Agreement (PPA) and spread the
total transmission cost across several projects.

The experts interviewed recommended the following tools for policy makers to support transmission for
wind in New England:
• Promote regional and federal transmission policy, guidelines and incentives; and
• Promote strong wind incentives such as feed in tariffs, loan guarantees, production tax credits and
investment tax credits. These measures would help the wind project economics and increase the
chance that projects will be able to build their own transmission.

Several experts interviewed said that they see transmission as an issue that can eventually be solved
as developers and federal, regional and state level policy makers work together to address the
transmission infrastructure constraints. "Transmission is for now a secondary order issue. It is a long
term issue for power in general and New England is no different. Transmission is constraining but not
the biggest issue.”

Transmission planning is a complex regional process involving state regulators, electric utilities and
several regional coordination bodies. The New England states have several decades of experience in
regional planning of the electric power system. The regional coordination effort started in 1971 with the
New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) and has been led since 1997 by ISO New England.

ISO New England is an independent, not-for-profit corporation responsible for operating New England‘s
electric power generation and transmission system and managing the regional electric power planning.
ISO New England is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The New England states are actively involved in ISO New England‘s regional system planning process
through several regional coordination bodies such as: the New England Governors‘ Conference Power
Planning Committee (NEGC-PPC), the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners
(NECPUC), the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE).

Fully recognizing the transmission issue, NESCOE requested from ISO New England in March, 2009 a
study of the “potential renewable generation in New England and the associated transmission

20/40
infrastructure required to integrate them” (ISO New England, 2009). In an unusually quick response, the
ISO New England issued a draft study in July 2009 called “New England 2030 Power System Study,
Report to the New England Governors” (ISO New England, 2009). Appendix 9 shows a map of potential
transmission lines for a 12,000 MW wind energy development scenario from this study. The results of
the ISO study were used in a document issued in September 2009 by the New England Governors’
Conference called “New England Governors’ Renewable Energy Blueprint” (New England Governor’
Conference, 2009).

Several conclusions can be distilled from these recent regional coordination efforts:
• Developing renewable energy in New England and meeting the state level renewable portfolio
mandates is a concern at the highest political levels;
• The speed of ISO New England’ response to the NESCOE request and also the strong language in
the Governor’s Conference renewable energy blueprint document seem to suggest a significant
level of urgency;
• When talking about developing renewable energy in New England all documents confirm the
hypothesis in section 2.1 of this paper that wind is the only renewable resource large enough to
satisfy the region’s renewable energy mandates;
• The main solutions to New England’s renewable energy need focus on building transmission to
areas of northern Maine and on starting the development of off-shore resources;
• Other solutions are increasing transmission capacity to neighboring areas (Quebec, New Brunswick,
New York) to allow bringing the renewable energy from these areas. The New England Governor’
Conference “Renewable Energy Blueprint” document however favors developing the renewable
resources within New England.

These regional coordination efforts are driven in part by fact that, as the states renewable energy
mandates increase from about 4,000 GWh in 2009 to over 20,000 GWh in 2020 (The Brattle Group,
2009), there is a significant risk that the region will fail to achieve these mandates.

6. New England Renewable Portfolio Standard Laws and Impacts on Wind

Energy Development
As noted at the beginning of this paper New England has among the most advanced Renewable
Portfolio Standard laws in the US. Appendix 10 provides a short description of how Renewable Portfolio
Standards work.

6.1 How Much Wind Does New England Need?

This section seeks to determine the minimum amount of wind capacity that would need to be brought
into operation by 2020 to satisfy the renewable portfolio standard mandates.

Table 5 outlines the Renewable Portfolio Standard mandates for renewable energy in the New England
states (Vermont’ should be seen as a target rather than a mandate).

Source: The Brattle Group, 2009 Table 5

21/40
Table 6 outlines the same mandates in GWh every year through 2020.

Source: The Brattle Group, 2009 Table 6

I use a rounded 20,000 GWh as the electricity production from renewable sources mandated by 2020.

Table 7 outlines the potential renewable capacity available from various generation sources.

Source: The Brattle Group, 2009 Table 7

To determine the minimum amount of wind capacity that would need to be brought into operation by
2020 to satisfy the renewable portfolio standard mandates I make the following assumptions:
• I use Department of Energy Actual data for 2008 to get indicative capacity factors for landfill gas
(48%), biomass (66%), and onshore wind (25%). I assume a higher capacity factor for the off shore
wind (35%) and use widely accepted industry figures for hydro (44%) and fuel cells (80%);
• Landfill gas, hydro, biomass and fuel cells resources available will be developed to their full
potential; and
• The two advanced off-shore wind projects currently in the interconnection queue -- Cape Wind and
Deepwater -- will be developed.

This leaves about 2,800 MW of on-shore wind capacity to fill in the gap to the renewable portfolio
mandates. Table 8 outlines the calculations described above.

Renewable Energy Generation to meet RPS mandate by 2020

Theoretical Current Imports Capacity Developed Capacity Factor Generation MWh
Technology Capacity MW MW 2020 MW
Landfill Gas 121 68 189 48% 794,707
Onshore wind 9417 354 2,772 25% 6,069,760
Offshore wind 8208 0 847 35% 2,596,902
Hydro 164 0 164 44% 632,122
Biomass 1523 5 1,528 66% 8,834,285
Fuel Cells 153 0 153 80% 1,072,224
Total 19,586 427 5,653 20,000,000
Table 8
22/40
Achieving the renewable portfolio mandates by 2020 is therefore possible, at least in theory, by
developing biomass, hydro, landfill gas and fuel cell to their maximum potential, completing the two
advanced off-shore wind projects and continuing to develop on-shore wind at an accelerated pace.

However all these will be very difficult to achieve in practice because:

• On-shore wind is subject to the intense local opposition described in section 4 and the transmission
constraints described in section 5 of this paper;
• There are still uncertainties about the off-shore wind projects and technology as no off-shore wind
projects have been built in the US to date;
• Biomass facilities face similar siting opposition as wind.

6.2 Renewable Energy Imports

Another way for New England to meet its renewable portfolio mandates would be to import renewable
energy produced in New York and Canada. Some renewable energy projects in those areas already
qualified as Class 1 renewable energy in several New England states.

However, additional transmission capacity would have to be developed to tap into these resources. The
New England Governors’ Conference “New England Governors’ Renewable Energy Blueprint”
document mentions imports from Quebec, New Brunswick and New York as potential solutions (New
England Governor’ Conference, 2009).

Several New England Utilities are developing the plans for a high voltage direct current transmission
line recently approved by FERC (Reuters, 2009) that could be used for importing renewable energy.
Electric Utilities in New England favor this as it increase their renewable energy sourcing options and
the overall supply of renewable energy credits.

Importing renewable energy from outside New England, while achieving the main objective of the
renewable portfolio mandates of giving ratepayers access to renewable energy, would hurt local wind
developers and would sacrifice other lateral objectives of the mandates such as creating new jobs and
bringing new technology to New England. In the eyes of many of the local wind developers satisfying
the renewable portfolio mandates with renewable energy imports is a “cop out” that runs contrary to the
initial intent of the legislation to also support local economic development.

Supporters of allowing imports to satisfy the renewable portfolio standard mandates point to the fact that
renewable energy from Canada or New York already contributes to satisfying the mandates, that
renewable energy outside New England can sometimes be more abundant and economic, and also to
the fact that it will be very difficult to find the resources in New England to fully satisfy the renewable
portfolio mandates.

7. Conclusions
• New England has among the most advanced renewable energy mandates in the nation;
• Wind is the only renewable resource large enough and readily available to satisfy the mandates;
• New England is behind the rest of the US in developing its wind energy potential;
• The main barriers to wind development in New England are local opposition and lack of
transmission to northern Maine;
• Local opposition to wind development is a complex and understudied social and phenomenon. More
than 83% of the wind capacity planned or delivered in New England has been subject to local
opposition leading to increased project costs and schedule delays. Local opposition is likely to stay
the same or get worse in the future;
• Local opposition to wind development increases the cost and the duration of the project
development phase. This has significant negative impacts on the project returns that may turn wind
developers away.

23/40
• Lack of transmission to northern Maine eliminates 24,482 MW potential wind capacity -- or 91% of
the wind potential in that state. Intense recent regional planning activity towards developing
transmission to the resources in northern Maine is a strong signal of the sense of urgency and
importance the renewable energy issues is given at the highest political levels in the region;
• New England has to develop about 3,000 MW of wind capacity in order to satisfy the renewable
portfolio standard mandates by 2020;
• New England may have to resort to renewable energy imports from Canada and New York to fulfill
the renewable portfolio standard mandates. This would negatively impact wind developers in New
England and sacrifice some of the lateral objectives of the renewable portfolio standard laws such
as job creation and technology development in New England.

Areas for further research:

• Study the historical, cultural and social aspect of local opposition to wind in New England;
• Build a rigorous and a granular transmission model that considers resource and land availability as
well as costs, revenues and energy prices with the aim to optimize recommendations for building
transmission projects;
• Study the wind turbines visibility impact on property values in New England;
• Analyze the potential future energy consumption in New England and the renewable energy
generation resources to provide a detailed estimate of the potential demand and supply of REC’s in
the coming years.

24/40
8. Appendixes
Appendix 1 – Expert Interviews

Interviewees
# Name Role
1 Jason Gifford Consultant, Sustainable Energy Advantage
2 Frank Sabatino Independent Consultant, Former Senior Vice President of Power Marketing at Northeast Utilities
3 Jeff Keeler Managing Director Mergers & Acquisitions, Iberdrola Renewables
4 Mark Rodgers Communications Director, Cape Wind
5 John Zimmerman President, Vermont Environmental Research Associates
6 Tim Rosenzweig Senior Vice President Finance, First Wind
7 Allen W. Schindler Director Enterprise Planning, Northeast Utilities
Table 10
Interview Questions
1. How is New England doing compared to the rest of the United States in wind energy development?
• Ahead of the rest of the US
• About the same
• Behind the rest of the US

2. What are the top three barriers to wind development in New England?
• Lack of transmission infrastructure
• Local opposition to wind projects / Siting issues
• Lack of financing
• Lack of grid capacity to absorb variable wind power
• Lack of available land for wind farm development
• Lack of wind resource
• Wind turbine scarcity / cost increases
• Late start in New England
• Other (please describe in the space below)

3. For each of the main identified barriers:

• Is it more intense in New England than in other parts of the US? Why?
• Is it likely to Relent, Stay at about the same level or Intensify in the near future? Why?
• What are the best ways for wind developers to address this barrier?
• What are the best ways for policy makers to address this barrier in New England?

25/40
Appendix 2 – New England Wind Resource Map

Source: Levitan & Associates, 2008

26/40
Appendix 3 – List of Operational Wind Projects in New England
Name Location Power Capacity Units Turbine Mfr. Developer Owner Power Purchaser Year Online State
(MW)
Patriot Freedom 4.5 3 GE Energy 2008 ME
Mars Hill (2007) Aroostook county 33 22 GE Energy UPC Wind UPC Wind confidential 2007 ME
Partners Partners
Mars Hill (2006) Aroostook county 9 6 GE Energy UPC Wind UPC Wind confidential 2006 ME
Partners Partners
G.M. Allen & Orland 0.05 1 Atlantic Orient Endless Energy Endless Energy G.M. Allen & Sons 2001 ME
Sons Co. farm
Beaulieu Aroostook County 0.05 1 Atlantic Orient private owner private owner Maine Public 1999 ME
Co. Power
Stetson Wind Washington 57 38 GE Energy First Wind First Wind market 2009 ME
County
Forbes Park Chelsea 0.6 1 Boreal Renewable Forbes Park Forbes Park 2008 MA
Energy
Hyannis Country Hyannis 0.1 1 DES Hyannis Country Hyannis Country 2008 MA
Garden Garden Garden
Jiminy Peak Ski Hancock 1.5 1 GE Energy Sustainable Jiminy Peak Jiminy Peak 2007 MA
Resort Energy Mountain Resort Mountain Resort
Developments
Hull II Hull 1.8 1 Vestas Hull Municipal Hull Municipal Hull Municipal 2006 MA
Light Department Light Department Light Department
Massachusetts Buzzards Bay, 0.66 1 Vestas Massachusetts Massachusetts Massachusetts 2006 MA
Maritime Cape Cod Maritime Academy Maritime Maritime
Academy Academy Academy
IBEW Local 103 Dorchester 0.1 1 Fuhrländer IBEW Local 103 IBEW Local 103 IBEW Local 103 2005 MA
Hull Hull 0.66 1 Vestas Hull Municipal Hull Municipal Hull Municipal 2001 MA
Light Department Light Department Light Department
Portsmouth Portsmouth 0.66 1 Vestas Portsmouth Abbey Portsmouth Portsmouth 2006 RI
Abbey School School Abbey School Abbey School
Wind Turbine
Lempster Wind Sullivan County 24 12 Gamesa Iberdrola Iberdrola 2008 NH
Farm
Loranger Power Berlin 1.35 3 Loranger Power Loranger Power 2006 NH
Generation Generation Generation
Manchester / near 0.05 1 Atlantic Orient private owner private owner private owner 1998 NH
Hillsborough Manchester/Hillsbo Co.
rough
Searsburg Wind Searsburg 6.05 11 Zond Enron Wind Corp. enXco Green Mountain 1997 VT
Energy Facility Power
Presque Isle Presque Isle 0.6 1 Presque Isle Presque Isle Presque Isle 2009 ME
Total 141.73
Source: AWEA Wind Projects Database

27/40
Appendix 4 – Detailed Interviews Results
How is New England doing compared to the rest of the United States in terms of wind energy
development?

How is New England doing compared to the rest of the

United States in wind energy development?
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Ahead of the rest of About the same Behind the rest of the
the US US

What are the main barriers to wind development in New England?

What are the top three challenges / barriers to wind development in New England?

0
Local Lack of Lack of Availability of Project costs Lack of Variability and
opposition transmission available long term PPA's (harder to build financing other hidden
infrastructure resource / land wind farm and costs.
transmission to
ridges /
offshore)

Barrier # 1: Local Opposition to Wind Development

Is Local Opposition to Wind Development more intense in New England than in other parts of the US?
Why?

28/40
 Is this challenge more intense in New England than in other parts of
the US? Why?

0
Population density Conflicts with highly Large "view shed“ Higher land values in
driving development prized recreational driven by resource New England / fear
close to population land uses located on that wind farms will
centers Appalachian ridges or impact land values
shallow off-shore

Is Local Opposition to Wind Development likely to relent, stay at the same level or intensify in the near
future?
Is this challenge likely to Relent, Stay at about the same level or
Intensify in the near future?

0
Relent due to better Stay about the same Intensify as siting will move
Familiarity / Education / closer to population areas as
Awareness "Tier 1" areas are developed

What are the best ways for wind developers to address Local Opposition to Wind Development?
What are the best ways for wind developers to address this
challenge?

0
Develop where there is less opposition Public Relations

What are the best ways for policy makers to address Local Opposition to Wind Development?
29/40
 What are the best ways for policy makers to address this challenge?

0
Predictable, Transparent, Reliable siting RPS Floor
process

Barrier # 2: Lack of Transmission Infrastructure

Is Lack of Transmission Infrastructure more intense in New England than in other parts of the US?
Why?
Is this challenge more intense in New England than in other
parts of the US? Why?

0
Transmission not Building Size of wind Siting transmission
available in transmission to resource not large NIMBYissues
northern Maine mountain ridges / enough to justify similar to siting
off-shoreis transmission wind farms
expensive. projects

Is Lack of Transmission Infrastructure likely to Relent, Stay at the same level or Intensify in the near
future?

Is this challenge likely to Relent, Stay at about the same level

or Intensify in the near future? Why?

0
Relent Stay the same Intensify

What are the best ways for wind developers to address Lack of Transmission Infrastructure?
30/40
 What are the best ways for wind developers to address this
challenge?

0
Lobby federal, regional Build their own when Bundle project(s) and
and state policy makers appropriate transmission into one
PPA

What are the best ways for policy makers to address this barrier?
What are the best ways for policy makers to address this
challenge in New England?

0
Promote regional and Promote strong wind Build transmission to
federal transmission incentives: feed in tarrifs, wind and hydro resources
policy, guidelines and loan guarantees, PTC, ITC in Canada
incentives

Barrier # 3 - Lack of Available Land for Wind Development

Is Lack of Available Land for Wind Development more intense in New England than in other parts of the
US? Why?
Is this challenge more intense in New England than in other
parts of the US? Why?

0
Closeness to Lack of Smaller parcels in Significant part of
population centers transmission to New England the resource is on
Northern Maine land protected by
conservation
easements or on
public land

Is Lack of Available Land for Wind Development likely to Relent, Stay at the same level or Intensify in
the near future?
31/40
Is this challenge likely to Relent, Stay at about the same level
or Intensify in the near future? Why?

0
Relent Stay the same Intensify

32/40
Appendix 5 – New England Wind Power and Population Centers

Source: ISO New England, 2009

33/40
Appendix 6 – New England Wind Projects Subject to Local Opposition

Name Power Capacity (MW) State Status Local Opposition

Mars Hill (2007) 33 ME Existing Nuisance complaints
Mars Hill (2006) 9 ME Existing Nuisance complaints
Stetson Wind 57 ME Existing Permitting delays
Lempster Wind Farm 24 NH Existing Zoning delays
Loranger Power Generation 1 NH Existing Vandalism
Berkshire Wind Power 15 MA Under Construction Lawsuit
Kibby Wind Power Project 132 ME Under Construction Permitting delays
Stetson II 25 MW Under Construction Permitting delays
Sheffield Wind Farm 40 VT Under Construction Lawsuit
Aroostook County Wind 800 ME Development Permitting delays
Black Nubble (Maine Mountain Power) 54 ME Development Permitting delays
Cape Wind 468 MA Development Lawsuit
Deerfield Wind (Searsburg 2) 45 VT Development Permitting delays
Equinox Wind Farm 9 VT Development Public meeting challenges
Grandpa's Knob Windpark 50 VT Development Nuisance complaints
Union challenges from fear of
Granite Reliable Power Windpark 99 NH Development
competition with biomass plant
Hoosac Wind Energy Project 30 MA Development Lawsuit
Minuteman Wind 13 MA Development Permitting delays
Mount Harris 15 ME Development Setback ordinance
Record Hill Wind Project 50 ME Development Nuisance complaints
Rollins Mountain 60 ME Development Permitting delays
Saddleback Mountain 23 ME Development Public meeting challenges
South Coast Offshore Wind Project 300 MA Development Permitting delays
Spruce Mountain 8 ME Development Public meeting challenges
All Projects with Local Opposition 2,359
All Large NE Projects 2,856
% Projects with Opposition / All Projects 83%

Sources: AWEA Wind Projects Database, New England Wind Forum Website

34/40
Appendix 7 –Local Groups Opposing Wind Developments from Wind-Watch.org
# Country / State Organization # Country / State Organization # Country / State Organization
1 Australia Carrajung And Blackwarry Residents Against Wind
101 Farms
United Kingdom First Mistake 201 US / New Mexico New Mexico Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy
2 Australia Molonglo Landscape Guardians 102 United Kingdom Friends of Craven Landscape 202 US / New Mexico Talking Wind
3 Australia Parkesbourne / Mummel Landscape Guardians103 United Kingdom Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery 203
(FELLS)
US / New York Advocates for Arkwright
4 Australia RATS of Tooboroc (Residents Against Wind Turbines
104 United
in Tooboroc)
Kingdom Friends of the Forest 204 US / New York Advocates for Prattsburgh
5 Australia Spa Country Landscape Guardians 105 United Kingdom Galloway Landscape And Renewable Energy (GLARE) 205 US / New York Advocates for Stark
6 Australia Western Plains Landscape Guardians 106 United Kingdom Glen Info 206 US / New York Alliance for Bovina
7 Belgium Geen 150m hoge windturbines op 250m van onze 107Kalkense
United Kingdom
deur Glyncorrwg Action Group 207 US / New York Alliance for Meredith
8 Belgium Groupe d'information sur les éoliennes (La Roche-en-Ardenne)
108 United Kingdom Grampian Windfarm Action Group 208 US / New York Bethany Preservation Group
9 Canada Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County 109 United Kingdom Habitat 21 209 US / New York Citizens for Responsible Energy Development
10 Canada Amherst Island Wind Information 110 United Kingdom HALT (Ringsfield and Barsham near Beccles, Suffolk)
210 US / New York Clear Skies Over Orangeville
11 Canada Beckwith Responsible Wind Action Group, Ont.111 United Kingdom Hook Moor Wind Farm Action Group 211 US / New York Concerned Citizens for Cattaraugus County
12 Canada Blue Highlands Citizens Coalition 112 United Kingdom Kentish Weald Action Group (KWAG) 212 US / New York Concerned Residents of Hammond (CROH)
13 Canada Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group 113 United Kingdom Lammermuir Protection Group 213 US / New York Delaware County Wind
14 Canada Citizens Against Lake Erie Wind Turbines 114 United Kingdom Lewis Wind Farms 214 US / New York Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization (ECCO) of Jefferson County
15 Canada Coalition of Ontarians for Responsible Wind Energy
115 United
Development
Kingdom Lilbourne Action Group Against the Wind Farm 215 US / New York Hamlin Preservation Group
16 Canada Coalition of Residents -- Tiny (CORT) 116 United Kingdom Marr and Melton Wood Action Group 216 US / New York Helderberg Community Watch
17 Canada Coalition to Protect Amherst Island 117 United Kingdom Micklefield Wind Farm Action Group 217 US / New York Indigenera
18 Canada Concerned Citizens of Cavan Monaghan 118 United Kingdom Moorsyde Action Group 218 US / New York Living in New York
19 Canada Éoliennes Infos 119 United Kingdom Mynydd Llansadwrn Action Group 219 US / New York Meredith Defense Fund
20 Canada Essex County Wind Action Group 120 United Kingdom Noise Bulletin 220 US / New York Naples Valley Bristol Hills Association
21 Canada Essex County Wind Resistance 121 United Kingdom North Hambleton Windfarm Action Group (NHWAG) 221 US / New York North Country Advocates
22 Canada Grey Highlands Wind Action Group 122 United Kingdom Parkham Parish Conservation Association (PPCA)222 US / New York Pandora's Box of Rocks
23 Canada Guildwood Village 123 United Kingdom Pontefract Windfarm Action Group 223 US / New York Prattsburgh/Italy Wind Turbine Information
24 Canada Healing the Earth 124 United Kingdom Protect Sheephouse Heights Action Group 224 US / New York Preservation of Howard
25 Canada Innisfil Wind Watchers 125 United Kingdom Residents Against Turbines (RATS) 225 US / New York Save Jones Beach Ad Hoc Committee
26 Canada Kincardine Wind Farms 126 United Kingdom Residents Against Turbines in Slough (WindRATS) 226 US / New York Save Western New York
27 Canada Middlesex Wind Action Group 127 United Kingdom Rotherham Ulley Regional Action Lobby (RURAL)227 US / New York Schoharie Valley Watch
28 Canada No Sydenham Windfarm (Dawn-Euphemia Windfarm) 128 United Kingdom Save Berkeley Vale 228 US / New York Scipio Lake Property Owners Association
29 Canada Preserve Wentworth Valley 129 United Kingdom Save North Devon 229 US / New York South Bristol Views
30 Canada Prince Edward Island 130 United Kingdom Save Our Common Mountain Environment (SOCME) 230 US / New York Springwater Preservation Committee
31 Canada Regroupement pour le développement durable des131 Appalaches
United Kingdom Save Our Scenery (SOS) 231 US / New York Stafford Preservation Group
32 Canada Ruralgrubby's Weblog 132 United Kingdom Save Our Silton 232 US / New York We Oppose Windfarms (WOW)
33 Canada Save Our Skyline, Renfrew County 133 United Kingdom Save Our Somerset 233 US / New York Western Catskill Preservation Alliance
34 Canada The Complete Picture 134 United Kingdom Save Our Unspoilt Landscape (SOUL) 234 US / New York Wind Farm Facts
35 Canada The Complete Picture 135 United Kingdom Say No to Harrington 235 US / New York Wind Jamber
36 Canada Wayward Wind 136 United Kingdom Shetland Against Windfarms Group (SAWG) 236 US / New York Wind Power Ethics Group
37 Canada Why Industrial Wind Power? 137 United Kingdom Sibsey Turbine On-shore Protest (STOP) 237 US / New York Wind Power Toolkit (John Droz)
38 Canada Wind Concerns Ontario 138 United Kingdom South Wales Alternative To Turbines (SWATT) 238 US / North Carolina Friends of Ashe County
39 Canada Windmills Blow 139 United Kingdom Spittal Windfarm Opposition Group (SWOG) 239 US / North Carolina Keepers of the Blue Ridge
40 Canada Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment (WIRE)
140 United Kingdom Stop Benington Wind Farm 240 US / North Dakota Save Coteau Prairie Landscape
41 Czech Republic Stop-větrníkům 141 United Kingdom Stop Brixworth Wind Farm 241 US / Ohio Save Western Ohio
42 France Association Coûp de Vent 142 United Kingdom Stop Great Cransley Wind Farm 242 US / Ohio Wind Truth Alliance
43 France Collectif 6 Octobre 143 United Kingdom Stop Lenchwick Windfarm 243 US / Oklahoma Save the Prairie
44 France Fédération Environnement Durable 144 United Kingdom Stop the Spin 244 US / Oregon Blue Mountain Alliance
45 France Vent de Colère 145 United Kingdom Stop Turbines In North Cornwall (STINC) 245 US / Oregon Families for Sevenmile Hill
46 France Ventdubocage 146 United Kingdom Stop Turbines On Peninsula (STOP) 246 US / Pennsylvania An Ill Wind
47 Germany Gegenwind Schleswig-Holstein 147 United Kingdom Stop Wadlow Wind Farm 247 US / Pennsylvania Folmont Property Owners Association
48 Germany Nature 2000 148 United Kingdom Stop Woodlane Wind Farm 248 US / Pennsylvania Juniata Valley Audubon Society
49 Germany Naturstrom- und Windkrafteuphorie in Deutschland
149 und
United
ihreKingdom
Folgen Stop Wyverstone Windfarm Action Group (SWWAG) 249 US / Pennsylvania No Free Wind
50 Greece Πολίτες κατά του λιθάνθρακα 150 United Kingdom sWindle Farms 250 US / Pennsylvania Presque Isle Audubon Society
51 Hungary Szélerőművek Hárskúton? 151 United Kingdom The Ramblers 251 US / Pennsylvania Save Our Allegheny Ridges (SOAR)
52 Ireland An Ill Wind 152 United Kingdom The Wight Against Rural Wind Turbines (THWART) 252 US / Pennsylvania Somerset Coalition for Ridgetop Protection (SCARP)
53 Ireland Castletown and Newcestown Action Group (CANAG)153 United Kingdom Two Moors Campaign 253 US / Pennsylvania Stop Lookout Windpower
54 Ireland Knockraha, Leamlara and District Environmental154
Association
United Kingdom
(KLADEA)
Vale Villages Against Scottish Power (VVASP) 254 US / Pennsylvania Stop Turbines On Peter's Mountain
55 Ireland Save Kilbraney Campaign 155 United Kingdom Veto On Rural Turbine Expansion (VORTEX) 255 US / Pennsylvania Wind Truth Coalition
56 Italy Comitato Nazionale del Paesaggio 156 United Kingdom Views of Scotland 256 US / Puerto Rico Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco
57 Italy Via dal Vento 157 United Kingdom Visit Wales Now 257 US / Rhode Island Citizens Wind Watch
58 Japan 黙殺の音 　低周波音
" " 158 United Kingdom Walkerburn 258 US / Rhode Island Rhode Island Alliance For Clean Energy
59 Japan 巨大風車が日本を傷つけている 159 United Kingdom Warmwell 259 US / Texas Cross Timbers Landowners Conservancy
60 New Zealand Palmerston North 160 United Kingdom Westhall Wind Watch 260 US / Texas Lower Laguna Madre Foundation
61 New Zealand Preserve Pauatahanui 161 United Kingdom Wolds Wind Farm Opposition 261 US / Texas North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance
62 New Zealand Save Central 162 United Kingdom Woodford Windfarm Action Group 262 US / Texas Protect Our West Texas Landscape
63 New Zealand TUI G Campaign of Truth 163 US / California Altamont Landowners Against Rural Mismanagement 263 (A.L.A.R.M.)
US / Texas Save Our Scenic Hill Country Environment
64 Norway Bevar Andmyran 164 US / Connecticut Flagg Hill 264 US / United States Energy Plan USA
65 Other Alternative Energy News and Energy Planet 165 US / Florida Save St. Lucie Alliance 265 US / United States Purslane
66 Other European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW)166 US / Illinois Citizens for the Protection of Libertyville 266 US / United States Wind Power Cartoons
67 Other Global petition for 2-km wind turbine setback 167 US / Illinois Illinois Wind Watch 267 US / United States Wind Turbine Syndrome
68 Other North American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW)
168 US / Illinois Lancaster Voices 268 US / Utah Wind Farm Facts Utah
69 Slovenia Volovja reber 169 US / Illinois No Lee-DeKalb Windfarms 269 US / Vermont Citizens for the Preservation of Georgia Mountain
70 Spain Ibérica 2000: Mark Duchamp 170 US / Illinois Protect Illinois' Environment 270 US / Vermont Glebe Mountain Group
71 Spain Plataforma para la Defensa de Gistreo 171 US / Kansas Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition 271 US / Vermont Industrial Wind Energy Opposition
72 Sweden Färingtofta Norra 172 US / Kansas Everyday Citizen: J.P. Michaud 272 US / Vermont Ira Wind
73 Sweden Föreningen Bevara Linderödsåsen 173 US / Kansas Kansas Prairie 273 US / Vermont Kingdom Commons Group
74 The Netherlands Nationaal Kritisch Platform Windenergie (NKPW)174 US / Kansas Kansas Wind Alert 274 US / Vermont Out of Kirby Mountain
75 United Kingdom Action Group Against Sempringham Windfarm (AGAST)
175 US / Kansas Protect the Flint Hills 275 US / Vermont Ridge Protectors
76 United Kingdom Acton Bridge Windfarm Campaign 176 US / Maine Conscious Possibilities 276 US / Vermont Save Vermont's Ridgelines
77 United Kingdom Against Wind Farm At Low Spinney (AWFALS) 177 US / Maine Fort Kent, Maine 277 US / Vermont Vermonters With Vision
78 United Kingdom Artists Against Wind Farms 178 US / Maine Friends of Lincoln Lakes 278 US / Virginia Industrial Wind Power
79 United Kingdom Association of British Drivers 179 US / Maine Jackson Wind Project 279 US / Virginia Mountain Preservation Association
80 United Kingdom Baumbers Windfarm Action Group (BWAG) 180 US / Maine Maine Stay (Windustrial Maine) 280 US / Virginia Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines (ROKT)
81 United Kingdom Belvoir Locals Oppose Turbines (BLOT) 181 US / Maine People's Task Force on Wind Power 281 US / Virginia Save Our Scenic Area (SOSA)
82 United Kingdom Bleakhouse Wind Farm Action Group (BWFAG)182 US / Maryland Maryland Industrial Wind Energy Watchdog 282 US / Virginia Virginia Wind
83 United Kingdom Bolam and Area Action Group (BAAG) 183 US / Maryland Stop Ill Wind 283 US / Virginia Washington
84 United Kingdom Bradwell And Tillingham Tackling Lost Environment
184 US
(BATTLE)
/ Massachusetts
Concerned Neighbors of Back Bay 284 US / West Virginia Citizens for Responsible Wind Power
85 United Kingdom Brechfa Forest Energy Action Group 185 US / MassachusettsCounter Cape Wind 285 US / West Virginia Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County
86 United Kingdom Bucks Lacks Enough Wind (BLEW) 186 US / MassachusettsEastham Wind Truth 286 US / West Virginia Friends of the Allegheny Front
87 United Kingdom Burton Against Turbines (BATS) 187 US / MassachusettsGreen Berkshires 287 US / West Virginia Highlanders for Responsible Development
88 United Kingdom Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 188 US / MassachusettsSave Our Sound 288 US / West Virginia Laurel Mountain Preservation Association
89 United Kingdom Campaign to Limit Onshore Windfarm Developments
189 US (CLOWD)
/ Massachusetts
W.E.C.A.R.E. 289 US / West Virginia Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy
90 United Kingdom Cefn Croes Wind Farm Campaign 190 US / MassachusettsWar Against Wind 290 US / West Virginia Protect Pendleton
91 United Kingdom Ceres and District Environment and Amenity Protection
191 US / MassachusettsWindstop 291 US / Wisconsin Better Plan, Wisconsin
92 United Kingdom Chilla Against Turbines (CAT) 192 US / Michigan Citizens for Responsible Green Energy 292 US / Wisconsin Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship (CWESt)
93 United Kingdom Community Opposed to Shap Turbines (COST)193 US / Michigan Clinton County Wind Watch 293 US / Wisconsin Focus on Monroe County's Future
94 United Kingdom Cotton Farm Action Group 194 US / Michigan Residents for Sound Economics and Planning 294 US / Wisconsin Horicon Marsh Systems Advocates
95 United Kingdom Country Guardian 195 US / Michigan Thumbpower 295 US / Wisconsin Neighbors Caring About Neighbors (NCAN)
96 United Kingdom Cunningham 196 US / Minnesota A Place to Help 296 US / Wisconsin Union Neighbors United
97 United Kingdom Den Brook Valley Wind Turbine Action Group 197 US / Minnesota Goodhue Wind Truth 297 US / Wisconsin Wind Energy Is a Scam!
98 United Kingdom Dorset Against Rural Turbines (DART) 198 US / Minnesota Olmsted Wind Truth 298 US / Wisconsin Wisconsin Independent Citizens Opposing Windturbine Sites (WINDCOWS)
99 United Kingdom Endrick Valley Action Group (EVAG) 199 US / Nevada Save Our Valley 299 US / Wyoming Northern Laramie Range Alliance
100 United Kingdom Fenland Landscape Against Turbines (FLAT) 200 US / New Mexico Acoustic Ecology Institute

Source: National Wind Watch Website

35/40
Appendix 8 – 20 Miles Transmission Constraint Map Impact on Available Wind
Resources

Source: Levitan & Associates, 2008

36/40
Appendix 9 – Potential Transmission for a 12,000 MW Wind Development Scenario

Source: ISO New England, 2009

37/40
Appendix 10 – How Renewable Portfolio Standards Work
State legislatures adopt Renewable Portfolio Standard laws that include annual mandates for renewable
energy as a percentage of the total energy consumption in the state. For example the state of
Connecticut target is for 7% of the electrical energy consumption in 2010 to come from Class 1
renewable energy forms that include wind, solar, biomass and small hydro.

Every MWh produced using a renewable technology results in the creation of a Renewable Energy
Credit (REC). The Electric Utilities (Utilities) have to show at the end of each year a number of RECs
commensurate with the renewable portfolio standard mandates. The Utilities have to buy the RECs from
generators of renewable energy that produce them. If the Utilities fail to procure the RECs, the have to
pay a penalty to the state called Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP). In the case of Connecticut that
penalty is 55 $ / MWh for each missing REC. The ACP acts as a ceiling for the REC price.

The demand for RECs is driven by the total volume of electricity consumed in a certain year and the
renewable portfolio standard mandates for that year. The supply of RECs is driven by the amount of
renewable energy generated during that same period that is approved by the state for satisfying the
mandate. The REC price will be set by the interplay between demand and supply with the ACP acting
as a ceiling.

As the supply of new RECs is limited by the projects brought online in a certain period and as these
projects are sometimes of considerable size – supply is “lumpy” -- the REC price will move close to the
penalty if there is an under supply situation or close to zero if there is an over supply situation. In other
words the REC price is likely to be highly volatile.

Selling the RECs results in an additional revenue stream for the renewable energy developer. This is in
effect a subsidy meant to help project return over the hurdle required by private investors. From the
regulator’s perspective it has the advantages of being technology agnostic and providing the market
mechanisms that allow allocating the subsidy to the most efficient form of generation. From the energy
project developer perspective this form of incentive has the disadvantage of presenting an unreliable
and volatile revenue stream as well as being subject to potential changes in the future at the whim of
the political powers of the day.

38/40
9. References
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound Website. http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer
AWEA, 2009. “Annual Wind Industry Report” http://www.awea.org/publications/reports/AWEA-Annual-Wind-
Report-2009.pdf
AWEA, Wind Projects Database. http://www.awea.org/projects/
Berry, E. et al, 2005. “Overcoming Obstacles to Wind Power Development in Maine” The University of Maine
http://www.umaine.edu/nrc/Curriculum/2005%20Wind%20Paper.pdf
Burkett, E, 2003. “A Mighty Wind” New York Times Sunday Magazine
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/magazine/15WIND.html?pagewanted=1
Cape Wind Project Website. http://www.capewind.org/index.php
Cefn Croes Website. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm
CT Department of Public Utility Control, 2009. “Annual Review of Connecticut Electric Suppliers’ and Electric
Distribution Companies’ Compliance with Connecticut's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards in the Year 2007”
http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/FINALDEC.NSF/0d1e102026cb64d98525644800691cfe/2a7684b626309f568525766d
006bde00?OpenDocument
Deerfield Wind Project Website. http://www.iberdrolarenewables.us/deerfield.html
DOE WinDS Project Website. “Transmission Cost Analysis” http://webblade-
a3dev.nrel.gov/winds/transmission_cost.asp
DOE, 2008. “20% Wind Energy by 2030 Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply”
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency Website. www.dsireusa.org
Elliot, D. L., Wendell G. L. L., Gower, G.L., 1991. “An Assessment of the Available Windy Land Area and Wind
Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States” Pacific Northwest Laboratory
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5252760
Gipe, P., 2004. “Wind Power, Renewable Energy for Home, Farm and Business” Chelsea Green Publishing
Green Mountain Power, 2007. “Integrated Resource Plan”
http://www.greenmountainpower.com/data/Unsorted/IRP-2007-20243-1.pdf
Hoen, B. et al, 2009. “The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A
Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis”. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-2829e.pdf
ISO New England, 2009. “New England 2030 Power System Study, Report to the New England Governors”. ISO
New England Inc. http://www.iso-
ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/prtcpnts_comm/pac/reports/2009/eco_study_report_draft.pdf
ISO New England, 2007. “New England Electricity Scenario Analysis - Exploring the economic, reliability, and
environmental impacts of various resource outcomes for meeting the region’s future electricity needs”. ISO New
England Inc. http://www.iso-
ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/othr/sas/mtrls/elec_report/scenario_analysis_final.pdf
ISO New England Interconnection Request Queue, 2009. ISO New England Inc. http://www.iso-
ne.com/genrtion_resrcs/nwgen_inter/status/
Levitan & Associates, 2007. “Technical Assessment of Onshore and Offshore Wind Generation Potential in New
England” ISO New England Inc. http://www.iso-
ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/othr/sas/mtrls/may212007/levitan_wind_study.pdf
Levitan & Associates, 2008. “Technical Assessment of Onshore and Offshore Wind Generation Potential in New
England - Phase II Wind Study”. ISO New England Inc. http://www.iso-
ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/prtcpnts_comm/pac/mtrls/2008/may202008/lai_5-20-08.pdf
MA Department of Energy Resources, 2008. “Annual RPS Compliance Report For 2007”
http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/rps/rps-2007annual-rpt.pdf
39/40
Sustainable Energy Advantage, 2008. “Development of a Wind Power Resource Deployment Framework for
Maine & New England - Report of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development”
http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpower/meeting_summaries/103007_summary_files/Wind_Task_Forece_10300
7_workpapers.pdf
McCoy, T. et al, 2000. “Lightning Activities in the DOE-EPRI Turbine Verification Program”
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28604.pdf
National Wind Watch Website. http://www.wind-watch.org/affiliates.php
New England Governor’ Conference, 2009. “New England Governors’ Renewable Energy Blueprint”
http://www.negc.org/documents/2009/Renewable_Energy.pdf
New England Wind Forum Website. http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov
Reuters, 2009. “FERC approves Quebec-New England power line plan”
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssUtilitiesElectric/idUSN2130067020090521
RI Public Utilities Commission, 2009. “Annual RES Compliance Report for Compliance Year 2007”
http://www.ripuc.org/utilityinfo/PUC-RES-AnnualReport2007(2-5-09).pdf
Rosenbloom, E., 2006. “A Problem With Wind Power” http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-
content/uploads/ProblemWithWind.pdf
The Brattle Group, 2009. “Integrated Resource Plan for Connecticut”
http://www.brattle.com/_documents/UploadLibrary/Upload735.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. “Census of Population and Housing” http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc3-us-
pt1.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau Website. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/states.html
VERA, 1998. “Wind Power News - A Newsletter for Green Mountain Power’s Wind Program Activities” Vermont
Environmental Research Associates
http://www3.digitalfrontier.com/essential_wc5/vera/images/photos/GMP_WPN98.PDF
Vietor, R., 2009. “Cape Wind: Offshore Wind Energy in the USA” Harvard Business School
Williams, W., Whitcomb, R., 2007. “Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy
Future on Nantucket Sound” Public Affairs

40/40