A Wind Powering America Project Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

Converging Factors Drive Flurry of Regional 

Wind Development 

New England is currently experiencing a flurry of wind power 

development activity: more than 2,500 megawatts (MW) from 

nearly 100 installations, ranging from the drawing board to 

projects under construction. A convergence of local and global 

factors drives this increased interest in the Northeast and across 

the country. A variety of stresses on global energy markets were 

felt throughout the region in the form of higher and more volatile 

electricity and fuel prices. Policymakers throughout New England 

(which imports nearly all of its fuel) are focused on increased 

supply diversity and energy independence as a tool to reduce 

the region’s exposure to further economic and potential supply 

disruption. Concerns about the local environmental consequences 

of the current fleet of fossil-fueled electricity generators are 

compounded by ever-growing concerns over the impacts of global 

climate change. As new businesses, including wind power, grow 

to meet our increasing energy needs, many see opportunities for 

local economic development.

New England government and community leaders have considered renewable energy resources to help address these issues. 

Policy tools include Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs), 

which set standards for a minimum fraction of electricity sales to 

come from eligible renewable resources, including wind energy. 

Each New England state participated in creating the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a Kyoto-like effort to curb 

carbon dioxide emissons, the leading global warming pollutant. 

The RGGI was driven in part by the private sector’s willingness 

to act in response to the global climate change threat. Although 

the governors of Massachusetts and Rhode Island opted out 

of the final RGGI commitment, these states may yet join their 

neighbors by implementing their own greenhouse gas policies 

or reconsidering RGGI participation if cost and impact concerns 

expressed by policymakers are addressed to their satisfaction. 

Rhode Island’s governor, seeking to capture price stabilization 

and economic development benefits of wind power, has established a target of satisfying 15% of the state’s total electricity 

demand with wind energy. To this end, the state is funding an 

effort to systematically identify and screen viable, acceptable sites 

across the state for the development of commercial-scale wind 

turbines. If successful, the state will look to stimulate development with private and public investment. 

In addition, private, public, and not-for-profit energy users are 

increasingly making voluntary purchases of, or investing in, 

renewable energy beyond state-mandated requirements. Cities, 

towns, and municipal utilities throughout New England states 

are exploring community wind: the potential for communities to develop and/or own small installations of commercialscale wind turbines. In Massachusetts alone, more than 40 

municipalities have expressed interest in the Massachusetts 

Renewable Energy Trust’s Community Wind Collaborative. 

The Massachusetts Maritime Academy and Portsmouth Abbey 

School in Rhode Island installed commerical-scale wind turbines 

onsite during 2006. Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, 

Webb Research Corporation, and Jiminy Peak Ski Resort have 

completed feasibility studies and are moving toward similar 

installations. 

Individuals and communities exploring wind power development 

must balance the need for alternatives to meet the region’s voracious energy appetite with the friction resulting from tradeoffs 

inherent in siting any infrastructure project. Several communityscale wind projects are moving forward, and two New England 

wind farms are now under construction, one in Maine (Evergreen 

Wind) and another in Massachusetts (Berkshire Wind). Yet 

some developments are undergoing contentious permit approval 

proceedings (Maine Mountain Power) or appeals (Hoosac Wind), 

while others such as the East Haven Wind Farm in Vermont have 

failed to earn the necessary local or regulatory support to proceed. 

In This Issue

• Perspectives: John MacLeod, Hull Municipal Light Plant... p. 2

• Regional Wind Policy Update... p. 4

• Regional Wind Development Update... p. 6

• Small Wind Corner... p. 8

• Hot Topics... p. 9

• Events... p. 9

• Cool Links... p. 9

• Wind Stats... p. 10
 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

Perspectives: John MacLeod, 

Hull Municipal Light Plant

The shoreline town of Hull, Massachusetts, pioneered the 

modern community wind movement in New England with the 

installations of Hull 1, a 660-kW Vestas V-47 (in 2001) and 

Hull 2, a 1.8-MW Vestas V-80 (in 2006). Hull 2 is the largest 

wind turbine in New England and the first U.S. installation 

on a capped landfill. Now, communities throughout the region 

seek to replicate Hull’s success. Not satisfied with only two 

wind turbines, the town looks to parlay its leadership into 

offshore wind. We spoke to lifelong Hull resident John MacLeod, 

who started his career in 1963 as a meter reader for the Hull 

Municipal Light Plant (HMLP) and “retired” earlier this year 

as its operations manager. John MacLeod and HMLP were 

recipients of Wind Powering America’s 2006 Wind Power 

Pioneer Award. In the first days of his retirement, John eagerly 

accepted the assignment to develop the United States’ first 

offshore wind turbines...just off the coast of his hometown.

Q. What was your role in the development, construction, and 

operation of the two Hull wind turbines? 

As operations manager for HMLP, I was the project manager 

for each of our first two wind turbine installations. I oversaw the 

pre-development studies, ran the bidding process, and worked 

with the turbine vendor and construction contractors. In my 

current consulting role, I track the operations and maintenance 

of both Hull 1 and Hull 2.

Q. How did Hull 1 come about?

The process that led to both turbines really centered on the 

community. Wind power has a great history in Hull. There was a 

40-kW Enertech turbine at the high school in the mid-1980s – this 

is why the site of Hull 1 is called Windmill Point. The demise of 

this small turbine in a storm was the impetus for a group of residents to approach HMLP and ask for a new wind power facility. 

That led to Hull 1. 

In 1998, we first started exploring the turbine options that ultimately led to Hull 1. We tried to establish a process that revolved 

Hull 2 is the largest wind turbine in New England and the first U.S. 

installation on a capped landfill. 

Sally Wright/PIX14862

The New England Wind Forum Is a Clearinghouse for New England Wind Power Information

In the midst of this increase in wind development activity throughout the region, including community-scale, offshore, and traditional 

wind farms, individuals and communities require independent and objective information to make educated decisions. Each development 

involves multiple stakeholders, each with a unique set of important questions and interests. 

New England Wind Forum — funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Powering America Program — serves as a clearinghouse for objective information on wind energy policy and development. Through its Web site and periodic newsletters, NEWF is 

designed to provide up-to-date information valuable to: 

• Individuals and organizations with existing or pro¬posed wind projects in their communities, interested in putting a wind turbine on 

their property, or with a general interest in wind energy

• Federal, state, and local legislators, policymakers, and regulators

• Energy educators.

We invite you to explore the resources provided on the NEWF Web site at www.windpoweringamerica.gov/newengland.asp.

Over the coming months, we will continually augment and update the Web site with a goal of making NEWF a comprehensive resource.

around sharing information with the community. We brought Jim 

Manwell of the UMASS Renewable Energy Research Laboratory 

(RERL) on board; it is important to have credible, independent 

analysis. We did site assessments, photo simulations, economic 

analyses, and surveys of residents’ reactions, and we presented all 

of them to the community. Everyone got on board. We took the 

proposed project to a town meeting, and it passed. After that, we 

put the project out to bid. Vestas won and had our turbine online 

by December 2001.
 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

Q. What decision-making process led to Hull 2? 

The people of Hull asked for more. It’s almost as simple as 

that. After watching the first turbine provide economic benefits 

to the town, both HMLP and ratepayers began to ask if we 

could do more. The first project was such a success that RERL 

had already written a “how-to” book about it. The significant 

question was not “if” but “where.” 

For the second turbine, we tried to follow the Hull 1 process as 

closely as possible. Again, we worked with Jim Manwell and 

RERL and focused on keeping the community informed. We 

spent countless hours polling community interest in location and 

sharing the results of our site assessments, photo simulations, 

and economic analyses. We circulated a newsletter proposing 

five or six sites for public feedback. We even offered to move 

Hull 1 and put the new turbine in its place. The landfill, which 

is where Hull 2 stands, was the favored location. After passing a 

town meeting vote, the HMLP commissioners solicited bids for 

foundation design and construction. Our relationship with Vestas 

helped us secure the necessary turbine and equipment for 2006 

installation. Even though we followed the same process as with 

Hull 1, it was easier the second time around. Our residents had 

practical experience living with a wind turbine. The people in 

Hull like wind turbines because we have one. They have practical experience with the noise and avian impacts, and it makes 

them want more. 

We will follow this same process for our offshore project; honest 

information leads to credibility.

Q. How has community acceptance evolved from Hull 1 to Hull 2 

and beyond? 

Community support is strong. We would never have considered 

the second turbine if it were not. In 2003, after benefiting from 

the first turbine, the town decided to expand on its history with 

wind power. Hull citizens voted to install up to two turbines on 

land and up to four in the water. We would have done more, 

but we are a “land poor” town. Some towns have NIMBY (not 

in my backyard) issues. In Hull, we have the opposite problem. 

Since it has been 3 years since the town approved the offshore 

wind turbines, the citizens are concerned that the project has not 

materialized yet. They want to know why their wind turbines are 

not up yet. I tell them our goal is to have steel in the water within 

2 years.

Q. Global supply has not kept up with demand for wind turbines 

in the past 2 years. How did you procure the Hull 1 and Hull 2 

machines, and do you think you could do it again today given 

changes in the turbine market? 

Reproducing our turbine purchases in today’s market would be 

difficult. We procured the first two machines through a competitive bidding process. We were fortunate that Vestas offered 

compelling bids. After Hull 1, the town had a favorable track 

record, which made turbine vendors more interested in working 

with us. Now that we are actively discussing what could be the 

United States’ first offshore wind energy project, turbine vendors 

are even more willing to work with us. There is a clear value in 

being first. We have been told that four turbines could be delivered in the first quarter of 2008 if we are ready for them.

Despite the turbine supply market, I think we would be able to do 

the first two projects again. With power price increases and high 

REC prices, I think Hull would make the same decision again to 

install the turbines. The economic benefits of Hull 1 are relatively 

small, but with the addition of Hull 2, the town now meets about 

13% of its annual usage with the turbines. 

Q. What are Hull’s plans for further wind development? 

For the past 3 years, the town has discussed the potential for up 

to four offshore turbines. The proposed offshore project will 

produce up to 100% of Hull’s needs. We hope this will help us 

continue to maintain stable rates. The Town of Hull hasn’t had 

a rate increase since 1996. At the moment, we are spending a 

lot of time on community outreach — the same process used for 

Hull 1 and Hull 2 — and providing information to ratepayers and 

political bodies to get feedback and build support. One of the most 

important items to involve the community in is site selection. This 

discussion is currently focused on Harding’s Ledge, about 2 miles 

off Hull’s main beach. Interestingly, Harding’s Ledge is currently 

a hazard to navigation (shallow enough to be exposed at low tide), 

so the Coast Guard would value the turbines there as a navigational aid. We think this location, and Hull’s limited capacity 

distribution system, could accommodate up to four turbines. They 

would each be either 3 or 3.6 MW, putting the project total in the 

12- to 14.4-MW range. We are targeting a 2008 installation, and 

we met our targets for the first two projects.

Making this project happen will take a lot of effort from many 

sources. It will also provide many valuable learning opportunities. 

Quite a few state agencies are interested in working with us on 

the permitting process in order to be involved in this first-of-itskind initiative. What this project will do most of all, however, is 

give people something to look at so they can arrive at their own 

conclusions.

Q. How do you expect the development challenges of an offshore 

project to differ from your land-based experience? 

The offshore project will be more difficult, and it will definitely 

be more costly. Of course, we feel that the better winds will more 

than offset the higher upfront costs. Still, as a small community, 

Hull is not able to fund this project with cash, as it did for the other 

two turbines. The offshore project will need additional assistance 

and financing. As the first to do an offshore installation, we are 

optimistic that financial assistance will be available. For example, 

we are currently working with the Massachusetts Technology 

Collaborative to fund the pre-development activities. In addition, 

we have applied for federal CREBs (Clean Renewable Energy 

Bonds). If awarded, this would give the project 16-year, zerointerest financing. Private sources of funding, including venture 

capitalists, have also approached us with interest in financing 

the project. We’ll consider all of our alternatives, but we need to 

make sure the economics make sense for the town. If our predevelopment studies and economic analysis suggest the project is 

not worth doing, we won’t present it to the town. Fortunately, we 

haven’t identified any fatal flaws or siting barriers. The project 
 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

is within the territory of the Town of Hull, in state waters. This 

should simplify the permitting process a lot, relative to the Cape 

Cod projects. We understand the soil and wind conditions. We 

need to do wave and geotechnical studies to determine the type 

of foundation required. Other municipal utilities have already 

expressed interest in purchasing any excess power. Other entities 

are interested in buying the renewable energy credits. We have 

strong public support. Last, and maybe most important, we hope 

we are in the right place at the right time. When you are first, 

options open up to you.

Q. Many communities in New England are exploring wind 

development. How can community leaders learn from 

your experience? 

Representatives from just about every Massachusetts community 

have visited the Hull 1 turbine. Now, more and more out-of-state 

communities are coming to look. We give them a good “show 

and tell” of the area, and people in town are always willing to talk 

about their wind turbines. This has been great for the community in terms of tourism and its economic benefits. We offer 

an example to follow, and we suggest that other communities 

contact RERL for assistance, as we did. Also, if you do move 

forward with a project, get a service agreement from the vendor, 

so whether or not you operate a municipal light plant, you don’t 

have to worry about keeping it running. Everything is covered and 

it keeps the blades spinning, which makes everyone happy. Also, 

the process can be daunting. Get your local politicians engaged. 

For example, Congressman Delahunt is enthusiastic about renewable energy and actively trying to help communities understand 

and pursue wind energy projects. Inspired by Hull’s efforts, his 

office is working with communities from Provincetown to Quincy 

to help them gain the benefits of our experience and collaborate 

to find creative solutions. My most important recommendation is 

for each town project to make sure it has a dedicated champion, 

committed to maintaining forward momentum. It is easy to say 

that you want a wind turbine, but another thing entirely to follow 

through. 

For more information, please see www.hullwind.org

Regional Wind Policy Update

MMS Takes the Reins on Offshore Wind Activity

The passage of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 gave 

the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) authority and primary responsibility for the analysis and 

regulatory oversight of renewable energy projects on the Outer 

Continental Shelf. As a result, MMS is now the lead federal 

agency for regulatory oversight of both the Cape Wind Project and 

the Long Island Offshore Wind Park. For each project, MMS will 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This summer, 

MMS extended the Cape Wind project public comment period for 

two weeks to allow all citizens ample time to submit comments. 

The comment period closed on July 28, 2006. According to an 

MMS press release issued on July 13, 2006, “the next phase in 

the Cape Wind review process is the preparation of the draft EIS, 

which is expected to be published in the winter of 2006 and will 

be followed by public hearings. MMS plans to issue a final EIS in 

the fall of 2007. A record of decision on the Cape Wind Project 

is expected in winter 2007.” The press release is located on the 

MMS Web site at: www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0713.htm.

Federal Wind Energy Incentives Update

The 2005 EPAct also created Clean Renewable Energy Bonds 

(CREBs). Available to government entities, cooperatives, and 

Indian tribes, CREBs are tax credit bonds that provide zerointerest financing to the project owner. The federal government 

provides a tax credit to the CREBs bondholder in lieu of receiving 

interest payments from the issuer. Each project interested in 

CREBs financing was required to submit its own application, 

due in April 2006. Reportedly, more than 700 applications 

– with cumulative financial requests in excess of $1.2 billion 

– were received from applicants nationwide, far exceeding the 

$800 million face value allocated by the federal government. 

Several community wind projects, including Lynn and Ipswich 

(Massachusetts) and Portsmouth (Rhode Island) submitted applications. Award announcements were being made as this newsletter went to press. 

Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Update

Rhode Island is the latest addition. As of January 2007, Rhode 

Island’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES) will join Renewable 

Portfolio Standards (RPSs) in Massachusetts and Connecticut 

as the major drivers of the extensive regional wind development activities underway (a similar policy in Maine is currently 

ineffective at simulating demand for new wind generation). The 

Rhode Island RES will require all load-serving entities in the 

state to supply 1% of their total electricity obligation from new 

renewable energy resources in 2007, increasing over time to 14% 

by 2019, in addition to 2% of their supply that may be met from 

existing renewable energy resources. Like other New England 

states, Rhode Island will utilize the New England Generation 

Information System (GIS) to verify compliance and prevent 

double-counting. Once the Public Utilities Commission certifies 

a generator as RES-eligible, its post-certification 2006 renewable 

energy certificates may be sold to Rhode Island-obligated entities 

for early compliance purposes. 

Changes to RPS eligibility need not address wind generation 

directly to significantly impact its prospects. Amendments, or 

even proposed changes, to RPS eligibility in the New England 

states can shift the renewable energy supply-demand balance, in 

turn driving regional Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) prices 

up or down, which directly impacts the revenues available to operating and prospective wind energy projects. Several such changes 

or proposals during recent months have destabilized REC prices 

or injected enough uncertainty into future REC prices to slow 

development efforts, including:

Connecticut: Legislation passed in May modified Connecticut 

RPS eligibility and compliance in several ways. First, the law 

tightens the definition of eligible biomass. Most notably, the new 

policy excludes all construction and demolition (C&D) materials 

from eligible fuel supply, with the exception of use at certain 

gasification plants. Projects currently certified for CT Class 1 
 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

that burn C&D materials will continue to be eligible through 

July 1, 2007. Second, the law alters the geographic eligibility of 

renewable energy generators, conforming Connecticut’s policy 

to the rest of New England, which relies solely on NEPOOL GIS 

certificates for RPS compliance. This second step will require 

renewable energy generators (including wind) in the portion of 

Northern Maine not served by the New England Power Pool, 

as well as New York and Canadian provinces abutting New 

England, to match REC imports with physical energy imports on 

an hourly basis to sell RECs to any New England RPS market. 

Previously, Northern Maine generators were eligible without 

requiring physical energy imports. Generators in New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland are no longer eligible, 

while previously ineligible New York, Quebec, Ontario, and 

Canadian Maritimes generators can now access the Connecticut 

RPS market. In general, these changes are likely to increase 

Connecticut’s Class 1 REC prices available to most New 

England wind generators, although the prospects for wind plants 

under development outside of the New England Power Pool are 

diminished due to import restrictions.

Massachusetts: The Massachusetts legislature considered 

several proposed amendments to its RPS during the 2006 

session. The first proposal would have allowed incremental 

hydropower generating capacity added to existing FERClicensed facilities since 1997 (so long as the facility became 

low-impact certified) and existing Massachusetts hydro facilities under 5 MW to qualify. The second proposal would make 

both new and existing biomass energy generators using stoker 

combustion technology eligible for the RPS. Existing facilities would need to be 20 MW or less. The Governor vetoed the 

hydro proposal, instead recommending that incremental hydro 

generating capacity added since 2005 should qualify, but that 

generation from small, old hydro facilities should not qualify for 

Massachusetts RECs. The biomass proposal was sent back to the 

legislature with the Governor’s proposed amendment to allow 

only new low-emissions stoker biomass plants to qualify. The 

Governor’s stated rationale was that allowing existing supply 

would flood the REC market, reduce prices, and not provide 

the incentive for new generation envisioned in the initial RPS 

legislation. 

In addition, other policy changes influence the quantity of 

non-wind, RPS-eligible supply likely to be developed, in turn 

altering the revenue outlook for RPS-eligible wind generators. Limitations on burning construction and demolition debris 

adopted in Maine and New Hampshire will increase the cost of 

fuel for biomass generators, and in some cases make proposed 

plants uneconomic. In Maine, LD 141 was amended in Spring 

2006 to limit the use of wood from construction and demolition 

debris, as an alternative to conventional fuels, in a boiler to 50% 

of total fuel by weight combusted on an average annual basis. In 

May 2006, Governor Lynch extended New Hampshire’s current 

moratorium on burning of construction and demolition materials 

through December 31, 2007. These changes are likely to reduce 

supply competing with wind to meet RPS demands, thereby 

increasing REC prices available to wind generators.

Other State Policy Updates

In Massachusetts, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

(EOEA) is currently developing two policy instruments that will 

impact the siting and feasibility of wind energy projects in the 

state. First, EOEA is drafting an avian and bat guideline, which 

is expected to provide principles for the study and mitigation of 

avian impacts of wind generation. Second, EOEA is also creating 

a model municipal bylaw, which will be offered as a framework 

for communities to consider when evaluating and siting wind 

energy generators. 

This summer, the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF) 

requested a second round of proposals under its Project 100 

initiative. Round II proposals are due December 20, 2006. All 

relevant documentation is posted on the CCEF Web site at www.

ctcleanenergy.com/investment/Project100.html : the revised, 

final Round II Request for Proposal; the revised, final Standard 

Electricity Purchase Agreement; and the firm proposal due date. 

As developed by the Connecticut legislature, Project 100 requires 

the state’s utilities to enter into long-term contracts (minimum 

10 years) with not less than 100 MW of Class 1 renewable energy 

generating facilities receiving CCEF support. These utility 

contracts will include a price premium of up to $55/MWh. To 

qualify, projects must have entered service after July 1, 2003 

and have a nameplate capacity of at least 1 MW. Last summer, 

the Connecticut legislature limited Project 100 contract eligibility to in-state projects. This reduces the program’s potential 

to encourage regional wind development, but it may create new 

incentive for community-scale projects in Connecticut. Through 

Round 2, CCEF has the potential to contract with up to 85 MW of 

renewable generation.

On January 12, 2006, Rhode Island Governor Carcieri announced 

a plan to provide 15% of the state’s total electricity demand with 

in-state wind power. The first stage of this program, RIWINDS, 

is already under way and includes a feasibility study of potential wind power sites statewide. Rhode Island hopes to match 

viable sites with wind developers and local businesses that may 

benefit from the opportunity to purchase long-term power at a 

fixed price. To administer the program and other strategic energy 

initiatives, the Governor created a Chief Energy Advisor position 

and appointed former Rhode Island Economic Development 

Corporation senior project manager Andrew Dzykewicz to fill 

it. In September, the Governor announced his interest in 

increasing and accelerating both the RIWINDS goal and the 

state’s Renewable Energy Standard. In addition, the Rhode Island 

legislature passed the Energy Efficiency Management Act, which 

envisions a potentially significant role for renewable energy. 

Notably, the Act requires the Rhode Island utility to incorporate 

renewable energy into its system reliability and least-cost 

procurement planning.

On June 1, 2006, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed legislation setting a “goal” (as opposed to the “requirement” established 

by other New England states) of 10% new renewable energy 

by 2017. The law suggests that Maine utilities enter long-term 

contracts with new renewable capacity generating capacity to 

fulfill the goal. The law authorizes the PUC to direct the utilities 
 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

to enter long-term contracts of up to 10 years. The law does not, 

however, require the utilities to purchase or retain the renewable 

energy certificates associated with this renewable energy generation. Therefore, energy obtained by Maine utilities under longterm contracts could satisfy the new legislation, while the RECs 

are nonetheless sold to meet RPS requirements in other New 

England states. As a result, this legislation appears unlikely to 

increase the amount of wind generation in the region, although 

it may aid in financing wind generation under development to 

meet other purposes.

In addition, the state’s Land Use Regulation Commission 

(LURC), which is the primary permitting authority for 

many Maine wind projects, is in the process of updating its 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The last update to the plan in 

1997 included few references to renewable energy. At the time, 

LURC had experience with only one proposed wind energy 

project. During this comprehensive planning process, LURC is 

trying to prepare for a dramatic increase in wind-related requests. 

Revisions to the comprehensive plan, which includes a dedicated 

energy chapter, will guide LURC’s decisions on wind development for the next decade.

During its 2006 session, the Vermont legislature created a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) framework and simultaneously 

fashioned a “sustainably priced energy enterprise development” 

(SPEED) program to help achieve it. The Vermont statute would 

require that the Public Service Board (PSB) implement an RPS 

in 2013 if each retail electricity provider in the state were unable 

to supply its total incremental energy growth between 2005 and 

2012, up to a cap of 10% of load, from qualifying renewable 

resources. The PSB would review the program’s progress in 

2012. Until then, the program would neither require the purchase 

of RECs nor track year-by-year progress toward the 2012 goal. 

Vermont has one of the most aggressive energy efficiency 

programs and budgets (per capita) in the nation. As a result, 

Vermont may experience little or no load growth – and therefore 

little demand for new renewable resources – during the 2005 to 

2013 period. Nonetheless, the SPEED program is designed 

to “encourage retail electricity provider sponsorship and 

partnerships in the development of renewable energy projects.” 

Further, the legislation encourages Vermont utilities to “secure 

long-term contracts for renewable energy that are anticipated to be 

below the long-term market price, over the lives of the projects.” 

Regional Wind Development Update

For more information and a map showing regional development 

activity and operating projects, see the Projects in New England

(www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_projects.asp) page of the 

New England Wind Forum Web site.

Vermont

On July 17, 2006, the East Mountain Project, a 6-MW project 

proposed for an abandoned U.S. Air Force radar base, was denied 

its Section 248 Certificate of Public Good by the Vermont Public 

Service Board (PSB). In its decision, the PSB said that insufficient 

evidence had been presented to prove that the turbines would not 

harm local populations of bats and migratory birds. Specifically, 

the PSB cited the failure to conduct pre-construction radar studies. 

Notably, the PSB disagreed with a hearing examiner’s earlier 

recommendation that the project should be denied based on its 

aesthetic impact on the region. The project developer, East Haven 

Wind Farm, filed a motion to reconsider with the PSB on July 26. 

This motion was denied by the PSB on August 31. 

Following the East Mountain Project decision, Catamount Energy 

Corporation abandoned further development of the 45- to 50-MW 

Glebe Mountain Wind Energy Project in Londonderry. In 

addition to the East Mountain decision and failure of the project 

to garner sufficient local support, Catamount also cited the cost 

and complexity of complying with rules recommended by a 

Governor’s Commission on Wind Regulatory Policy.

After reviewing the Section 248 permit application of UPC Wind 

Management’s 52-MW Sheffield Wind Farm, the Department of 

Public Service (DPS) submitted testimony opposing the project. 

The DPS commented that the initial proposal was inconsistent 

with the Northeast Kingdom’s regional development plan, the 

scale of the project would be out of character with the surrounding 

area, and the project (as proposed) would have an undue adverse 

aesthetic impact on a nearby private school and state park. In 

response to this feedback and to issues raised by other interested parties, UPC recently announced several project revisions. 

First, the proposed project was reduced from 52 MW to 40 MW, 

comprised of 16 2.5-MW turbines instead of 26 2-MW turbines, 

allowing for a separation greater than half a mile between every 

turbine and the nearest neighboring building and intended to 

reduce noise and visual impacts. In addition, UPC offered a plan 

to reduce necessary road construction and wetland impacts. The 

PSB, which holds permitting authority, has yet to rule on the 

project’s application for Certificate of Public Good.

In Searsburg, PPM Energy has purchased the Deerfield Wind 

Energy Project development rights from enXco. This proosed 

expansion of the existing Searsburg Wind Energy Facility, 

uniquely located in the Green Mountain National Forest, is 

expected to add between 30 and 45 MW of generating capacity. 

PPM aims to complete permitting by the end of 2007 and if 

successful hopes to have the project online in 2008.

New Hampshire

At the urging of local residents, the New Hampshire Site 

Evaluation Committee has agreed to conduct a formal review 

of the 24-MW CEI New Hampshire Wind Energy Project in 

Lempster. The Site Evaluation Committee typically reviews 

projects of 30 MW and larger; this is the committee’s first 

renewable energy project review. The review process began in 

September 2006 (following CEI’s August 29 filing) and could 

take up to 9 months.

In February 2006, Loranger Power Generation Corp. commenced 

operation of three out of the four used 350-kW wind turbines 

from California. In early July, however, the project suffered a 

major setback when vandals severed the cables used to raise and 

lower the turbines, toppling and destroying one and severely 

damaging the other two. Loranger Power Generation indicated 

its intent to repair these damaged turbines and install the fourth 

turbine in the near future. 
 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

Maine

UPC Wind Management’s Evergreen Wind Farm is under 

construction in Mars Hill. The 42-MW project, consisting of 

28 GE 1.5-MW turbines, is expected to be operational by the 

end of the year.

Maine Mountain Power, a joint development effort between 

Endless Energy and Edison Mission Energy, submitted its permit 

application to Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) 

in December 2005 for the 90-MW project on Redington and 

Black Nubble Mountains. LURC held public hearings in early 

August and is expected to issue a decision later this year. Topics 

raised at the hearings included the project’s energy and environmental benefits, potential aesthetic impacts, and proximity to the 

Appalachian Trail.

As this issue went to press, TransCanada filed permit applications with LURC for the 130-MW Kibby Wind Power Project

in the Boundary Mountains. This project is the successor to the 

Kenetech project, proposed and approved in the early 1990s but 

abandoned after Kenetech’s bankruptcy. If successful, construction would begin in Fall 2007. In late 2005, LURC granted a 

permit to install eight meteorological towers in Kibby and Skinner 

townships. 

In Aroostook County, Horizon Wind Energy and Linekin Bay 

Energy have erected met towers and are collecting wind data 

for the proposed 500-MW Aroostook County Wind Project. 

The company has also commenced the study of a new transmission line that would connect the project, which is in the Northern 

Maine ISA territory, to the New England ISO. With the new transmission line, the project could sell its power and renewable energy 

certificates to the New England market.

Community-scale wind development is also being pursued in 

Maine. Competitive Energy Services and the town of Freedom are 

investigating the feasibility of a roughly 4.5-MW Freedom Wind

Project. In June 2006, town residents voted in favor of erecting 

three turbines on Beaver Ridge.

Massachusetts

 During 2006, Massachusetts has seen the completion of two 

single-turbine projects, while construction has commenced on the 

state’s first wind farm. In late April, Jay Cashman Inc. erected 

the Massachusetts Maritime Academy’s (MMA’s) 660-kW 

Vestas V-47 on its Buzzards Bay campus. This is the first stateowned wind energy project in Massachusetts, funded by the 

Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Trust and the Department 

of Capital Asset Management. The project is expected to provide 

more than 25% of MMA’s electricity purchases. 

In May, the Town of Hull commissioned its second commer­cialscale wind turbine. Hull Wind 2, the first wind turbine in the 

nation to be erected on a closed landfill, has a nameplate capacity 

of 1.8 MW and is the town’s second turbine purchase from Vestas. 

A conversation with John MacLeod, the driving force behind 

Hull’s wind energy success, is featured in this issue’s Perspectives

segment. MacLeod’s next plans involve an offshore project.

Eight years after commencing the development effort, site 

preparation and foundation construction has finally begun at 

the Berkshire Wind Project on Brodie Mountain in Hancock. 

Project developer Distributed Generation Systems expects the 

ten-turbine, 15-MW project to be operational in mid-2007. 

However, late this fall, the project was sued in U.S. District Court 

by Silverleaf Resorts, Inc., the developer of condominiums on 

an adjacent Brodie Mountain Ski Area property. The suit claims 

that Berkshire Wind’s contractors trespassed and cleared trees 

from the property and that the turbines constitute an “aesthetic 

nuisance” to the property Silverleaf purchased in July 2004, after 

the wind project had received its building permits. The suit, which 

seeks to relocate five of the turbines, introduces a further delay.

Also in the Berkshires, in the towns of Florida and Monroe, 

the planned 30-MW Hoosac Wind Energy Project awaits the 

resolution of an appeal to the Superseding Order of Conditions, 

the primary permit granted in 2005 by the state’s Department 

of Environmental Protection. The appeal, targeting a number 

of technical and procedural points, was filed by a small group 

of local citizens and may be ruled on by the end of 2006. Early 

in 2006, project developer enXco sold the project development 

rights to PPM Energy, the second largest wind power asset owner 

in the United States. If the appeal is rejected, PPM expects the 

project to be operational in late 2007 or the first half of 2008. 

In nearby Savoy, Massachusetts developer Minuteman Wind is 

collecting wind data and conducting an environmental impact 

assessment for its proposed 12.5-MW Minuteman Wind Farm. 

Project developers have filed with the FAA and plan to submit an 

Environmental Notification Form this fall. Public meetings are 

being held in Savoy to discuss zoning issues. The project targets 

operation in the first half of 2008.

Earlier this summer, the planned repowering of the Princeton 

Municipal Light Department (PMLD) wind energy project 

received its final legislative and regulatory approvals and resolved 

the last of its outstanding land use permit appeals. PMLD and 

project developer Community Energy Inc. must now acquire 

turbines for the proposed 3-MW project. 

The saga of the Cape Wind Project, a 130-turbine, 450-MW 

project proposed by Energy Management Inc. for Nantucket 

Sound, continues. In June, legislators agreed to remove a 

provision from the Coast Guard funding bill that would have 

Massachusetts Maritime Academy’s Vestas V-47 overlooks the school’s 

football and baseball fields. 

Bob Grace, Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC/PIX14863
 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

given veto power to the Governor of Massachusetts. Instead, 

authority to dictate the terms and conditions of the wind farm 

vis-à-vis navigational safety reside solely with the commandant 

of the Coast Guard. As discussed in greater depth under this 

issue’s Regional Wind Policy Update, the Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) has taken over as lead agency for Cape Wind’s 

Environmental Impact Statement. MMS plans to issue a final 

EIS in Fall 2007.

Offshore wind development activity in Massachusetts is no longer 

limited to Cape Wind. In May, Boston construction company Jay 

Cashman Inc. announced plans to begin development of a 120-

turbine, 300-MW South Coast Offshore Wind Farm across 

three sites in Buzzards Bay. Cashman has created a new wind 

development company, Patriot Renewables LLC, to lead the effort. 

The project filed an Environmental Notification Form with the 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), and public 

hearings were held in late July. EOEA has indicated its position 

that the project may not be permittable under current law. Cashman 

intends to seek clarification from the legislature on the allowable 

uses of the Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary, the enabling legislation for which appears to allow power generation.

In addition, a number of customer-sited, commercial-scale installations are moving forward throughout the state. The Gloucester 

corporate headquarters of Varian Semiconductor Equipment 

Associates has completed a feasibility study and is ready to secure 

engineering, procurement and construction services for the installation of 3 to 4 megawatts at its facility. Jiminy Peak Ski Resort

has also completed a feasibility study and plans to install a 1.5-MW 

turbine in 2007. Cape Cod Community College has completed 

an MTC-funded feasibility study, which appeared to reveal 

technical and economic viability. However, a Federal Aviation 

Administration determination of presumed hazard will require the 

college to relocate the project and use a turbine smaller than the 

planned 1.5-MW machine. The college is reviewing its options with 

assistance from MTC. In early 2006, the MTC Renewable Energy 

Trust made Round 1 Awards for the design and construction of 

renewable energy projects under its Large On-Site Renewables 

Initiative (LORI). Award recipients planning to use the funds for 

wind energy projects include Varian Semiconductor of Gloucester, 

Massachusetts, with a $575,000 award for the installation of two 

commercial-scale wind turbines, and Webb Research Associates of 

Falmouth, Massachusetts, with a $575,000 award for the installation 

of one commercial-scale wind turbine.

Connecticut

In late August, Exeter Energy installed a meteorological tower to 

gather wind data at a 73-acre site it leases from the Town of Sterling. 

The company currently operates a tire-burning energy facility in the 

industrial park and hopes to use the remaining space to develop an 

approximately 50-MW wind energy generating facility.

Rhode Island

Portsmouth Abbey School completed installation of its 660-kW 

Vestas V-47 in March 2006. The project, supported by a $450,000 

grant from the Rhode Island Renewable Energy Fund, is expected 

to reduce the school’s electricity purchase needs by 1.2 million 

kWhs per year. Portsmouth Abbey is the first school on the East 

Coast and one of only a handful in the nation to generate its own 

electricity with a commercial-scale on-site wind turbine.

After conducting more than 2 years of research and presenting 

results to the school’s administration, the University of Rhode 

Island Renewable Energy Club has realized the first physical 

manifestation of its efforts. A meteorological tower was installed 

in December 2005 and has been collecting data on wind speed 

and direction ever since. The project, initiated and fueled by 

strong student support, is anticipated to result in a 1.5-MW turbine 

that will power approximately 5% of the University’s load. The 

University is working with NORESCO to analyze the data and, 

if the data are promising, finance the construction of the turbine. 

In addition, the Narragansett Bay Commission recently initiated 

a feasibility study for an approximately 1-MW wind energy installation. The Town of Portsmouth successfully sought assistance in 

conducting a wind feasibility study and has applied for a CREBs 

loan to support an installation on one or two sites in the town. A 

flurry of recent community-based wind development activity is 

gaining momentum. More on these activities and the RI Wind 

Alliance in the next newsletter.

Created by Wind Power RI Project, School of Architecture, Roger Williams University,

 courtesy of Portsmouth Abbey Archives 

Before and after: a photo-simulation of the Vestas V-47 at Portsmouth Abbey School in Portsmouth, Rhode Island (left) and the completed 

installation (right).

Brother Joseph Byron/PIX14864
 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

Small Wind Corner

Several New England states have programs supporting installation 

of small (<50 kW) wind turbines. For more information on each 

state’s program, see the New England Wind Forum Web site at 

www.windpoweringamerica.gov/newengland.asp

In May 2006, Upper Cape Regional Tech in Massachusetts 

became the first North American location to host an AIRCon 

10. Manufactured in Germany, the AIRCon 10 is a direct-drive 

machine with a 10-kW nameplate capacity. The turbine, visible 

to those driving eastbound across the Bourne Bridge, is mounted 

on an 80-foot, tilt-up tower. Since the turbine is intended to 

serve as a teaching tool, the tilt-up design was critical due to the 

school’s requirement that students climb no higher than 6 feet 

off the ground.

The installation at Upper Cape Tech was completed as part of a 

week-long installer’s workshop co-taught by Ian Woofenden of 

HomePower Magazine, Tom Wineman of Clean Energy Design, 

and Richard Lawrence and Megan Amsler of Cape Cod SelfReliance. The installation was paid for by the MTC Renewable 

Energy Trust’s Small Renewable Initiative and from the 

Cape Cod Community College’s National Science Foundation’s 

grant that supports workforce training at the technical schools 

and in the region.

Vermont encourages small wind installations. The primary 

incentive for small wind is the Vermont Solar and Small Wind 

Incentive (http://www.rerc-vt.org/incentives/index.htm), which 

is accepting applications and has funding available. Vermont 

Technical College offers an anemometer loan program (http://

web.vtc.edu/users/jnk06190/VTALP/index.htm) to allow those 

considering installations to evaluate the winds on their property. 

In 2005, 10-kW turbines were installed at the Alburg Welcome 

Center and the University of Vermont’s Burlington campus. Small 

wind is also a valuable teaching tool. Over the past several years, 

the Department of Public Service has worked cooperatively with 

the following school districts, resulting in the installation of four 

10-kW turbines: Danville School District, West Addison School 

District, Mount Holly School District, and Dover School District. 

These turbines provide net metering benefit and serve a range 

of educational purposes. For more information on this program, 

see www.vtwindprogram.org/

Hot Topics

Demand Pressure Attracts New Entrants to U.S. Market

In mid-2006, the United States broke the 10,000-MW mark for 

installed wind energy generating capacity. Installations in 2006 

alone are expected to top 2,000 MW. U.S.-based GE Wind Energy 

and Danish manufacturer Vestas have dominated installations 

over the past 2 years. A national and global development backlog 

has led to a wind turbine shortage, driving up equipment prices 

for delivery in the 2006 to 2008 timeframe. Global wind turbine 

manufacturers have taken notice. In the past 12 months, international wind energy companies such as Gamesa, Suzlon, Siemens, 

and deWind have each announced their entry into the U.S. wind 

turbine supply market via new business relationships and planned 

or operational manufacturing facilities. At the same time, new 

U.S.-based wind turbine manufacturer Clipper Windpower 

has made its first commercial turbine product available to the 

market. Clipper recently announced a strategic alliance with BP 

Alternative Energy, including a long-term turbine supply agreement and the joint development of five U.S. wind energy projects.

Institutional Consumers Demand Renewable Energy, Look to Wind 

to Satisfy Long-Term Purchase Strategies

Increasingly, institutional consumers in New England — led 

by local colleges and universities — are purchasing renewable 

energy. Driven by student and faculty interests, many schools are 

making commitments that far exceed (in quantity or duration) 

the state-mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard. On June 13, 

2006, Harvard University announced its intent to enter a 10-year 

agreement with the Town of Hull for the renewable energy credits 

(RECs) generated by the town’s new 1.8-MW wind turbine. By 

purchasing Hull’s RECs, Harvard is supporting renewable energy 

generation and meeting the Massachusetts RPS requirement. 

As a result of elevated and volatile wholesale electricity prices, many 

large (and credit-worthy) institutional consumers in New England 

are also beginning to study whether their long-term purchasing 

ability can be converted into long-term price stability. By entering 

long-term, fixed price contracts, these consumers may be able to 

support the financing of new wind energy facilities and successfully 

create a hedge for a portion of their load for up to 20 years. 

Events

• Massachusetts Wind Working Group meeting dates are posted 

at: www.ceere.org/rerl/mwwg.html

• Schedules and details of the Mineral Management Service’s 

review of the Cape Wind project can be found at: www.mms.

gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/CapeWind.htm

Cool Links

In each issue, we’ll feature links to a few cool Web sites. 

Additional links will be added to the New England Wind Forum 

Web Site.

• The New England Wind Forum: www.windpoweringamerica.

gov/newengland.asp

• Environmental Protection Agency Green Power Partnership 

(EPA GPP): www.epa.gov/greenpower/

• See how the Environmental Protection Agency is challenging 

colleges and universities and their collegiate athletic conferences to achieve the highest green power commitments in the 

nation. In Summer 2007, EPA will recognize a Champion 

Green Power Conference, as well as the largest single 

purchasers, within each participating conference as 2006 Green 

Power Challenge conference champions. EPA GPP Collegiate 

Challenge: www.epa.gov/greenpower/partners/hi_ed_challenge.htm
10 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 2 — December 2006

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Number of Projects

500 kW – 5MW

5 – 50 MW

>50 MW

Number of Projects by State

Operating and Under Development

MA ME NH VTRI MACT ME NH RI VT

Operating Under Development

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Planned MW

500 kW – 5MW

5 – 50 MW

>50 MW

Wind Capacity (MW) by State

Operating and Under Development

MA ME NH VTRI MACT ME NH RI VT

Operating Under Development

Wind Stats

Source: Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC Proprietary Database

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy 

by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE National Laboratory

A Strong Energy Portfolio for a Strong America

Energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy will mean a stronger economy, 

a cleaner environment, and greater energy independence for America. Working 

with a wide array of state, community, industry, and university partners, the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

invests in a diverse portfolio of energy technologies.

For more information contact:

EERE Information Center

1-877-EERE-INF (1-877-337-3463)

www.eere.energy.gov

DOE/GO-102006-2379 • December 2006

• The Hull 2 turbine was the first to be installed atop a closed landfill, 

which presents some interesting engineering challenges. See a presentation on the installation of Hull 2 from James Manwell of the University 

of Massachusetts Renewable Energy Research Laboratory: www.ceere.

org/rerl/projects/support/mwwg/minutes/MWWG_Hull_II__Manwell_

May06.pdf

Next Issue: 

More project and policy updates, plus...

• The interaction of wind turbines and navigational radar

• Transmission and wind energy

• State and local zoning issues

• Federal incentives update: Production Tax Credit and Renewable 

Energy Production Incentive

• Clean Renewable Energy Bond award status

• Status of New England net metering rules.

New England Wind Forum – The Newsletter

Produced by Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC under contract to the 

Wind Powering America Program of the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory

Editor: Robert C. Grace 

Authors: Robert C. Grace and Jason Gifford

Subscribe at www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_signup.asp

Send news ideas, events, notices, and updates to Jason Gifford at 

jgifford@seadvantage.com

We Need Your Help

We hope you find this newsletter, detailing the status of 

nearly 100 wind projects and tracking policy changes 

and proposals as they occur throughout New England, to 

be the most thorough and current resource available. It is 

our goal to develop the New England Wind Forum Web 

site, established in 2005, into a comprehensive source 

of objective, up-to-date, information on a broad array of 

wind-energy-related issues pertaining to New England, 

including those of particular concern to communities in 

which wind projects are proposed. 

If you would find future issues of this newsletter useful 

and find value in furthering the Web site’s development 

as an independent one-stop resource for information on 

issues related to wind power and its impacts, we need 

your feedback. The New England Wind Forum Web site 

and newsletter are dependent on co-funding from New 

England states, and your personal comments can make 

a difference. In an informal sentence or two, please tell 

me why the New England Wind Forum is valuable to 

you, how the New England Wind Forum Web site or 

newsletter has helped you, and your suggestions for 

additions or improvements to make it more valuable. 

I would like to add your comments to a portfolio to 

present to state agencies when seeking funding. Your 

help is greatly appreciated.

Regards, 

Bob Grace (newf@seadvantage.com) and Jason Gifford 

on behalf of the New England Wind Forum