A Wind Powering America Project Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Moves 

Forward — What Does It Mean for Wind 

Power?

In early 2007, Massachusetts and Rhode Island announced 

their intent to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

(RGGI), a cooperative effort to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions, the major contributor to global climate change. 

The impending implementation of RGGI has raised questions regarding the treatment of wind power (and other 

zero-emission renewable energy generation sources) within 

RGGI, and how RGGI may impact representations of wind 

power and its benefits. Some have argued that emissions will 

be reduced to RGGI targets with or without the help of wind. 

Analysis reveals, however, that wind power is essential to 

meeting and surpassing the emission reductions required to 

meet policy goals.

RGGI now includes 10 Northeast states: all six New England 

states and New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. 

These states have set a cap on CO2 emissions from the electricity sector, along with a tradable allowance mechanism 

encouraging efficient (least-cost) compliance – a “cap-andtrade” regime. Through a multi-year and multi-stakeholder 

process, RGGI member states have negotiated and signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) committing them to 

state-by-state emission budgets (share of the regional cap) and 

have developed a Model Rule for implementing the cap-andtrade regime on a state-by-state basis. As the MOU commits 

participating states to cap CO2 emissions starting in 2009, the 

New England states are now proceeding to formally approve 

RGGI participation (if required) and/or undertaking state rulemakings to implement the commitments based on the RGGI 

Model Rule. Any generator subject to the cap must possess 

an allowance for every ton of CO2 it emits. Participating 

states plan to auction from 25% to 100% of their allowances 

to the CO2-emitting generators. Such an auction will result in 

revenue to be used for consumer benefit or strategic energy 

purposes, including energy efficiency investments, renewable 

energy, innovative energy technologies, or consumer rebates. 

In This Issue

•	 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Moves Forward — What

Does It Mean for Wind Power?... p. 1

•	 Wind Policy Update... p. 2

•	 Regional Wind Development Update... p. 4

•	 Perspectives... p. 7

•	 Technical Challenges... p. 9

•	 Small Wind Corner... p. 10

•	 Hot Topics... p. 10

•	 Wind Stats, Events and Cool Links... p. 12

•	 What’s Next from the New England Wind Forum?... p. 13

•	 New England Wind Forum Made Possible by New CoSponsors... p. 13

The rotor is 

raised on the 

GE 1.5sle wind 

turbine at Jiminy 

Peak Ski Area 

in the Berkshire 

Mountains 

of western 

Massachusetts. 

(Photo credit: 

Sally Wright, 

Renewable Energy 

Research Lab, 

UMass/PIX15160)
2 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

Allowances not auctioned will be allocated to existing generators. 

More information can be found at www.rggi.org. 

Wind developers need to understand the treatment of wind power

under an RGGI cap-and-trade regime, as well as how they may 

benefit. Marketers or utilities selling wind power, and customers 

buying wind power, need to understand how RGGI may impact 

their sales, purchases, or claims regarding the benefits of wind. 

Policymakers and the public may find the interaction of a cap-andtrade emission reduction policy in the presence of the renewable 

portfolio standards (RPS, or a minimum percentage of electricity 

sales required to be sourced from renewable energy generation) 

in place throughout the region to be less than obvious. So what 

does RGGI mean for wind power?

If unfamiliar with the details of RGGI, one might anticipate that 

wind power and other zero-emitting generation sources would 

be critical players and big winners under a CO2 cap and trade. 

What better way to reduce emissions than to introduce generation

sources that create no emissions? On the other hand, emissions

are capped whether or not more wind is added to the regional 

supply, right? Closer inspection, however, reveals a more complex

picture. (Continued on Web site.)

The full text of this article can be found on the New England 

Wind Forum Pollutant Emission Reduction Policies Web page 

at www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_policy_rggi.asp.

By Robert C. Grace, Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC

Wind Policy Update

Update on Federal Incentives and Policies for Wind

Production Tax Credit (PTC): The PTC, set at 2.0¢/kWh

for 2007 and available for the first 10 years of project life, is 

currently available for projects in service by December 31, 2008.

Figure 1. The impact of wind power on the RGGI CO2 emission cap 

0

40

80

120

160

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Reductions (mostly from wind) resulting 

from RPS policies adopted pre-2005 are 

assumed in meeting RGGI Cap 

RGGI "Reference" Case 

projection includes reductions 

from RPS provisions adopted

pre-2005* 

RGGI Cap

Business as Usual without 

any RPS Targets (est.) 

Where we need to get to...

Expert opinion regarding the 

reductions needed to avoid the most 

significant consequences of climate 

change are well below the RGGI cap. . . 

somewhere down here!

Modeling to set RGGI Cap assumed no 

reductions from wind or other renewables 

as a result of new or revised RPS policies 

MMTons CO2

Potential reductions in RGGI

Cap enabled by recently

adopted RPS policies (est.)** 

Compliance with newer RPS targets

(adopted from 2005 and therafter) from

mostly wind create the ability to either:

a) meet RGGI less expensively;

b) bank excess allowances; and/or

c) when RGGI Cap is revisted in 2012,

reduce the cap further towards 

ultimate policy objectives

* Reference Case includes incremental renewable energy generation used to meet RPS targets in CT, NJ, NY, MD, MA, PA, RI.

** RSP targets not considered in RGGI modeling are those established since 2004 by NH and DE, increases to initial CT, ME, 

 and NJ targets, and potential increases to MA targets.

In early August, the House of

Representatives passed an energy 

tax bill containing a 4-year extension

of the PTC containing a cap on its 

value for some projects; the Senate 

has yet to pass a corresponding 

provision, although extension 

proposals ranging from 3 to 5 years

have been under consideration. 

Please visit the Tax Incentives page 

of the NEWF Web site at www.

windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_

policy_tax.asp for more details.

Renewable Energy Production 

Incentive (REPI): The REPI, a 

cash production incentive for taxexempt entities and equal in value 

to the PTC, is authorized through 

2026, with funding subject to annual 

appropriation. Qualified facilities 

must be online before October 1, 

2016. Please visit the Federal

Grants & Incentives page of the NEWF Web site at www.

windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_policy_federalgrants.asp.

Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs): In 2006, the IRS 

allocated $800 million worth of zero-interest CREBs to governmental and cooperative renewable energy projects. An additional 

$400 million will be allocated in 2007. Applications were due

July 13. Examples of entities receiving last year’s CREBs

allocations for proposed New England wind projects include 

the Narragansett Bay Commission, the Town of Portsmouth

in Rhode Island, and the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative.

For a description and history of CREBs, please visit the Federal

Grants & Incentives page of the NEWF Web site at www.

windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_policy_federalgrants.asp.

Collaborative process on federal siting guidelines: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued interim guidelines

in May 2003 to assist its staff in providing technical assistance

to the wind industry to minimize the wildlife impacts associated 

with wind project development. In late 2006, a process compliant 

with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) was initiated

to explore a coordinated state and federal agency approach to 

wildlife and wind siting issues and include a broad group of 

stakeholders in the guideline development process. The FACA

process is expected to last approximately 2 years.

National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): On August 4,

2007, the House passed a 15% RPS via an energy bill amendment

sponsored by Representatives Udall (D-NM) and Platts (R-PA). 

In June, the Senate had considered but failed to adopt an RPS 

provision sponsored by Energy Committee Chairman Senator 

Jeff Bingaman (despite earlier indications of support from

50 Senators). This fall, a House–Senate conference committee

will take up these bills for consideration and determine the fate 

of a federal RPS.
3 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

State Policy Updates

Connecticut: As the 2007 legislative session closed, the 

Connecticut state legislature passed, and the governor signed, a 

comprehensive energy law titled An Act Concerning Electricity 

and Energy Efficiency (HB 7432). The Act boosts the Class 1

RPS target (their tier which includes wind energy) from 7% by 

2010 to 20% of load by 2020, making it the most aggressive 

renewable energy policy in the region. In addition, several other 

aspects of the new law support wind energy, including:

•	 Allowing utilities to meet their RPS requirements through

contract for renewable energy certificates (RECs) of up to 

15 years in duration, and requiring the Department of Public 

Utility Control (DPUC) to initiate a contested case to examine 

whether long-term contracts should be used to procure 

certificates.

•	 Expanding net metering to include facilities up to 2 MW in

capacity and allowing residential net metering to qualify for 

the RPS. 

•	 Introducing a property tax exemption for wind and other Class

1 renewables in one- to four-dwelling residential applications.

•	 Requiring the Department of Environmental Protection to

adopt regulations to implement the RGGI and authorizing 

allowances to be set aside for voluntary renewable energy 

purchases.

•	 Increasing the requirement for utilities to enter into long-term

contracts with Class 1 renewable energy generators from 100 

to 150 MW that receive funding from the Clean Energy Fund

and are located in Connecticut. While no wind was selected

for contracting under the first 100 MW, this requirement may

offer substantial benefit to Connecticut-based wind projects 

greater than 1 MW and interconnected directly to the utility

grid.

•	 Requiring the DPUC to adopt interconnection standards that

meet or exceed national standards. 

Maine: On May 8, 2007, Maine Governor John Baldacci created

a Task Force on Wind Power Development in Maine. The task

force will review the regulations that affect the development of 

wind power projects in the state and recommend any changes 

necessary to ensure that Maine has a balanced, efficient, and 

appropriate regulatory framework for evaluating proposed 

developments. The task force will also monitor advances in wind 

power technology, identify benefits and incentives that might be 

available to communities considering wind power projects, help 

developers find the most appropriate locations for their projects, 

and propose goals for wind power in Maine for 2010 and 2020 . 

The task force met for the first time on July 20, 2007.

Massachusetts: Massachusetts’ 2007 legislative session has also

included a number of proposals to revise the Commonwealth’s

RPS, with particular emphasis on proposed adjustments to 

hydroelectric and biomass facility eligibility. The most 

comprehensive proposal is from Senator Resor (Senate Bill

1977) and includes provisions for long-term contracts and 

eligibility of incremental energy from selected existing hydro 

facilities. The bill also proposes RPS target increases of 0.5% 

annually from 2009 through 2011 and 1% annually through 2020.

Omnibus Energy Legislation proposed by House Speaker

Salvatore DiMasi (House Bill 3954) proposes to reorganize the

Commonwealth’s energy and environmental agencies, redirect

and repurpose the state’s clean energy fund away from large-scale

renewables in favor of green buildings and residential initiatives, 

revise and expand the RPS to include certain existing power 

generating facilities as well as additional technologies, and create 

a Clean Energy Facilities Siting Committee to develop a statewide

list of public and private real estate that could be used for siting 

clean energy generating facilities. The Speaker’s bill appears to

be on hold until the fall. Revisions to the bill are expected, but 

no proposals have yet been released. 

In addition, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & 

Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) released a Model Amendment 

to a Zoning Ordinance or By-law: Allowing Wind Facilities by

Special Permit (see www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/doer/renew/modelallow-wind-by-permit.pdf). The EOEEA also has small wind 

bylaws under development. Subsequently, the office intends to 

look at clarifying the Department of Environmental Protection’s

Noise Guidance and Massachusetts Historic review process.

New Hampshire: During spring 2007, the New Hampshire

legislature developed and passed an RPS. The bill passed by a 

wide margin and was signed by Governor John Lynch on May

11, 2007. The new law requires qualifying Class I technologies 

(including wind) to provide 1% of New Hampshire electricity

requirements by 2010, ramping up to 16% by 2025. In addition, 

the state has established a stakeholder subcommittee to the 

Energy Policy Commission to develop a wind energy policy. 

Further, Senate Bill 140 was passed in June, initiating a process

for clarifying and streamlining siting renewable energy generation facilities. It also requires that the Public Utilities Commission 

work with utilities and others to study upgrading and expanding 

transmission in the northern part of the state to encourage renewable energy development.

Rhode Island: The state has completed the first phase of the 

RIWINDS program (announced in 2006), an initial technical

and economic feasibility review of the potential to meet 15% of 

the state’s total electricity consumption from wind energy. The

purpose of this initial study was to identify and prioritize the most 

viable sites for wind energy development in the state. The final 

report (available at www.energy.ri.gov/other/independence1.

php), issued in April 2007, suggests that this goal can be achieved 

through a combination of onshore and offshore wind energy 

development. Among the next steps will be for the state to identify 

the variety of sources that may be interested in and capable of 

financing such facilities and to establish a stakeholder process to 

review initiative objectives. (For more info, see the Perspectives

interview with Andy Dzykewicz, Commissioner of the Rhode 

Island Office of Energy Resources, on page 7).

Vermont: Governor Douglas vetoed the Vermont Energy 

Efficiency and Affordability Act (H.520) after it passed in the

House and Senate. The bill included a commitment to produce
4 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

25% of the state’s energy consumption from renewables by 2025;

increased the net metering threshold from 15 kW to 250 kW;

streamlined permitting of meteorological stations; further development of an RPS for Vermont; and a production-based property tax 

for wind projects. The property tax provision, whose calculation 

method and rate would be applied on a statewide basis, had so far 

been embraced by both government and industry. The Governor’s

veto was motivated by the inclusion of a Vermont Yankee nuclear 

facility tax proposal, rather than expressed opposition to the windrelated provisions, suggesting (as the veto was not overridden) 

that these provisions may be revisited in the next legislative 

session. 

Net Metering: As electricity price increases and volatility 

persist across New England, energy-intensive businesses, institutions, and governmental entities are evaluating the technical and 

economic feasibility of self-generation. Among the threshold 

issues reviewed are state-specific net metering laws. Net metering 

allows an eligible electricity-generating facility located on 

the customer’s side of the meter to offset the host’s electricity

consumption at the utility’s total delivered retail rates over at least

a month (in some cases, excess production can be applied against 

future month’s consumption). Energy produced in excess of onsite

consumption is sold back to the utility at wholesale electricity 

rates. Eligibility is defined by the kW capacity of the generator,

and it sometimes varies by generation technology. The combination of revenue certainty and compensation at retail rates helps 

end-use consumers justify the capital expense of installing onsite 

generation. The following graphic depicts the differences between 

current (solid bar), proposed (dotted outline), and recently adopted 

(solid bar) net metering thresholds applied to individual projects 

across New England. 

In addition to the per-installation limits depicted above, Rhode 

Island also has a system-wide cap on the amount of generation 

that can be net metered. The recently adopted system-wide cap is 

5 MW (up from 2 MW).

Regional Wind Development Update

Maine

In Mars Hill, the 42-MW Evergreen Wind Farm’s turbines

reached commercial operation in December 2006 and January 

2007, making it the largest operating wind farm in New England. 

The project, located on a ridge with several cell towers and a 

small ski area, is expected to generate approximately 130,000

MWhs per year. Although the project is located in the Northern

Maine Independent System Administrator territory, most of its 

energy and Renewable Energy Certificates are being sold into 

ISO-New England territory for consumption by New England 

customers. A few of the nearest abutters to this project have 

raised complaints about sound impacts. Their concerns have been 

reported in the press. For a primer on sound issues associated with

wind, see www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_issues_sound.asp.

On January 24, 2007, the Maine Land Use Regulation

Commission (LURC) directed its staff to draft a recommendation

to deny Maine Mountain Power’s (MMP’s) permit application

for a 90-MW (30 turbines at 3 MW each) project proposed for

Black Nubble Mountain and Redington Pond Range. This

countered the LURC staff’s December 2006 recommendation

to the Commission to approve the project. In response to the 

primary concerns of project opponents, on May 9 MMP requested 

that LURC reopen the record to consider a smaller, 54-MW

(18 turbine) project limited to Black Nubble Mountain. LURC

granted MMP’s request, and the revised proposal was filed on

July 9. A hearing on the Black Nubble proposal is scheduled for

September 19 through 21. MMP is the joint effort of Endless 

Energy of Yarmouth Maine and Edison Mission Group. Also 

before LURC is the Kibby Mountain Wind Project, proposed 

by TransCanada for Kibby Township in the Boundary Mountains.

TransCanada filed an application with LURC for a zoning change

and development permit on January 8, 2007. Public Hearings are

scheduled for October 2 through 4, and a decision is expected

by the end of 2007. Environmental and technical studies have 

been underway for more than a year. In early 2007, UPC Wind

Management announced the development of the 

Stetson Ridge Wind Project, a 57-MW facility in

unorganized territory in eastern Maine. An application has been filed with LURC, requesting permit

approval for 38 turbines. LURC has officially

accepted the application for review and held public 

hearings on August 7 and 8. Wind monitoring is

underway. Depending on the result and timing of 

LURC’s review, these projects could be operational

as soon as late 2008 or as late as 2010.

The Aroostook County Wind Project proposes 

the phased-in development of up to 500 MW of

wind generators in several northern Maine potato 

farming communities. Project developers Horizon

Wind Energy and Linekin Bay Energy have several

meteorological towers in place and continue to 

monitor wind levels to determine project viability. 

Land lease discussions with local farmers are

2000

100

2000

100 100 60 25

1000

25

1650

250

15

Current Threshold

Recently Adopted

Proposed New Limit

For RI Cities & Towns

CT ME MA NH RI VT

Figure 2. Comparison of current, proposed, and recently adopted net metering 

thresholds (kW)
5 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

underway. The study of a new transmission line to connect the 

project directly to ISO-NE is ongoing. Permitting is targeted 

to begin in 2007, with the project scheduled to be built in three 

phases between 2009 and 2012. 

The Passamaquoddy Tribe, through Tribal Energy Visions LLC

and Disgen Inc, is exploring the feasibility of two wind projects 

on tribal lands. Both projects are currently monitoring the wind

resource and completing feasibility studies. The project in northwestern Maine is currently planned for approximately 50 MW.

The other project, on tribal land near the coast, is expected to be 

a one- or two-turbine installation.

Community-scale wind energy development is underway in 

Freedom, where local developer Competitive Energy Services

has proposed the 4.5-MW Beaver Ridge Wind Project. 

Freedom residents voted in June to repeal the Commercial

Development Review Ordinance that limited the project’s

development. 

Massachusetts

The Berkshire Wind Project in Hancock, which has been

nearly fully permitted since 2004, continues to be delayed by

an ongoing dispute with neighboring landowner Silverleaf 

Resorts, Inc. Silverleaf, which intends to build luxury condominiums on its adjacent mountain property, has filed action in 

Federal District Court arguing that the turbines are an “aesthetic

nuisance.” In addition, Berkshire Wind is reevaluating the

number, type, and location of project turbines as a result of 

discussions with Silverleaf after a trespassing event involving 

the project construction crew. Construction of turbine foundations began in 2006, and the project should be fully operational 

in 2008.

The Hoosac Wind Project (New England Wind, LLC) received

its initial wetland permit from the Town of Florida Conservation

Commission in May 2004. After an appeal of this permit,

the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a 

Superseding Order of Conditions in November 2004, which

was subsequently appealed. Earlier this spring, the Division of 

Administrative Law Appeals recommended that the permit not

be issued, based on its assessment of the developer’s evaluation of wildlife habitat impact, as well as issues associated 

with access road culverts. Nonetheless, the DEP commissioner 

issued a final order granting the permit to the 30-MW project

despite the magistrate’s administrative opinion to the contrary.

The citizen group challenging the permit has now filed suit in 

Massachusetts Superior Court against the developer and the 

DEP.

Minuteman Wind, LLC continues to focus on its development 

of a 12.5-MW project in Savoy. The project has 3 years of wind

data and has conducted numerous environmental assessments. 

Access roads and turbine availability remain concerns, but the 

key issue is zoning. Minuteman has been working with the town 

on a bylaw permitting wind power projects and expects town 

action in Q3 of 2007.

In early 2007, the Princeton Municipal Light Department (PMLD)

contracted for the installation of two Fuhrländer 1500 turbines,

the first of their kind to be installed in the nation. PMLD, which

formerly worked in partnership with Community Energy Inc. on 

this project, will redevelop the site of the original Princeton wind 

project installed in the 1980s. The 3-MW PMLD Wind Farm

is expected to produce approximately 40% of the town’s annual

electricity requirements. The town, which received final approvals 

for the project in July 2006, has commenced construction and 

expects to install the turbines in early 2008.

The 430-MW Cape Wind Project in Nantucket Sound has been 

under federal, state, and regional regulatory review since 2001. 

On December 18, 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial

Court issued a ruling affirming the May 2005 decision of the 

Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board to approve the

construction and operation of undersea transmission lines to serve 

the project. However, due to the first-of-its-kind nature of this

project, the review process has been characterized by procedural 

changes and delays. Minerals Management Service (MMS) – the 

federal agency responsible for reviewing offshore wind projects 

– has announced that the long-anticipated release of its draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), originally expected in 

early 2007, will be delayed until late summer. This is certain to 

delay the final EIS and final decision, which were previously 

expected before the end of 2007. Local regulators continue to

review the project as well. On March 30, 2007, Massachusetts

Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ian 

Bowles issued a Determination of Adequacy on Cape Wind’s

Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

A number of Massachusetts businesses and communities are 

actively pursuing the study and construction of one or more 

commercial-scale wind turbines. Jiminy Peak Ski Resort

Photo-simulation superimposing the planned new two-turbine PMLD 

Wind Farm on the site of the historic eight-turbine Princeton wind 

project installed in 1984. (Photo credit: PMLD/PIX15161) 
6 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

became the first to integrate wind power into its energy strategy 

when it completed the installation of a GE 1.5-MW turbine at its

Hancock facility in July 2007. The resort dedicated the turbine

in a public ceremony on August 15. Varian Semiconductor 

Equipment Associates has successfully identified and retained 

engineering, procurement, and construction contractors to install 

two Fuhrländer 1500-kW turbines at their Gloucester headquarters, with construction expected to begin in late 2007 or early 

2008. However, after Varian completed the necessary studies and

permitting to install the project, the City of Gloucester created 

a new ordinance that will require Varian to obtain additional 

approval from the city before it can proceed. After running into 

complications with the FAA over a proposed 1.5-MW turbine,

Cape Cod Community College is now evaluating the potential 

for a 250-kW to 750-kW installation, which could meet FAA

height restrictions. The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative 

(MTC) completed its third round of funding under the Large

Onsite Renewables Initiative (LORI). Six wind projects, totaling

approximately 5.5 MW, were among 16 projects receiving design

and construction grant funding. An additional 10 Massachusetts 

wind projects were awarded funds to conduct feasibility studies. 

To view the schedule and download the LORI application, please

visit www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/large_renewables.htm.

A number of local community-sponsored projects are in various 

stages of feasibility analysis and planning for the construction 

of one or more wind turbines on municipal land. Most of them 

are participating in the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust 

Community Wind Collaborative (CWC), where MRET pairs

each community with a group of technical consultants and funds 

technical, environmental, and economic feasibility analyses. 

The majority of participating municipalities are on Cape Cod. 

Eastham, Falmouth, Fairhaven, Lynn, and Orleans have 

completed their respective feasibility studies, including installing 

meteorological towers to measure the wind resource characteristics. Eastham is considering a four-turbine installation, although 

matters related to the necessity of a new municipal bylaw are 

likely to delay the required town meeting vote into 2008. On May

15, 2007, the Town of Fairhaven held a special town meeting, 

during which it authorized the selectmen to negotiate a land 

lease and otherwise proceed with selected project developer CCI 

Energy for the installation of two turbines (approximately 3 MW)

at the wastewater treatment facility. The town also expects to 

negotiate a Power Purchase Agreement with the project. After an 

initial attempt to build a 1.5 MW turbine was turned down by the

FAA due to height and radar interaction issues, the City of Lynn

has secured FAA approval to erect a 500- to 600-kW turbine.

Managers of the regional wastewater treatment facility are now 

examining equipment and installation contractor options. Orleans

had hoped to complete its project during the 2006 construction 

season. However, issues such as the complexity of development on a watershed slowed the process. The town received its 

Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA) permits 

on April 20, 2007. The Orleans Renewable Energy Committee 

hopes to issue an RFP for assistance from a private developer by

the end of August 2007. Construction bids for 2008 are likely.

Several CWC communities, including Brewster, Kingston, 

Mattapoisett, Rockport, Scituate, and Old Rochester Regional 

High School (Marion, Mattapoisett, and Rochester) currently 

have technical and economic feasibility studies under way. Many 

other CWC communities are monitoring their wind resource with

a meteorological tower. Evaluation of a wind turbine on municipally owned land in Harwich was shelved due to FAA concerns.

Additional information on the communities participating in the 

Community Wind Collaborative is available at http://masstech.

org.

Dozens of other community-sponsored wind projects in 

Massachusetts are at various stages of consideration. Some are in 

towns with municipal electric companies that are not part of the 

CWC.

In addition to community-specific initiatives, the Massachusetts 

Water Resources Authority (MWRA) is investigating the

possibility of siting wind turbines at Deer Island, as well as other 

Authority locations. MWRA staff is preparing an update for its

board of directors on the potential cost and schedule of installing a 

wind turbine at Deer Island. MWRA has received a height-related

approval from the FAA sufficient to construct an approximately

250-kW turbine on Deer Island. However, the project remains on

hold pending FAA determination of the potential impact on radar

(see www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_issues_interference.

asp for more information on radar interactions). The assessment 

of additional sites will focus on locations where MWRA has

significant continuous energy loads (e.g., Braintree-Weymouth

Intermediate Pumping Facility and Nut Island Headworks), which

could utilize a significant percentage of the output from onsite 

generation. 

New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Energy Facilities Siting Board has completed

a 1-year review of the Lempster Windfarm in Lempster and

has granted the project the last of its required state approvals. 

Project owner Iberdrola hopes to begin construction before the 

end of summer 2007 and expects the project to come on line 

sometime in 2008. In New Hampshire’s northern Coos County,

Noble Environmental Power recently announced up to 250 MW of

prospective projects under study, including the Odell Windpark, 

which could host approximately 100 MW in Odell Township.

This project is currently collecting wind data.

Rhode Island

After receiving one of New England’s few Clean Renewable

Energy Bonds (CREBs) awards from the U.S. Treasury’s firstround allocation, the Town of Portsmouth is conducting a 

detailed feasibility study of one or more megawatt-scale installations at its middle and/or high schools. The study is expected 

to take place during summer 2007. The funds associated with 

the town’s CREBs award must be consumed within 5 years.

The Narragansett Bay Commission – another CREBs award

winner – is proceeding with the technical evaluation of a single 

megawatt-scale turbine.
7 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

Vermont

On August 8, the Vermont Public Service Board granted UPC

Wind’s 40-MW Sheffield Wind Project a Certificate of Public 

Good. This project, consisting of 16 of Clipper Wind’s 2.5-MW

Liberty turbines, had been reduced from 52 MW in response to

feedback from the local community and state agencies. UPC Wind

worked with the Agency of Natural Resources to address potential issues with birds and bats; UPC Wind has already completed

several studies and has committed to operating the project in a 

manner that should further reduce potential impacts to birds and 

bats. In addition, 2,700 acres surrounding the project will be 

conserved as bear habitat. The project is targeting operation in 

2008. At the request of the Public Service Board, the Deerfield 

Wind Energy Project – an expansion of the existing Searsburg 

Wind Farm – has resubmitted its proposal to the board. This

project, located in the Green Mountain National Forest, has been

developed through an extensive collaborative process. Project 

developer PPM Energy, recently purchased by Iberdrola, has 

submitted a Special Use Application to the U.S. Forest Service.

The permitting process is expected to continue through 2008. The

project’s targeted online date is late in 2009. In January 2007,

Noble Environmental Power announced plans to develop 50 MW

near Grandpa’s Knob, on the border between West Rutland and

Castleton. Still in the early stages of project exploration, Noble 

is negotiating with local landowners for control of the proposed 

site and plans to begin measuring the wind resource later in 2007. 

Noble has applied to the Public Service Board to install meteorological towers to measure the wind resource. The application is 

pending at this time.

Connecticut

Exeter Energy LP continues to collect wind data and evaluate the 

feasibility of building up to 50 megawatts adjacent to the Sterling 

industrial park it currently occupies. A meteorological tower was 

erected in August 2006 to collect wind data. Exeter Energy may 

lease up to 73 acres from the Town of Sterling and hopes to site

25 to 35 turbines. Permitting and operation timeframes have not

yet been released.

Perspectives: Andrew Dzykewicz, 

Commissioner, Rhode Island Office of Energy 

Resources

Our smallest state, Rhode Island has few native energy sources 

and high energy prices. After its legislature passed an aggressive 

renewable energy standard, Governor Carcieri established the 

RIWINDS program, with its goal of meeting 15% of the state’s 

electricity demand with wind energy from within the state. As the 

Governor’s energy right-hand man, Andy Dzykewicz has taken 

the helm of the newly formed Office of Energy Resources as the 

primary architect of this vision, recently rechristened RI Energy 

Independence 1 to reflect the mission behind the goal. With 

roots in the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation 

and the Quonset Point industrial park, where he developed the 

park’s power plant, Andy is applying his 40 years of experience 

in energy engineering, economics, and development to reshaping 

Rhode Island’s energy landscape. 

The full text of this interview can be found at 

www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_interviews.asp.

Q. RI Energy Independence 1 is a departure from historic wind 

energy development efforts in the region. How was the concept 

developed, and what was its motivation? 

The concept was born out of the Governor’s desire to harness

renewable energy to meet a significant portion of the state’s needs.

There are a number of motivations: price stability, energy independence, economic development, and environment. We realize

our coastal location gives us a great wind resource, allowing us to 

establish a goal of getting 15% of the state’s electricity demand

from local wind energy. But we’ve seen how the typical developer approach – finding a single site and forging ahead even in 

the face of stiff resistance – has yielded limited success in New 

England. So we opted for a radical departure: the public sector, 

through the RI Energy Independence program, will identify a 

number of feasible sites and then proceed with the locations that 

are consensus driven and therefore most likely to succeed. We

also recognize the economic development potential from this type 

of development: jobs to build projects, but also luring companies 

in the wind energy field to locate and expand within the state. We

also expect increased electric price stability to help make Rhode 

Island more attractive to current and future businesses.

Q. What barriers does this program seek to overcome? How does 

this approach deal with these barriers differently than the 

traditional development approach?

The two biggest barriers we’ve seen in New England are identification and approval of project sites that are acceptable to local 

residents, environmental stakeholders, and project owners, and 

attracting financing in our restructured electricity market where 

few credit-worthy buyers are willing to enter the kind of long-term 

contracts that capital-intensive wind generators need to be costcompetitive. We’ve also seen that when projects are built, often

the local ratepayers have not received the benefits. 

This program attempts to reduce and address the siting challenges by building consensus around a few sites that meet societal 

goals, rather than linking the entire program’s success to a single

location regardless of its local acceptance. Credit-worthy entities 

offering contracts of 15 years or longer can reduce developer risk 

substantially, lowering the cost of energy and increasing the likelihood of completing a project. 

Q. How do current bills to establish a Rhode Island Power 

Authority fit in? 

A proposed power authority is envisioned to fill the gap where 

the market is currently not working for large-scale development 

by enabling long-term contracting and financing. Both the House

and Senate are considering bills to establish a Rhode Island 

Power Authority. The bills would accomplish four things. First,

they would establish a Power Authority and governance structure 

– including Board of Directors. Second, the Authority would

have the ability to enter long-term contracts. Third, the Authority 

would have the ability to issue long-term bonds to finance powergenerating projects. These would be strictly revenue bonds, not 

general obligation bonds, so each project investment is to be 
8 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

evaluated and stand on its own. Lastly, the bills would consolidate

all of Rhode Island’s funds for renewable energy development to

a single agency. This would put under one roof the Renewable 

Energy Fund, the Renewable Energy Development Fund, as well

as Funds from auction of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

(RGGI) allowance allocations, emissions offsets, and FCM

payments.

Because the power authority would have the ability both to

issue bonds and to enter long-term contracts, it would be able to 

capture wind generated electricity at fixed prices that are based on 

long-term project financing costs and not on expected long-term 

electricity market price trends. Of course, any eventual power 

authority would be only one of several ownership and financing 

options present in the market. The state would seek to capitalize 

on its abilities but would expect ample additional competition in 

the market.

Editors’ note: shortly before press time, the proposed Power 

Authority Bill was not passed by the legislature; the impact on 

the overall plan is yet to be determined. 

Q. What did the results of the preliminary RI Winds study reveal 

about the ability of the plan to meet 15% of the state’s electric 

load from in-state wind? What needs to happen to meet this 

goal?

The Phase 1 Siting Study revealed that Rhode Island has five 

times as much feasibly developable wind resource area, between 

onshore and offshore locations, than needed to meet our goals. 

To meet a 15% target, most of the wind development would need 

to be offshore because of the state’s limited available land and

because the winds are much better offshore. There are advantages 

to being a small state in meeting such an aggressive target. With

an annual average state load of approximately 1000 MW, we need

about 150 average MW – corresponding to roughly 450 MW of

wind turbine capacity – a more feasible target than if we had a 

larger load.

The study identified no permitting “show stoppers” among the 

selected locations. This means we have a stable of viable sites for 

local stakeholders to choose from. Of course, we understand that 

there will be important issues to discuss and investigate further, 

but at this time no obvious permitting barriers have come to our 

attention.

Q. How will Rhode Island address the topics that have delayed 

offshore wind development in Massachusetts?

In the typical approach, where a developer advances only one 

potential site, the tendency is to focus on the perceived ills of 

that site. Instead, we offer interested stakeholders the opportunity 

to play a significant role in narrowing the considered locations. 

We only need to come to agreement on selecting the best 20% of

most acceptable sites to meet our target. Along the same lines, the 

possibility of having a state-run power authority own the facility 

and/or purchase all of the output opens the door to create wind 

generation that is developed by, owned by, and creates benefits 

for Rhode Island consumers. This represents a dramatic departure 

from our current experience with wind energy, where the public 

perceives that most of the benefits are privatized.

Q. How has the Rhode Island public responded?

All of the feedback to date has been positive. The program objectives and Phase 1 results have been discussed publicly and are 

well received; there have been no adverse reactions. Of course, 

that may be because we haven’t picked a site yet. As we narrow

the process of considering specific sites, we anticipate more questions or concerns. But that’s what the stakeholder process is about,

to identify the problematic sites early and recommend a group of 

sites that are most likely to be successfully developed. Of course, 

it’s possible that no material resistance will develop, but based

on my experience, that seems unlikely. Based on feedback so far,

we remain cautiously optimistic that our stakeholder process and 

the overall approach will produce a broad consensus on sufficient 

sites to meet our targets.

Q. What do you see as the role of government versus the private 

sector in achieving these goals? 

The role of government is to address the barriers faced by the 

private sector. At the same time, Rhode Island wants title to the 

output to capture the long-term price benefits of these projects. 

The open question is how best to achieve private investment and 

public benefit. If the state is investing its natural resources, we 

need to receive the benefits locally. To capture the price and price 

stability benefits we believe we can achieve, we want the electricity produced to be sold to the state’s retail load-serving entities

- the utilities and non-regulated power providers - rather than into 

the regional electricity market. We can ensure this through ownership, or through contract. 

If the power authority is set up, it could seek proposals to either 

design, build, and operate state-owned generation projects, or 

instead seek proposals to design, build, finance, and operate 

privately owned wind generators. The power authority would 

enter a long-term contract for the plant’s output with the selected

entity, making payment sufficient for the development cost and a 

fair profit. The power authority would then offer to sell the power 

to Rhode Island’s retail load-serving entities, and sell any excess

to the regional grid. If this can work at today’s market electricity

prices, it will only be more competitive as time goes on. 

Q. Where does this effort go from here? What is the process to 

pare down the sites identified in the RI Winds study?

The next step is to assemble a local stakeholder group. We’ve

identified about three dozen individuals and organizations that we 

believe would make valuable contributions, some of which have 

already asked to be included. To be successful, the entire process 

will have to be open; to do otherwise would defeat the purpose 

of having a stakeholder process. We envision that such a group

could begin meeting this summer (2007), and continue as long 

as it takes, with the help of a professional facilitator who we’ll

hire to help organize and run the process. In the end, we envision 

the product of this working group to be a consensus document 

expressing the stakeholders’ opinions and objectives, which

would be included as part of an RFP for selected sites. We’re

not planning another study... that effort was systematically and

thoroughly completed in Phase 1. The time for study is over, the 

time to start developing our energy independence is now, once we 

decide where. 
9 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

Q. Now that a number of potentially viable project locations have 

been identified, what plans do you have to help facilitate the 

permitting process? 

The most significant contributor to successful permitting will 

be the consensus opinion of the stakeholder group because if it 

proceeds as hoped, the wide range of stakeholders with vested 

interests will be on board. Most of the sites are within state water, 

so permitting can be simpler, involving fewer agencies, permits, 

stakeholders, and issues than projects in Federal waters. The

proposed power authority bill could also contribute to the permitting process by including a provision to grant expedited permit 

review - but not relief from permitting requirements - to projects 

of the power authority. In this case, any state agency would need 

to treat an application related to the power authority in an expedited fashion. By placing the state, through the power authority

or otherwise, in the role of permit applicant, it sends a clear 

signal that the project is something that the state wants to see to 

successful completion.

Q. When do you expect the first projects to come on line?

This all takes time. Optimistically, we’re looking 5 years out,

but more realistically, perhaps 7 years. We want to be successful,

and we want to do it right. If it takes longer than that, I’d question

whether it would ever get done. This presumes, for larger off 

shore projects, about a year to conduct the stakeholder process, 

circulate an RFP and qualify one or more vendors. From there,

estimate 2 years for development, including state permitting (and 

federal, if necessary), and 2 years from beginning of construction 

until full commercial operation. To the extent that several smaller 

onshore sites are identified and financially viable, these may be 

developed on a shorter timeline. I don’t envision a request for

proposals process for on-shore, which would move along separate 

tracks.

Q. Will communities have both hosting and 

ownership opportunities?

Yes. In some cases community hosting and 

ownership will make sense. In other cases it 

will not. In general, we encourage communities 

to pursue small (one- and two-turbine) installations where they are economically viable, and 

we will assist those that are viable in any way 

we can. Another avenue that may make more 

sense is for communities to aggregate their 

power purchase requirements and financially 

support the construction of a single, larger 

project. This will enable scale economies to be 

reflected in both the project capital cost and the 

power price. Longer-term contracts for power

can help drive down prices, and a community’s

credit behind a purchase from the power 

authority could leverage the ability for the 

power authority to secure a strong bond rating 

to borrow at low interest rates. Each of these 

has the potential to benefit the community, 

depending on its role. 

Q. How can you ensure that some of the price-stability benefit of 

wind energy will accrue to Rhode Island consumers?

As a fuel-free resource, wind generators can offer fixed-price 

energy over long term. But if all of the output is sold to the grid,

then both Rhode Island and New England would benefit from spot 

market price suppression, but because Rhode Island is only 6% 

of the regional load, the benefits would be highly diluted. Price 

stability benefits go hand in hand with ownership or long-term 

contracts. If a community builds a project to consume the power 

itself, it will have fixed the price of that energy for more than 

20 years. If the power authority enters long-term contracts, then 

Rhode Island communities will get first crack at 100% of the 

price stability benefits. Given the significant Renewable Energy 

Standard demand, as well as the potential value of having longterm fixed price supply in the portfolio, we hope that much of 

this wind power can be sold to National Grid for the remaining 

standard offer customers. In that case, the price stability benefit 

would certainly be conveyed through regulated retail rates.

Technical Challenges

Sound

One of the concerns of project abutters is the potential impact of 

wind turbine sound. Because this issue has been raised, we’ve

added a primer on the sound impacts of wind energy on the 

NEWF Web site at www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_issues_

sound.asp.

Radar

Wind turbines, like all structures, can create interference with

military and navigational radar. The Department of Defense 

Figure 3. Map showing Rhode Island offshore Post Level 2 screening areas by wind speed 

(source: RI Winds Phase I Wind Energy Siting Study, fig. 3-20)
10 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

(DOD) recently announced that for a 25-kilometer radius around 

its PAVE PAWS radar installation on Cape Cod, there is a potential for wind turbine interference. DOD will require further study 

to assess wind turbine impact within this radius. Although the 

Cape Wind project falls just outside of this zone, several community-scale projects may be affected until site-specific impact and 

mitigation options can be studied. DOD has already concluded 

that the Town of Hull’s planned offshore wind installation will

not interfere with the PAVE PAWS radar. Radar interference

and mitigation have received increasing attention over the past 

year. NEWF has created a new Web page to track this issue at

www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_issues_interference.asp. 

The DOE Wind Program has developed a Web site on radar

and other wind siting issues, which can be viewed at www.eere.

energy.gov/windandhydro/federalwindsiting/

Transmission and Grid Integration

National Grid USA, one of the region’s largest transmission

utilities, has issued Transmission and Wind Energy: Capturing 

the Prevailing Winds for the Benefit of Customer, a report that 

examines wind-related transmission policies and makes recommendations for effective integration of wind generators into the 

U.S. electric system. You can find the report at www.dleg.state.

mi.us/mpsc/electric/capacity/energyplan/renewables/c3-3_NG_

wind_policy.pdf.

Small Wind Corner 

Net metering limits are on the rise across New England, creating 

new and better opportunities for small wind (see page 4 for more

information).

Federal Investment Tax Credit Bill Gains Momentum

In Washington, the House and Senate are considering identical

bills that would establish an up-front investment tax credit for 

the purchase of small wind systems for homes, businesses, and 

farms. The bill proposes a federal tax credit of $1,500 per 1⁄2 kW

of installed capacity. The proposed credit would have no cap and 

would be available for 5 years for all wind systems rated equal to 

or less than 100 kW in capacity. In addition, the bill would allow

the tax credit to carry over. In the event that using this credit puts 

the consumer’s taxable income below the minimum threshold,

the carry-over provision allows the unusable excess credit to 

be carried over to the next tax year. This essentially allows a 

consumer with a low annual income to take full advantage of the 

credit. Finally, the proposal includes accelerated depreciation of

3 years for small wind systems owned by commercial entities,

rather than a standard 5 years.

Vermont Company to Develop Home Wind Turbines

In 2005, one of the founders of Vermont-based NRG Systems 

established a new venture, EarthTurbines (www.earthturbines.

com), to develop and manufacture home-scale wind turbines. The 

company, based in Hinesburg, Vermont, is currently in the testing

phase with a 2.5-kW turbine.

Multi-Family Residential Housing Complex to Evaluate Feasibility of 

Onsite Wind 

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, through its Large

Onsite Renewables Initiative (LORI) program, has awarded

Harbor Point Apartments (a multi-family, mixed income, residential complex near UMass Boston) with a $40,000 grant to evaluate

the potential for onsite wind power using multiple freestanding 

micro turbines. Turbine sizes and designs from several manufacturers will be evaluated over approximately 5 months. Harbor

Point consists of nearly 1300 apartments that house nearly 3000

residents. The feasibility analysis began in June 2007 and is 

expected to be completed by November 2007.

Hot Topics

Big Vision and Steady Sea Breeze Take Small Town Offshore

While large, high-profile offshore wind farm plans in the waters

off of New York, Delaware, and Massachusetts labor forward, 

the small town of Hull, Massachusetts continues to make tangible

progress towards its goal of completing what could be the first 

offshore wind installation in the United States. In early 2007, 

the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative agreed to provide 

Hull with up to $1.7 million in low-interest loan support for the

project’s environmental and engineering studies – including

geotechnical evaluations, wind and wave measurements, and the 

pursuit of necessary permits. As of August 2007, these studies are 

well underway. Hull met in mid-July with the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers to discuss the project and expects to file its Expanded 

Environmental Notification Form by the end of 2007. With a

likely capacity of between 12 and 14 MW, the Hull project is far

smaller than the other proposals. Nonetheless, the town must face 

many of the same unknowns associated with siting, permitting, 

installing, and operating the nation’s first offshore wind turbines.

The Perspectives interview from the last NEWF newsletter

features a conversation with project proponent John MacLeod,

detailing the process by which Hull completed its first two wind

turbine projects and the town’s interest in going offshore. You

can download previous editions and sign up for the newsletter at 

www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_signup.asp

Wind Energy Serves as a Hedge Against Short-Term Volatility and 

Long-Term Price Trends

In late May, in an effort to stabilize the school’s electricity prices,

Southern New Hampshire University announced the successful

negotiation of a 15-year wind hedge contract with PPM Energy. 

The contract-for-differences style hedge for 15 million kWhs per

year will be based on production from PPM’s Maple Ridge Wind

Farm in Lowville, New York. The Renewable Energy Certificates

(RECs) will come from one of PPM’s West Coast wind projects.

The combined cost of energy and RECs is fixed at 7.6 cents per 

kWh for the duration of the 15-year contract. On July 19, the

University hosted a seminar titled Developing Renewable Energy 

Hedge Contracts between Energy Users and Renewable Energy 

Developers. During the workshop, which was open to all interested parties, representatives from PPM and the University intro-
11 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

duced the concept of a financial hedge, discussed how to size a 

hedge and estimate its effectiveness at controlling electricity costs, 

and reviewed the hedge transaction from each party’s perspective,

including legal and accounting impacts. 

NStar Announces Wind Power Option

On August 1, NStar Electric Company filed for approval with 

the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities of an option for 

the Boston utility’s 1.1 million residential and small commercial

customers to purchase wind power equivalent to 50% to 100% 

of their monthly consumption, as well as for two wind power 

contracts. The program, which NStar hopes will be available by 

January 2008, is backed by 10-year, 30-MW contracts with the

Maple Ridge wind farm (jointly developed by Horizon and PPM

Energy, which is now owned by Iberdrola) currently operating in 

New York, and the Kibby Mountain wind farm being developed 

in Maine by TransCanada (expected online during 2009). Because

this program represents a departure from the current market 

structure and the role of regulated utilities in the state, it requires 

approval by the DPU in Docket DPU 07-64.

National Research Council Releases Wind Study

The National Research Council – whose members are drawn 

from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy 

of Engineers, and the Institute of Medicine – recently released 

Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, a report that 

provides analyses to help evaluate positive and negative environmental effects of wind energy facilities. The report outlines 

the state of knowledge and provides recommendations for future 

research regarding the environmental impacts of wind energy. 

This report is not a comparative study and does not compare 

wind’s environmental impacts to those of other energy generation

Photo simulation of proposed Hull Offshore Wind Power Project (Source: UMass Renewable Energy Research Lab/PIX15162)
12 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

facilities and does not consider the benefits created by wind’s

displacement of fossil fuel generation. The report is available at 

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11935.

Blade Test Facility to Be Built in Boston

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Partnership and the Lone

Star Wind Alliance in Texas received grants from the U.S.

Department of Energy to build large-wind-turbine-blade testing 

facilities. Both facilities will be on the waterfront to facilitate

transport of large blades up to 70 meters in length. Massachusetts 

plans to build its facility in Charlestown on the Boston Autoport,

a part of Boston Harbor with easy access to truck, rail, and ship

access. The testing facility will be built in 2008 and operational

in 2009. 

Wind Creates Jobs and Economic Development 

A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory presentation

highlights the economic development impacts of wind energy 

(www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wpa/econ_dev.pdf). This 

impact is evident within New England as the number of wind 

industry employers grows. New England is home to many wind 

power development companies, including early entrants Endless 

Energy Corp. (Maine) and Catamount Energy Corp. (Vermont) 

and companies that have shifted their focus from developing 

fossil-fuel generators, like Cape Wind developer Energy

Management, Inc. (Massachusetts). 

New wind project developers also call New England home. 

These include UPC Wind Management (Massachusetts), Noble

Environmental Power (Connecticut), Jay Cashman subsidiary Patriot Renewables (Massachusetts), Minuteman Wind

(Massachusetts), ENEL North America (Massachusetts), and

Tamarack Energy (Connecticut). The region is also home to 

wind turbine equipment manufacturers Distributed Energy 

Systems (Connecticut and Vermont) and Earth Turbines 

(Vermont) and blade manufacturer TPI 

Composites, Inc. (Rhode Island). Two of the 

foremost manufacturers of wind measurement 

equipment are Second Wind (Massachusetts)

and NRG Systems (Vermont). In addition, 

service-sector firms abound, with growing 

wind energy practices supporting regional 

and national wind development efforts in 

fields including engineering, environmental, 

consulting, finance, and law. 

Wind Stats

Wind development activities in New England

range from a small number of operating 

plants in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island to additional facilities under 

construction and a much larger “development pipeline” spanning all six states. Figure

4 provides an overview of the region’s wind

development status.

Events

The New England Wind Forum Web site maintains an up-to-date

calendar of wind-related events, from conferences and workshops to siting hearings, in all six New England states. Check the 

calendar frequently for the latest opportunities to attend industry 

and community forums and be involved in the wind energy 

dialogue.

The calendar is available at www.windpoweringamerica.gov/

ne_calendar.asp 

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.

•	 Slide show of wind farm construction: The Bangor Daily

News web site has a slide show featuring the construction of the 42-MW wind farm in Mars Hill in northern

Maine: http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/slideshow.

aspx?articleid=143176&zoneid=580

•	 Presentations from From Local to Global: The Rhode Island 

Model for Harnessing Wind Power WorldWide: This conference, held on April 19-20 at the University of Rhode Island, 

focused on the context and the financial and business models 

for developing a substantial portion of Rhode Island’s energy

supply from wind power. It featured the presentation of RI 

Winds Study results and status reports from 11 communityscale wind development efforts. Presentations from this conference can be found at www.windri.org/conference/content.html.

Figure 4: Status and capacity of New England wind projects by state (Source: Sustainable 

Energy Advantage, LLC)

Wind Project Status and Capacity in New England States

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250

Planned Seeking Permits Permitted/Under Construction Operating

Capacity (MW)

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

Maine: 42.1 MW

Massachusetts: 3.5 MW

Rhode Island: 0.7 MW

Vermont: 6.7 MW
13 New England Wind Forum — Volume 1, Issue 3 — October 2007

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-102007-2474 • October 2007

What’s Next from the New England Wind 

Forum?

Over the next several months, a broad range of new content will 

be added to the New England Wind Forum Web site. The Web

site and subsequent newsletters will provide the most detailed, 

objective information available on the important topics pertaining 

to wind energy in New England. Some of the new features will 

include:

•	 The impact of wind’s intermittence on reliability, the degree to

which backup generation is needed, and the impact and cost of 

integrating wind into electric systems

•	 Fossil fuel and emissions displacement

•	 An update on wind power economics in New England

•	 The latest on wind’s impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife

•	 Wind power’s impacts on property values.

New England Wind Forum Made Possible by 

New Co-Sponsors

The New England Wind Forum welcomes and appreciates

the support of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s

Renewable Energy Trust, the State of New Hampshire Office of

Energy & Planning, the Maine State Energy Program, and the 

Connecticut Clean Energy Fund. Together with funding from the

U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Powering America Program,

these new sponsors are helping to develop NEWF into a comprehensive source of objective information on wind energy matters 

throughout New England. 

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