Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 112

Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility

Wind Turbine Project

Feasibility Study

Prepared by:
City of Fall River
Veolia Water
and

Boreal Renewable Energy Development


with
Richard C. Gross, P.E., Inc.
Saratoga Associates

June 2008
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008
Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 5


1. Site Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 10
1.1. Background ................................................................................................... 10
1.2. Site Layout .................................................................................................... 12
1.2.1. Turbine Siting ................................................................................ 13
1.2.2. Abutters ......................................................................................... 15
1.2.3. Stakeholders................................................................................... 17
1.2.4. Wind Resources ............................................................................. 18
1.3. Energy Infrastructure & Consumption ........................................................... 25
1.3.1. Potential Wind Turbine Configurations .......................................... 26
1.3.2. Geotechnical .................................................................................. 29
1.3.3. Staging / Erection/Construction ...................................................... 30
1.3.4. Photo Simulation............................................................................ 31
1.4. Environmental Resource Assessment ............................................................. 41
1.4.1. Current Resources .......................................................................... 41
1.4.2. Reduced Regional Air Pollution from Wind Turbine ...................... 41
1.4.3. Permitting ...................................................................................... 42
1.5. Engineering and Interconnection Requirements ............................................. 49
1.5.1. Radio, Microwave and TV Interference .......................................... 49
1.5.2. Electrical Interconnection Plans...................................................... 49
1.5.3. Revenue Metering Modifications.................................................... 55
1.5.4. Operation of Wind Turbine Generator ............................................ 56
1.5.5. Cost Estimate for Electrical Interconnection of Wind Turbine
Generator ....................................................................................... 60
2. Economic Feasibility Analysis............................................................................... 61
2.1. Costs for Major Scenarios.............................................................................. 61
2.1.1. Capital Costs .................................................................................. 61
2.1.2. Operating Costs.............................................................................. 65
2.2. Benefits of Electricity Production .................................................................. 66
2.2.1. Benefits of Avoiding Utility Bill Charges ....................................... 66
2.2.2. Value of Excess Generation Sold into the Wholesale Market.......... 67
2.2.3. Protection from Volatile Electric Rates........................................... 70
2.2.4. Renewable Energy Certificate Revenue .......................................... 70
2.2.5. Forward Capacity Market Payments ............................................... 72
2.3. Analyze Financing / Ownership Options ........................................................ 73
2.3.1. Fall River WWTF Ownership......................................................... 73
2.3.2. Other Ownership Options ............................................................... 74
2.3.3. Grants ............................................................................................ 74
2.3.4. Tax Incentives ................................................................................ 74
2.4. Analyze Project Financials............................................................................. 75
2.4.1. Methodology.................................................................................. 76
2.4.2. Define Major Scenarios and Variants ............................................. 77
2.4.3. Financial Results ............................................................................ 78

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008


2.4.4. Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................ 83
2.5. Conclusions ................................................................................................... 87
2.5.1. Next Steps...................................................................................... 87
A. Wind Resource Assessment Methodology ............................................................. 90
A.1 Correlation between WWTF and New Bedford Regional Airport................... 90
A.2 Calculation of Wind Shear Adjustment .......................................................... 91
B. Avian Assessment ................................................................................................. 93
C. Endangered Species Review ............................................................................... 110

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008


0 Executive Summary
This study analyzes the feasibility of installing one wind turbine at the City of Fall River
Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) on 1979 Bay St, Fall River. The results of the
investigation determined that wind energy can provide the WWTF with a significant
opportunity for economic and environmental benefit to their operations. The analysis
determined that one 1.5 MW turbine with approximate installed capital costs of
$4,300,000 would result in a return of investment of 22.5% over twenty years on and be
cash-flow positive after 7.6 years. Significant findings regarding the project’s feasibility
are listed below:

Site Layout

· The WWTF site provides sufficient real estate and buffer area for the siting,
staging and erection of a utility-scale wind turbine.

· Various stakeholders exist in Fall River and Mt Hope Bay area that should be
included in future community relations efforts regarding this project

Wind Resources

· A 40 meter (m) tall meteorological tower was installed at Fall River WWTF during
the week of July 15, 2007 in order to collect wind speed, wind direction and
temperature data at select elevations.

· The average wind speed at 40m elevation from July 20, 2007 through October
22, 2007 was 4.37 m/s, and correlates adequately with New Bedford Regional
Airport wind speeds over the same period.

· Adjusting for long-term weather patterns it is estimated the average annual wind
speed at the WWTF to be 6.27 m/s at 80 meter elevation. This is very good for
Massachusetts.

Energy Infrastructure & Consumption

· The WWTF is served by two National Grid accounts.

· The primary account consumes an estimated 9,850,000 kWhs per year.

· The consumption is relatively constant throughout the year with little seasonal
variation. This type of load pattern is well suited for wind energy.
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 5
Engineering and Interconnection Requirements

· A standard foundation design will most likely be feasible utilizing spread footings
based on historic soil boring information. Further subsurface exploration will be
required to finalize the design of a foundation for the proposed wind turbine at its
specific location during the design phase.

· Construction activities can be staged; the foundation and wiring runs can be built
prior to the turbine’s arrival. The construction of the foundation and wiring runs is
estimated to take approximately two weeks. Turbine and tower installation,
including crane set-up and break down, is expected to take approximately two
weeks depending on weather (windy conditions can extend construction
schedules).

o The binding constraints on installation are turbine availability and


obtaining permit approvals. It is likely that construction can be completed
within 18 - 21 months after the project receives management approval.

· While no comprehensive review was performed as part of this feasibility study,


most radio, microwave and TV signals are unaffected by the operation of wind
turbines. However, it is recommended that a survey be performed of any
potential impacts to these signals in the vicinity of the treatment plant.

· It is feasible to interconnect a wind turbine generator rated in the range of 600


kW to 2,500 kW to the National Grid (NGrid) 13.8 kV supply circuit tap to the Fall
River WWTF Pressure Swing Absorption (PSA) Building. This is referred to as
the 13.8 kV interconnection option.

· It is feasible to interconnect a wind turbine generator in the range of 600 kW to


1,500 kW to the 480 volt secondary of the 13.8 kV – 480 volt transformer that
supplies the PSA Building. This is referred to as the 480 volt interconnection
option.

· Both interconnection options require the relocation of the existing NGrid revenue
metering equipment so the wind turbine generator is connected on the load side
of the NGrid revenue meter.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 6
· The 13.8 kV interconnection option may require the purchase, ownership, and
operation of the NGrid 13.8 kV tap to the PSA Building and the 13.8 kV – 480 volt
transformer that supplies the PSA Building.

· The 480 volt interconnection option will require modifications to the 480 volt
supply circuitry to the PSA Building and a longer outage to the PSA Building
during construction of the wind turbine generator interconnection facilities.

· The wind turbine generator interconnection will not affect the operation of the
standby generator in the PSA Building.

· The wind turbine generator interconnection can be designed to prevent a


material effect on the PSA Building electrical system during normal operation and
maintenance of the wind turbine generator.

Environmental Resource Assessment

· The location and industrial nature of the Fall River WWTF site make it a prime
candidate for a utility scale wind turbine.

· According to State wildlife officials, the WWTF wind project would not impact any
threatened or endangered birds or any species or habitats of any birds of special
concern. Further consideration of bird impacts was recommended.
· Coastal wetland buffers should be avoided if possible during construction (e.g.
beyond 100 ft).
· The National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) 2005 document: “Wind
Turbine Interactions with Birds and Bats: A Summary of Research Results and
Remaining Questions” fact sheet reports that the average number of birds that
die from collision with wind turbines is 2.3 bird deaths per turbine per year.
o It would be advisable to survey coastal birds in the vicinity of the
proposed turbine at the WWTF during the spring of 2008 to see how
many birds fly over and/or near to the proposed turbine location.
· Prior to installation of a turbine, it is recommended that the City of Fall River
engage relevant regulatory officers and stakeholders.
· Regional air pollution reduction benefits are estimated to be approximately 2,031
tons/yr of CO2, 3.2 tons/yr of SO2, and 1.0 tons/yr of NOx for the installation of a
1.5 MW wind turbine.
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 7
Permitting

· According to City officials, a wind turbine can be allowed as an accessory use


under Fall River Zoning Ordinances.

o In addition, according to City officials, no height variance is required.

· Boreal recommends consulting Town counsel regarding the accessory use


approval process with the City of Fall River.

o Based on responses from regulatory officials, no State listed, or


proposed, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat is known
to occur in the project area. Federal Endangered Species review results
are pending.

· Civil engineering during the design phase should include:

o A review of state highway load limits, grade elevations and turning radii
for the delivery route prior to wind turbine delivery.

o The site survey should assure that the final turbine site is not placed in
the area designated as coastal high hazard (Zone V) for flooding. These
areas are extremely hazardous due to high velocity waters from tidal
surges and hurricane wave wash.

· All other state and federal applicable permits are expected to be able to be
obtained for the project.

Economic Feasibility Analysis

· The best economic investment for the WWTF is to install a single GE 1.5sle
turbine (1.5 MW) on an 80 meter tower.

· Such a turbine would produce 3,700 MWhs per year (a 28.0% net capacity
factor).

· Estimated installed costs per kW are $2,800 to $3,100 for a 1.5 MW turbine and
$2,400 to $2,600 for a 2.5 MW depending on turbine model and tower size.

· The estimated installed cost for a project using a competitively priced 1.5 MW
turbine is $4,300,000 and the estimated annual O&M costs are $42,625.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 8
· An installation of a single 1.5 MW turbine is expected to save/earn the WWTF
approximately $160,000 annually net O&M and warranty costs.

· It is estimated that a 1.5 MW wind turbine project will have $2,600,000 net
present value with an internal rate of return of 22.5% over the 20 year project life.
Table 0-1 provides summary results for five configurations that may be
considered for the WWTF:

Table 0-1
Summary Financial Results
for Various Turbine Configurations
Turbine IRR-10 NPV-10 Years IRR-20 NPV-20 Years to Cash
Configuration Years Years Years Flow Positive
Nordic N1000 -1.7% ($445,331) 14.7% $707,950 11.3
Fuhrländer FL
1500/77 5.9% ($421,370) 18.5% $2,128,896 10.1

General Electric
1.5sle 12.7% $4,934 22.5% $2,571,659 7.6

Fuhrländer FL
2500 – 85m Tower 9.3% ($284,730) 20.4% $3,339,313 8.8

Fuhrländer FL
2500 – 100m 9.9% ($243,198) 20.8% $3,579,923 8.5
Tower

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 9
1. Site Evaluation
1.1. Background
The Fall River Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) provides secondary
wastewater treatment (activated sludge process) and is designed to sewer the City of
Fall River and portions of the Towns of Westport and Freetown Mass. and Tiverton,
Rhode Island. These flows include the processing of combined sewerage overflow
(CSO) captured by a new, $185 million sewerage interceptor storage tunnel. Each day,
25 million gallons of treated effluent are discharged into Mount Hope Bay. Stringent
effluent discharge limits have been established by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). These
limits are defined within the WWTF’s operating permits. The City of Fall River WWTF
has been the recipient of Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies AMSA awards
since 2000. Awards were given in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for Peak
Performance Silver Award and in 2002 for Peak Performance Gold Award. These
awards were in recognition of its complete and consistent National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems Permit compliance during each calendar.

The WWTF was constructed beginning in 1948 at the site of a former amusement park.
There are no known areas of site contamination from former or current uses.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 10
Figure 1-1
Aerial View of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility from the West

Fall River’s existing wastewater collection and treatment system is primarily a combined
sewer system transporting both sanitary and stormwater flows from approximately 75%
of the sewered areas of the city. These facilities have the capacity to collect, transport
and treat dry-weather average daily flow of 31-million gallons per day. The peak
hydraulic capacity for combined dry and wet-weather flow is 106-million gallons per day.
Fall River’s existing combined sewer system collects and transports wastewater from a
service zone of approximately 90,000 residents and stormwater runoff from
approximately 5,000 acres (7.8 square miles). The collection system facilities consist of
179-miles of sewer pipeline, 13-pumping stations, 4,500 manholes, 5,000 catch basins
and 19 CSO outfalls.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 11
1.2. Site Layout
The Fall River WWTF is located in the extreme southwest corner of the City of Fall
River. The northeastern corner of the facility houses the driveway from Bay Street as
well as a parking lot and administrative and office space. A multiple hearth incinerator
for sludge disposal also exists on the site.

The site is bisected north to south by an unused railroad right of way owned by CSX
Transportation and a high pressure natural gas transmission line owned by Spectra
Energy. On the east side of the railroad, nearest the main entrance, are the plant’s
administrative building, dewatering building, maintenance garage, and gravity
thickeners. South of these is the Pressure Swing Absorption (PSA) Building housing the
secondary treatment oxygen generation system as well as the facility’s primary meter
and transformers. Further to the south are three clarifiers used in the secondary stage
of treatment.

West of the railroad tracks is a north-south string of four primary clarifiers as well as
chlorine contact chambers, and a number of small buildings (preliminary treatment and
primary sludge pump stations). The southernmost of these buildings houses a truck
offloading terminal for the disposal of imported sanitary wastes. South of this building is
a vacant paved parking lot with sufficient room for a utility scale wind turbine and its
ancillary equipment.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 12
Figure 1-2
Facility Buildings and Uses

1.2.1. Turbine Siting

Boreal conducted a site survey and received input from Veolia and the city to optimize
the turbine location. Only the open lot in the southwestern corner of the wastewater
Treatment Facility was deemed possible due to spatial constraints.

Among our considerations were the following:

Physical

1. Sufficient real estate for staging, construction, fall zone and buffer.

{ The fall zone may intrude on adjacent properties}


Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 13
2. No major obstructions to the southwest (prevailing wind direction site per AWS
TrueWind maps).

{The site borders the open water of Mt Hope Bay to the southwest affording the
prevailing wind an unobstructed, less turbulent approach to the wind turbine.}

3. Accessibility – Can equipment be transported to the site?

{The site is an industrial location. Civil engineering will be required to determine


delivery, laydown, and construction logistics.}

4. Does not interfere with the existing operations.

{Delivery can be scheduled to not interfere with plant operations. Operations of


the wind turbine will be designed to minimize impact on facility protocol. Some
trucked waste shipments may require disposal at an alternate location during
construction.}

Operational

1. Civil and electrical engineering feasibility and interconnection issues (minimize


wiring runs where possible).

{Test borings are necessary to establish the design parameters for the
foundation but the area is not believed to be on previously filled land so a
conventional foundation is most likely. There was past sludge storage but no
known disposal in the area. Transportation routing during design is necessary.}

2. Preliminary regulatory review and site visit to determine presence of lack of


sensitive environmental receptors.

{Requests were made to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife


and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for threatened and endangered species
review. In the State inventories, no species were identified as being present on
the site. Federal review is pending. See Regulatory section.}

3. Review of wind speed data, electrical usage.

{There is sufficient electric load, and a good wind resource at the Treatment
Facility.}

4. Modeling run of financial pro-forma with multiple turbine configurations providing


first estimate of economic feasibility.
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 14
{A wind turbine provides substantial economic returns. It will be up to the City of
Fall River to decide if such returns are sufficient.}

Community

1. Significant buffer from nearest property line to assure Massachusetts (and Rhode
Island) noise policy can be met.

{Noise modeling is recommended during design.}

2. Aesthetic impacts.

{The wind turbine, in our opinion, enhances the overall visual impact of the Fall
River viewshed, giving it a modern structure to which visual attention is drawn.}

1.2.2. Abutters

Figure 1-3 shows a topographical representation of the Fall River WWTF and the
surrounding area. As shown in violet on the map, residential areas exist near the facility
to the north, east, and south. Despite the existence of these neighborhoods, not all of
them directly abut against the plant property nor are the majority in the line of sight. Fall
River homes and apartment buildings abut the site on the north and northeast,
respectively. The remainder of the abutting land to the east is city owned and has been
recently used as a construction site for sewer infrastructure construction. Two Tiverton,
Rhode Island houses, Stateline Auto Repair and a restaurant border the facility to the
southeast. The coastal property to the south of the treatment facility houses a tank
farm/fuel storage terminal owned by Inland Fuel– another industrial use.

The site is generally flat with a slight elevation decline when moving west towards Mt.
Hope Bay that forms the western boundary.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 15
Figure 1-3
USGS Topographic Map (Fall River Quad)

Some of the nearby communities have a visual line of sight of the facility. Aside from
Fall River and Tiverton, the facility is also visible from bayside sections of Swansea and
Somerset, Massachusetts as well as Portsmouth; Bristol; and Coggeshall (a village in
Bristol), Rhode Island. Figure 1-4 demonstrates the size of Mt. Hope Bay and its
surrounding communities.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 16
Figure 1-4
Aerial View of Mt. Hope Bay with Surrounding Communities

1.2.3. Stakeholders

Various stakeholders exist in Fall River and Mt Hope Bay area that should be included in
future community relations efforts regarding this project. They include in Save the Bay,
(Rhode Island based), Massachusetts Audubon, the American Lung Association and
coordination with the local City Counselor, Pat Casey. In the past, the neighborhood
around the WWTF had an organized group known as S.O.S. that had concerns over
odor. It has since disbanded.
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 17
1.2.4. Wind Resources

To confirm strong wind resource estimates, Boreal installed a meteorological tower


equipped with three anemometers at different elevations: 40m, 30m, 20m. Wind vanes
are located at 40m and 30m and a temperature sensor rests near ground level. Data
from this equipment was recorded by a datalogger manufactured by NRG Systems on a
removable memory storage chip that was replaced and downloaded monthly. Both wind
speed and direction data were logged as 10-minute averages.

The installation began on July 18, 2007 with survey and installation of tower guy anchors
and was completed by July 20, 2007. Figure 1-5 through Figure 1-7 show various
stages of the tower’s construction.

Figure 1-5 Tower Staged Prior to Lift

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 18
Figure 1-6 View from Southwest Figure 1-7 Gin Pole Being Raised

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 19
Figure 1-8 Tower Approaching Vertical Figure 1-9 Erect Tower Before being Trued

After three months of data were collected, they were analyzed and correlated with a
variety of longer term data sources.

1.2.4.1. Wind Direction Assessment

For a site with unique geography like the wastewater Treatment Facility, the
directionality of on-site wind resources becomes particularly important. With a hill to the
east, tall man-made structures to the northeast, and open water to the west, the site is
open to various levels of obstruction and turbulence depending on which way the wind is
blowing.

Figure 1-10 depicts the percentage of time wind was blowing from a certain sixteenth of
a compass for the period of time between July 20th and October 22nd, 2007. As shown,
the wind is overwhelmingly from the west and west-southwest during this period.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 20
Figure 1-10 Wind Direction Figure 1-11 Power Density

While Figure 1-10 displays only the time share of wind for each direction interval, Figure
1-11 combines wind direction and wind speed to show what is known as directional
“power density”. In our database, each 10 minute interval within the sampled period has
an associated wind speed and direction. Each of these intervals can be sorted by
direction much like in Figure 1-10. As power density is a direct function of wind speed1,
each 10 minute period has an associated average density. These can therefore be
summed within a particular interval to display that interval’s power density. Specifically,
for a degree interval [A, B ] , its percentage of the overall power density is

å
B
A h
P

å
360
0
P
h

Where Ph is the power density averaged over an hour time interval.

Power density is defined as Power/Swept Area and is equal to 1 2 rV r is air density


1 3
where

and V is velocity.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 21
From this direction analysis, we can conclude that during the summer months wind is
likely to be coming from the west and therefore be of low turbulence because of the flat
surface. This will continue to be monitored for the remainder of the twelve month study
period.

1.2.4.2. Correlation

In order to predict the long term wind resources available at the wastewater Treatment
Facility, on site wind speeds over the three observed months were adjusted using local
airports as comparison points. Being nearly equidistant from Fall River, Providence T.F.
Green, Newport State, and New Bedford Regional airports, all were tested for how well
they correlated with local wind speeds over the course of the recorded period. These
results are displayed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1
Hourly Correlation between WWTF and Airport Wind Speeds
New
Fall Fall Fall Providence Bedford Newport
River River River TF Green Regional State
40m 30m 20m Airport Airport Airport
100.0%
Fall River 40m
99.5% 100.0%
Fall River 30m
98.0% 99.4% 100.0%
Fall River 20m
Providence
T.F. Green
65.2% 66.2% 66.9% 100.0%
Airport
New Bedford
Regional
67.2% 68.0% 68.7% 68.6% 100.0%
Airport
Newport State
62.5% 62.8% 63.5% 68.9% 67.8% 100.0%
Airport

Table 1-2 further displays the correlation of the wind speeds at New Bedford Regional
Airport with the Fall River 20m anemometer on an hourly and daily basis.

Table 1-2
Correlation Between New Bedford Regional Airport and WWTF: July 20, 2007-
October 22, 2007
Time Interval Pearson r Correlation Number of Observations
Coefficient
Hourly 68.7% 2257 hours

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 22
Time Interval Pearson r Correlation Number of Observations
Coefficient
Daily 88.4% 95 days

The correlations were adequate and therefore provide confidence that New Bedford
long-term wind speeds (with appropriate adjustments) are a good proxy for the Fall River
site. Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 in Appendix A show the correlation of wind speeds
between New Bedford and the WWTF graphically.

Each airport was moderately well correlated with the WWTF. However, based on these
results, New Bedford was selected as the best weather station from which to estimate
long term wind resources. The following subsection provides more detail of the process
of estimating the wastewater treatment plant’s long term resource.

1.2.4.3. Resource Estimation

Entering this study it was assumed that the Fall River site possessed good wind
resources (an average of 6.2 m/s @ 70 meters according the Truewind estimates), and
sufficient area to place a turbine to make the installation of a large wind turbines a viable
project.

Table 1-3
WWTF Raw Monthly Average Wind Speeds in Meters/Second (m/s)
July 20 Oct 1
through July September through Oct Entire
Anemometer 31, 2007 August 2007 2007 22, 2007 Period
40m 4.28 4.19 4.60 4.36 4.37
30m 4.14 3.97 4.34 4.16 4.15
20m 3.74 3.56 3.92 3.78 3.75

To be useful, these data must be adjusted to take into account two major factors:

1. For long term weather patterns - the amount of wind varies significantly on a
month-to-month basis.

2. To the hub height of the potential turbine installation - turbines that best suit
WWTF’s needs are on towers that are 70 meters or taller.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 23
Keeping the above in mind, the following steps were completed to estimate wind
resources for a typical year.

· Confirming a long-term weather station that is highly correlated with the treatment
plant data. The highest correlated weather station is the aforementioned New
Bedford Regional Airport (see Appendix A for more on correlations).

· Using 2006 New Bedford Regional Airport hourly data as the basis, compute the
wind speeds in Fall River for a prototypical year.

· Taking the ratio of Fall River meteorological tower wind speeds at 40 meters for July,
20, 2007 through October 22, 2007 to the New Bedford Regional Airport. This ratio
is 156.7%. Using this factor to scale the New Bedford wind speeds for 2006 to
estimate of Fall River wind speed at 40 meters for 2006.

· Scale the above results for 2006 to match the long-term average annual wind speed
(a 1.2% increase)

· Adjusting the wind speeds to appropriate hub height (e.g., 80 meters) with wind
shear calculations (see Appendix A). This results in estimated annual average winds
speeds of 6.32 m/s at 85 meters, 6.27 m/s at 80 meters, and 6.11 m/s at 70 meters.
These are the most likely hub heights for potential turbines.

Our proxy year for this project is January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. During
that time period, New Bedford wind speeds averaged 3.50 m/s. In Table 1-4 we
demonstrate the calculation of 6.27 m/s at the 80 meter hub height.

Table 1-4
Computation of Average Annual Wind Speed at WWTF (m/s)
Parameter Value Computation
Fall River Wind Speed @ (1) 7/20/07 to 10/22/07 @
40m (m/s) 4.37
40m
Ratio of Fall River to New
Bedford Regional Airport 1.57 (2)

New Bedford Regional


Airport Wind Speed Proxy (3) Jan-1-2006 through
3.50
Year (m/s) Dec-31-2006

Est. of Fall River Avg


Wind Speed - Proxy Year 5.48 (4 = 2*3)
@ 40m (m/s)
New Bedford Regional 3.54 (5)

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 24
Parameter Value Computation
Airport Long-Term
Average Annual Wind
Speed (m/s)
Ratio of New Bedford
Regional Airport Long- 1.01 (6=5/3)
Term to Proxy Year
Est. of Fall River Avg
Wind Speed - Long Term 5.55 (7=4*6)
@ 40m (m/s)
Wind Shear Coefficient
(alpha) 0.17 (8) See Appendix A

Ratio of Avg Wind Speed


@ 80m vs 40m 113% (9) See Above for formula

Est. of Fall River Avg


Wind Speed - Long Term 6.27 (10=7*9)
@ 80m

Table 1-5 compares our estimates to those found in the AWS Truewind Maps at 30, 50,
and 70 meters.

Table 1-5 Comparison of On-Site Measurement to AWS Modeling


30 meter wind speed 50 meter wind speed 70 meter wind speed
(m/s) (m/s) (m/s)
On-site NRG unit
5.28 5.77 6.11
estimate
AWS Truewind
5.2 5.8 6.2
estimate

1.3. Energy Infrastructure & Consumption


The Fall River WWTF measures and receives its electricity through two separate meters.
The larger of these two meters (located in the PSA Building) records usage, on average,
about seven times as much electricity as the smaller. Since a wind turbine will only be
able to easily offset energy from one meter, our analysis focuses on the larger2 of the
two. Figure 1-12 shows the monthly dynamics of this meter for the available portion of
the past two years.

2
Meter No. A02931677
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 25
Figure 1-12
Fall River WWTF Electrical Load (kWh)

1,200,000

2005
2006
1,000,000
2007

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1.3.1. Potential Wind Turbine Configurations

A few wind turbine configurations are possible for the Fall River site. Assuming no
physical, technical, environmental, community or regulatory constraints, the optimum
configuration will maximize the financial benefit to the owner of the turbine and the
consumer of electricity at retail. Two major offsetting considerations:

Wind turbines have considerable economies of scale for both purchase and installation
costs. A 1000 kW wind turbine will produce at least twice as much energy as a 500 kW
turbine for much less than twice the price3. All things being equal it is financially
beneficial to install a bigger rather than smaller turbine.

As discussed in more detail below, the Fall River turbine owner will earn about 5-6
¢/kWh more in benefits (not including a production tax credit) by having the wind

3
It likely will produce more than twice the energy because it will be installed on a higher tower,
and capture wind blowing at a higher speed.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 26
turbine’s energy production consumed on-site, as compared to selling excess production
that is not consumed by a behind-the-meter project into the wholesale electric market.
As the wind turbine increases in size, an increasing proportion of the energy production
will be sold into the wholesale market. All things being equal, it is financially beneficial to
install a wind turbine with a nameplate (nominal) kW output so that all of its production
can be consumed on-site.

However, all things are not equal. It is one of the major goals of this analysis to
understand the tradeoffs between various turbine installation configurations.

1.3.1.1. From Wind to Electricity

The amount of electricity produced by a certain wind turbine is primarily a function of the
wind speed at the hub of the turbine. Table 1-6 provides some basic statistics on the
production and consumption of power produced by these example turbines. The net
capacity factor listed in Table 1-6 is therefore the percentage of energy produce by the
turbine compared to production at full capacity – a standard measurement of how
effective a turbine is. Capacity factors between 20% and 30% are good for
Massachusetts.

Table 1-6
Comparison of Energy Production for Example Wind Turbines
Name Nominal Net kWh of % of total % of generated
kW of Capacity electricity WWTF load kWh consumed
Turbine Factor generated by generated by by WWTF
turbine turbine
FL 600 600 26.7% 1,404,331 14.1% 99.7%
N1000 1000 20.1% 1,759,378 17.6% 89.7%
FL 1500 27.9% 3,669,944 36.8% 65.9%
1500/77
GE 1.5sl 1500 28.0% 3,678,520 36.9% 67.2%
Vestas 1650 28.6% 4,139,559 41.5% 63.1%
V82
Vestas 1800 24.8% 3,908,030 39.2% 63.0%
V80
Clipper - 2500 26.9% 5,885,427 59.0% 49.1%
D96
FL 2500 – 2500 25.6% 5,601,515 56.2% 49.1%
85m
Tower
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 27
Name Nominal Net kWh of % of total % of generated
kW of Capacity electricity WWTF load kWh consumed
Turbine Factor generated by generated by by WWTF
turbine turbine
FL 2500 – 2500 27.0% 5,903,933 59.2% 47.9%
100m
Tower

Figure 1-13 and Figure 1-14 display how the production example 1.5 MW and 2.5 MW
turbines would have corresponded with the on-site electrical load during the 2006 model
year.

Figure 1-13
Estimate of 2006 Monthly Disposition of 1.5 MW Turbine Electricity Production

Estimated Turbine Production Sold Back to Grid


1,200,000 Estimated Turbine Production Consumed On-Site
Estimated WWTF Energy Consumption
1,000,000

800,000
Monthly kWh

600,000

400,000

200,000

-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 28
Figure 1-14
Estimate of 2006 Monthly Disposition of 2.5 MW Turbine Electricity Production

Estimated Turbine Production Sold Back to Grid


1,200,000 Estimated Turbine Production Consumed On-Site
Estimated WWTF Energy Consumption
1,000,000

800,000
Monthly kWh

600,000

400,000

200,000

-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1.3.2. Geotechnical

Subsurface explorations were conducted in the past in the area proposed for the wind
turbine and test boring logs were reviewed. These borings occurred in 1977 by Bay
State Test Boring Inc. for CE Maguire Inc.

The nearest bore hole depicted fill in the first ~10 ft consisting of gray, fine coarse sand
and fine to coarse gravel with little silt. Below 10 ft the test boring indicated till of fine to
coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel and little silt and boulders. The bore hole advanced
to a depth of approximately 36’ 6” without encountering bedrock refusal. Another nearby
boring also did not encounter bedrock to a depth of 26’6” and the deepest in the area
was advanced to 50’ without encountering bedrock. Little silt was observed in all the test
borings. The density of the glacial till deposits was considered very dense and moist.

Most likely a standard foundation design will be feasible utilizing spread footings based
on the historic soil boring information. Further subsurface exploration program will be
required to finalize the design of a foundation for the proposed wind turbine at its specific
location during the design phase.
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 29
1.3.3. Staging / Erection/Construction

This section of the project will require further analysis. The available parcel of land,
while large enough for a turbine, may have operational constraint during laydown and
construction. Some temporary road construction and equipment relocation may be
required as well as a potential suspension of the trucked sewerage disposal facility
deliveries adjacent to the vacant lot.

Construction activities can be staged in that the foundation and wiring runs can be built
prior to the turbine’s arrival during the approximately 18 month time period awaiting
receipt of a wind turbine following purchase. The construction of the foundation and
wiring runs is estimated to take approximately two weeks. Turbine and tower
installation, including crane set-up and break down, is expected to take approximately
two weeks depending on weather (windy conditions can extend construction schedules).

The binding constraints on installation are turbine availability and permit approval
schedules. It is likely construction can be completed within 18-21 months after project is
given management approval.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 30
1.3.4. Photo Simulation

The following photographs and accompanying site data were supplied to Saratoga Associates by Boreal. Potential visibility is
dependant on the final location of the proposed turbine. A simulation of a Fuhrländer FL-2500 turbine on a 100 meter tower was
used for these figures. Despite prevailing westerly winds, the turbine may be depicted rotated towards the viewer in order to illustrate
the full breadth of the blades in a conservative illustration of visibility.

Figure 1-15 Map of Photo Simulation Sites

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 31
Figure 1-16
Photo Simulation From Site #1 – Existing View From Summit Street Looking West

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 32
Figure 1-17
Photo Simulation From Site #1 – Simulated View From Summit Street Looking West

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 33
Figure 1-18
Photo Simulation From Site #2 – Existing View From Fall River Trial Court

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 34
Figure 1-19
Photo Simulation From Site #2 – Simulated View From Fall River Trial Court

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 35
1-20
Photo Simulation From Site #2 – Simulated View From Fall River Trial Court With Tree Branch Removed

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 36
Figure 1-21
Photo Simulation From Site #3 – Existing View From Foot Street and State Ave, North Tiverton, RI

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 37
Figure 1-22
Photo Simulation From Site #3 – Simulated View From Foot Street and State Ave, North Tiverton, RI

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 38
Figure 1-23
Photo Simulation From Site #4 – Existing View From Shore of Mount Hope Bay, Bristol, RI

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 39
Figure 1-24
Photo Simulation From Site #4 – Simulated View From Shore of Mount Hope Bay, Bristol, RI

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 40
1.4. Environmental Resource Assessment
1.4.1. Current Resources

Both the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and the US
Fish and Wildlife Service were contacted regarded threatened or endangered listed or
proposed species. Response from the Mass NHESP has confirmed that no critical or
priority habitat is within the vicinity of the WWTF nor were any state-proposed or listed
threatened and endangered species present. This response was further confirmed
through Boreal’s inspection of NHESP Natural Heritage Atlas data. The NHESP did
recommend further consideration of birds. The project site is waiting response from
USFWS regarding the Federally inventoried species.

1.4.2. Reduced Regional Air Pollution from Wind Turbine

An analysis of the air pollution benefits from a proposed wind turbine at the Fall River
WWTF was performed based on the New England Power Pool’s (NEPOOL’s)
aggregated air emissions from their fleet of power plants for the air pollutants sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) for the calendar year
2005 (the latest NEPOOL report available). NEPOOL provides average emission rates
for these pollutants that correspond to the representative emissions from the last 500
MW of power added to the grid, known as the marginal unit. This last power dispatched
is typically from the least economically efficient and environmentally sound unit. Since
the wind turbine uses air to generate electrons versus the predominately fossil-fuel
based generation capacity of NEPOOL’s system, each electron generated by a
renewable energy system can be viewed as displacing from the grid an electron that
would otherwise be created by the existing system’s fossil fueled marginal power plant.

Example 1.5 MW and 2.5 MW turbines are expected to produce 3,700,000 and
5,600,000 kWh respectively. Table 1-7 provides the anticipated benefit to regional air
emissions from the operation of WWTF’s wind turbine.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 41
Table 1-7
Emission Reduction with 1.5 MW and 2.5 MW Turbine Installations - Based on
Average Marginal Emission Rate 4
CO2 SO2 NOx
Tons/yr Tons/yr Tons/yr
1.5 MW 2,031 3.2 1.0
2.5 MW 3,100 4.9 1.5

1.4.3. Permitting

The WWTF’s wind turbine project involves review and permitting by a variety of local,
state and federal officials. Local jurisdictional approvals are the most significant for this
project because most state permits (with the exception of Mass Highway review) are not
applicable since site disturbances can be minimized to avoid their applicability. There
are no anticipated impacts to wetlands or wetland buffers from the proposed action,
providing the turbine foundation is properly located therefore no wetland regulations are
cited.

1.4.3.1. Wildlife

As noted previously, Boreal prepared notice regarding both Federal and State listed,
proposed or threatened species under the state and federal endangered species
programs. In December 2007, the file reviews were completed with the following
conclusions:

· No State or federally listed, or proposed, threatened or endangered species or


critical habitat are known to be present in the project area.

1.4.3.2. Transportation

Transportation of utility-scale wind turbines to the WWTF’s building will require additional
analysis. In terms of MassHighway review, they require a formal road survey by a civil
engineering firm if loads meet certain weight and height thresholds on State highways.
These thresholds are if a load exceeds 130,000 lbs it is considered a “superload” and/or
if its height is in excess of 13’ 8”. Both leading turbine manufactures evaluated exceed

4
Source: 2005 NEPOOL Marginal Emission Rate Analysis – http://www.iso-
ne.com/genrtion_resrcs/reports/emission/index.html

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 42
these thresholds and thus require additional civil engineering evaluation. In addition,
Boreal recommends review to determine confirm there is adequate turning radii
associated with wind turbine shipments for trucks and a cursory review of road slopes
and dips to confirm feasibility. See Table 1-8 below for a summary of these findings.

Table 1-8
Wind Turbine Transport Characteristics 5
MassHghwy MassHghwy Vestas V80 GE FL- FL - 2500 Comments
Parameter Threshold 1.5sle
(max) 1500/77
Load 130,000 lb 163,345 lb 197,000 169,527 lb 196,000 Exceeded
lb
Height 13’ 8” 14’ 3” 15’ 8” 14’ 1” 16’5” Exceeded
Slope No limit 8% 10% --- 6%6 Most likely
achievable

1.4.3.3. City of Fall River

Boreal performed a review of the City of Fall River Revised Ordinances and contacted
Jim Hartnett, Director of Planning and Joe Biszko, Building Inspector of the City of Fall
River to determine the a local permitting considerations for a utility-scale wind turbine.
The WWTF site is zoned industrial. Based on Boreal’s review of the Ordinances and
conversations with Mr. Hartnett, there is currently no zoning ordinance in Fall River
either allowing or prohibiting wind turbines. The City considered an wind energy
ordinance submitted by a City Counselor (“Revised Ordinance Sec 86-91 – Wind Energy
Facilities) in the summer of 2007 but is was subsequently withdrawn from consideration.
No further development has occurred regarding a specific wind ordinance since that
time.

Until that time, according to both Mr. Hartnett and Mr. Biszko, a wind turbine can be
allowed as an accessory use since the project is in an industrial zone (see §86-202
except below:).

5
Telephone conversation with MassHighway’s Mike Lyons; Vestas V80 Transport Guidance; GE
Wind Energy 1.5 MW Specs Rev E
6
Additional traction may be required for greater slopes that may add to vehicle length.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 43
“In an IP industrial park district, buildings and structures may be
constructed, altered, enlarged, reconstructed and used and land may
be used for airport purposes, manufacturing, processing, fabrication,
assembling, research and development and … public distribution and
maintenance facilities not otherwise prohibited by law or ordinance, and
uses ancillary thereto, [emphasis added] excluding research or use
of radioactive, biohazardous or explosive materials.”

In addition, Mr. Biszko believes that a height variance for the turbine and tower will not
be required.

Boreal recommends consulting City legal counsel to work with the WWTF regarding the
accessory use approval process with the City of Fall River.

1.4.3.4. Floodplain

The site is most likely within the 100-yr Floodplain (Zone A11) based on the FEMA flood
insurance map shown in Figure 1-25 (zones V11 and V17 are both within the floodplain).
The civil engineering site survey during the design phase should assure that the final
turbine site is not placed in the area designated as coastal high hazard (Zone V) for
flooding. These areas are extremely hazardous due to high velocity waters from tidal
surges and hurricane wave wash.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 44
Figure 1-25
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain Map

1.4.3.5. Other

Boreal prepared summary permitting tables to identify the local, State and Federal
requirement, the authority and citation, and permit approval timeframe as is outlined
below:

Table 1-9
Local Applicable Regulations – Revised Ordinances
City of Fall River – Enacted December 23, 2004
Regulation/Permit Authority Citation Approval Comments
Time
Accessory Use Building §86-202 Two weeks A wind turbine
Inspector or sooner could most likely
be permitted as
an accessory
use and will not
require a height
variance.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 45
Table 1-10
State Applicable Regulations7
Regulation/Permit Authority Citation Approval Comments
Time
MEPA Executive MEPA ~90 days Jurisdictional authority
Determination: Office of Regulations, occurs when State
Notice of Intent Environmental 301 CMR financial assistance;
and Environmental Affairs 11.00 NOT APPLICABLE -
Notification Form No MEPA thresholds
(ENF) will be met. MEPA
office provides
documentation of non-
applicability via email
for this type of project.
MEPA: MEPA NOT APPLICABLE
Environmental Regulations,
Impact Review 301 CMR
11.00
NPDES Mass Joint NOT APPLICABLE
Stormwater Department of State/Federal Required if more than
General Permit Environmental Program under one acre of land is
Management the CWA disturbed.
Notice of Intent
& US EPA
Notice of Intent Mass. Natural 321 CMR No state listed,
Heritage and 10:00 threatened,
Endangered endangered or
Species proposed species at
Program the site.
Wetlands Program Massachusetts 310 CMR NOT APPLICABLE For
Policy: Activities In Department of 10.00. March development in buffer
The Buffer Zone Environmental 1999 zones adjacent to
Under The Protection wetlands.
Wetlands
See also: Bordering
Protection Act
Vegetated Wetland
Regulations -
Delineation Criteria
and Methodology
http://www.state.ma.us
/dep/brp/ww/files/bvw.
htm
Limited Projects:
Access Roadways or
Driveways (DWW
Policy 88-2)
http://www.state.ma.us
/dep/brp/ww/files/acroa

7
Notes: Portions adapted from Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst - Community Wind Power Fact Sheet #7 ;

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 46
Regulation/Permit Authority Citation Approval Comments
Time
d.htm
Massachusetts Massachusetts 310 CMR NOT APPLICABLE
Water Quality Act DEP 10.00 Must be obtained if
Section 401 Water any activity alters more
Quality than 5000 SF of
Certification wetlands.
Conservation and Mass. Natural 321 CMR Not applicable - No
Management Heritage and 10:00 Endangered,
Permit Endangered Massachusetts Threatened or of
Species Endangered Special Concern in
Program Species Act – Massachusetts
required if a identified.
“take” is
required
Massachusetts Mass (304 CMR Exempt – see 11.02 3
Forest Cutting Department of 11.00) require (e)
Practices Environmental reviews of
Regulations Management forest cutting
plans and
potential
impacts on
rare species.
General Access Massachusetts Needed if road
Permits Department of modifications to State
Highways roads must occur
Wide Load Permits Massachusetts Route approval
Department of required; Road limits
Highways will require funding of
separate road survey
by a Civil Engineering
firm.
Project Notification Massachusetts MGL Ch. 9 30 days Any new construction
Form Historical Sections 27- projects etc. that
Commission 32 require funding,
(MHC) licenses, or permits
from any state or
federal agencies must
be reviewed by MHC
for impacts to historic
and architectural
properties. Purpose is
to protect important
historical and
architectural assets of
Commonwealth.
Noise control Massachusetts MGL 310 CMR criteria At nearest property
policy Department of 7.09 -7.10 line or residence: No
Environmental increase by more than
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 47
Regulation/Permit Authority Citation Approval Comments
Time
Protection 10 dB(A) above
ambient; or
No “pure tone”
condition.
Site approval Energy Facility M.G.L. c. 164, NOT APPLICABLE
Siting Board §69H Primarily concerned
(EFSB) with plants over 100
MW; new transmission
lines over 1 mile long
or over 69 kv
Request for Mass NOT MAC should be
Airspace Review Aeronautics APPLICABLE notified if projects are
Commission – no formal over 200ft tall
permit
required
NEPOOL RTO-NE (a/k/a None – For projects less than
Interconnection ISO-NE) informational 5 MW the submittal of
System Impact only form 18.4 does not
Study & Facility trigger a system
Study impact study. It
provides information to
RTO-NE for system
planning purposes.

Table 1-11
Federal Applicable Regulations8
Regulation/Permit Authority Citation Approval Time Comments
Notice of Proposed Fed 14 CFR Part 77 At least 30 Required for
Construction or Aviation days crane erection
Alteration Admin. and tower
structure. All
structures above
199 ft will need
lighting
Service Interim Fish & May 13, 2003 Guidance Only See Avian Impact
Guidance on Wildlife Assessment
http://www.fws.gov/r9
Avoiding and Service Section
dhcbfa/wind.pdf
Minimizing Wildlife
Impacts from Wind
Turbines

8
Notes: Portions adapted from Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst - Community Wind Power Fact Sheet #7 ;

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 48
Regulation/Permit Authority Citation Approval Time Comments
Habitat Conservation Fish & Endangered Species Not Applicable –
& Incidental Take Wildlife Act No Take permit
Permit Service will be required.
Migratory Bird Treaty Fish & Migratory Bird Treaty Prohibits the Enforcement
Act Wildlife Act taking, killing potential
Service possession etc.
of migratory
birds
Golden Eagle Fish & Golden Eagle Enforcement
Protection Act Wildlife Protection Act potential
Service
FERC Certification Federal 18 CFR Sec. 8.11 10 business http://www.ferc.g
as Qualifying Facility Energy days ov/industries/elec
(QF) Regulatory tric/gen-info/qual-
Commissi fac.asp
on

1.5. Engineering and Interconnection Requirements


1.5.1. Radio, Microwave and TV Interference

While no comprehensive review was performed as part of this feasibility study, most
radio, microwave and TV signals are unaffected by the operation of wind turbines.
However, in some instances, AM radio signals can be affected by wind turbines.
Microwave signals also can be blocked by the wind turbine if it is in a direct line between
a microwave transmitter and receiver. It is recommended that a survey be performed of
any potential impacts to radio or microwave signals in the vicinity of the wastewater
treatment plant though adverse impacts are unlikely.

1.5.2. Electrical Interconnection Plans

Electrical interconnection plans have been developed for a 1,500 kW and a 2,500 kW
wind turbine generator as shown on the following electrical one line diagrams. See .

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 49
Figure 1-26 and Figure 1-27..

The electrical interconnection plans for the 1,500 kW and the 2,500 kW wind turbine
generator are described below. In general, the 1,500 kW wind turbine generator can be
interconnected to the 480 volt side of the PSA transformer and the 2,500 kW wind
turbine generator can be interconnected to the 13.8 kV NGrid tap to the PSA Building.
For a 13.8 kV interconnection, it is anticipated that the Fall River WWTF would have to
purchase the NGrid 13.8 kV supply facilities and the PSA transformer.

Please note that the 1,500 kW wind turbine generator can also be interconnected to the
13.8 kV NGrid tap to the PSA Building as shown for the 2,500 kW interconnection plan.
The 480 volt and the 13.8 kV interconnection plans and the advantages and
disadvantages of each plan are described below.

1.5.2.1. 480 Volt Interconnection Plan

The 1,500kW wind turbine generator can be connected to a new termination enclosure
between the 480 volt terminals of the PSA transformer and the 480 volt PSA
switchboard. The termination enclosure will be rated 5,000 amperes and will include
5,000 ampere bus bars that are drilled and tapped to terminate the cables from the
transformer, the wind turbine generator, and the switchboard. The existing NGrid
revenue metering will have to be relocated to the secondary terminals of the PSA
transformer so the interconnection of the wind turbine generator will be on Fall River
WWTF’s side of the meter.

The advantage of the 480 volt interconnection plan is that NGrid would continue to own
the 13.8 kV supply facilities and the PSA transformer and continue to be responsible for
the operation and maintenance of their equipment. The disadvantages of the 480 volt
interconnection plan are: (1) the 480 volt interconnection plan is more expensive than
interconnecting to the 13.8 kV tap and purchasing the NGrid 13.8 kV supply facilities and
the PSA transformer; and, (2) the 480 volt interconnection plan would require a longer
outage to the normal PSA Building supply facilities during construction. Both plans
require the relocation of the existing NGrid revenue metering equipment. With the 13.8
kV interconnection plan, the PSA Building would become a primary metered customer of
NGrid.

The largest capacity wind turbine generator that can be connected in the 480 volt PSA
facilities is 1,500 kW because the PSA transformer must be large enough to carry the full
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 50
generator output at times of low load or no load on the PSA Building 480 volt system. In
addition, the PSA transformer must be capable of carrying the full generator output plus
a margin to allow for reactive power plus an additional 125% margin per the National
Electric Code.

The 480 volt wind turbine generator interconnection equipment will include a free-
standing, outdoor, switchgear section consisting a three pole, group-operated, 480 volt,
2,500 ampere disconnect switch with a 2,500 ampere fuse. This will provide a protection
and switching point that can be verified by viewing the position of the disconnect switch
blades (“visible open”) as will be required by NGrid. NGrid operations personnel will
need access to manually open and padlock the disconnect switch in the open position to
guarantee that the wind turbine generator will not energize their 13.8 kV distribution
system (by backfeeding the 13.8 kV – 480 volt transformer) while they are working on it
or when they otherwise deem it necessary.

The wind turbine generator will be located approximately 1,500 circuit feet from the point
of interconnection at the secondary of the PSA transformer. The 13.8 kV generator
interconnection circuit is proposed to be an underground circuit and the circuit route is
proposed to be along the periphery of the Fall River WWTF adjacent to State Avenue
and Bay Street to the existing NGrid riser pole to the PSA Building. This routing is
anticipated to cause the least interference with existing Fall River WWTF facilities. The
13.8 kV generator interconnection circuit will have to be routed under the existing
railroad tracks and the high pressure gas pipeline that runs along the railroad tracks.
This crossing is anticipated to be in the vicinity of the railroad underpass on State
Avenue. The crossing will require coordination and permission with the owners of the
railroad tracks and gas pipeline and is anticipated to require directional drilling.

The generator output voltage is 575 – 690 volts (depending upon the generator model)
and, at a circuit distance of 1,500 feet, the current at this voltage would cause an
excessive voltage drop between the generator and the point of interconnection.
Therefore, the generator output voltage will be increased to 13.8 kV with a generator
step-up transformer located at the base of the wind turbine. Since the point of
interconnection is 480 volts, it will be necessary to reduce the 13.8 kV generator
interconnection circuit voltage to 480 volts with a 13.8 kV – 480 volt interconnection
transformer.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 51
The electrical winding configuration of the PSA transformer is delta primary (13.8 kV)
and wye-ground secondary (480/277 volts). The 13.8 kV – 480 volt interconnection
transformer is proposed to be delta on the 480 volt winding and wye ground on the 13.8
kV winding. This will enable detection of ground faults on the 13.8 kV generator
interconnection circuit. The generator step-up transformer is proposed to be delta on the
13.8 kV winding and wye ground on the generator voltage winding (690 volts is shown
on the electrical one line diagram for illustration purposes). This will enable detection of
ground faults on the circuit between the transformer and the generator. The
interconnection and generator step-up transformers will include 13.8 kV fusing (internal
bay-o-net fuses in series with a current limiting fuse) and integral 13.8 kV disconnect
switches.

The interconnection and generator step-up transformers will be three phase


transformers and capable of carrying the maximum power output of the wind turbine
generator (1,500 kW) plus a margin for the current associated with the generator
reactive power consumption/production and an additional margin based on the
maximum generator output multiplied by a rating factor of 125%. This calculation yields
a three phase power rating of 2,083 kVA which can be accommodated by a transformer
rated 2,000 / 2,250 kVA (55/65 degrees Celsius temperature rise).

The 13.8 kV generator interconnection circuit will consist of three (3), single conductor,
15 kV class cables, each capable of carrying a current of at least 87 amperes per phase.
This is determined on the same basis of the required transformer ratings and can be
accommodated by #2 AWG, Aluminum power cables. It is recommended that the cables
be installed in an underground conduit for physical protection rather than being directly
buried. The cost estimates developed for the electrical interconnection reflect concrete
encased, PVC conduits.

The wind turbine generator will be equipped with a main circuit breaker that will
automatically open upon a signal from the protective relays that will be required by NGrid
for interconnection of generation to their distribution system. The protective relays
detect abnormal circuit conditions that would require the wind turbine generator to be
disconnected from the rest of the PSA Building 480 volt system and the NGrid 13.8 kV
system.

The required protective relays and interconnection equipment will be specified by NGrid
based on the results of their system impact study. The protective relays that NGrid will
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 52
likely require include over/under voltage relays, over/under frequency relays, and
overcurrent relays. These protective relay functions are included with the wind turbine
generator and are proposed to be utilized to satisfy NGrid requirements.

Under normal operation, the wind turbine generator output will flow from the wind turbine
generator, through the 13.8 kV – 690 volt generator step-up transformer, to the 13.8 kV
interconnection circuit, to the 13.8 kV – 480 volt interconnection transformer, through the
480 volt disconnect switch, and finally to the 480 volt termination enclosure.

1.5.2.2. 13.8 kV Interconnection Plan

The 2,500 kW wind turbine generator is proposed to be connected to the overhead 13.8
kV, three phase tap circuit that supplies the PSA transformer from NGrid 13.8 kV circuit
#115W42. The connection to the 13.8 kV tap circuit is proposed to be located in the
vicinity of the existing 13.8 kV riser pole on Bay Street that supplies the PSA
transformer. The NGrid revenue metering will have to be moved from the PSA
switchboard to the overhead 13.8 kV tap circuit to allow the interconnection of the wind
turbine generator to be on Fall River WWTF’s side of the meter.

The 2,500 kW wind turbine generator will produce 60 Hertz power at an output voltage of
690 volts. Therefore, in order to connect the wind turbine generator to the 13.8 kV tap
circuit, a three phase generator step-up transformer will be utilized to convert the 690
volt generator voltage to the 13.8 kV supply circuit voltage. The generator step-up
transformer will be located at the base of the wind turbine generator or inside the nacelle
of the wind turbine generator. The generator step-up transformer rating recommended
by one wind turbine generator manufacturer is 2,500 / 2,812 kVA (55/65 degrees Celsius
temperature rise). The application of the 125% rating factor for the generator step-up
transformer would require a minimum rating of 3,300 kVA.

The wind turbine generator will be located approximately 1,200 circuit feet from the point
of interconnection to the 13.8 kV NGrid tap circuit. Therefore, a 13.8 kV interconnection
circuit from the generator step-up transformer to the tap circuit will be required. The 13.8
kV generator interconnection circuit is proposed to be an underground circuit and the
circuit route is proposed to be along the periphery of the Fall River WWTP adjacent to
State Avenue and Bay Street to the existing NGrid riser pole to the PSA Building. This
routing is anticipated to cause the least interference with existing Fall River WWTF
facilities. The 13.8 kV generator interconnection circuit will have to be routed under the
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 53
existing railroad tracks and the high pressure gas pipeline that runs along the railroad
tracks. This crossing is anticipated to be in the vicinity of the railroad underpass on
State Avenue. The crossing will require coordination and permission with the owners of
the railroad tracks and gas pipeline and is anticipated to require directional drilling.

The 13.8 kV interconnection circuit is proposed to consist of three (3) 15 kV class, #1


AWG, copper cables (one 15 kV class, #1 AWG, copper cable per phase) with an
ampacity of 175 amperes per phase. It is recommended that the 15 kV class cables be
installed in an underground conduit for physical protection rather than being directly
buried. The cost estimates developed for the electrical interconnection reflect concrete
encased, PVC conduits.

The 13.8 kV generator interconnection circuit will be connected to the overhead 13.8 kV
tap circuit via a 13.8 kV gang operated disconnect switch to provide a controllable
switching point between the wind turbine generator and the NGrid 13.8 kV distribution
system. The disconnect switch will provide an obvious point of disconnection that can
be verified by visual observation. NGrid operations personnel will need access to
manually open and padlock this disconnect switch in the open position to guarantee that
the wind turbine generator will not energize their 13.8 kV distribution system while they
are working on it or when they otherwise deem it necessary.

The wind turbine generator will be equipped with a main circuit breaker that will
automatically open upon a signal from the protective relays that will be required by NGrid
for interconnection of generation to their distribution system. The protective relays
detect abnormal circuit conditions that would require the wind turbine generator to be
disconnected from the rest of the 13.8 kV system.

The required protective relays and interconnection equipment will be specified by NGrid
based on the results of their system impact study. The protective relays that NGRID will
likely require include over/under voltage relays, over/under frequency relays, and
overcurrent relays. These protective relay functions are included with the wind turbine
generator and are proposed to be utilized to satisfy NGrid requirements.

Please note that this interconnection plan for the 2,500 kW generator can also be
considered for the 1,500 kW generator.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 54
1.5.3. Revenue Metering Modifications

The NGrid revenue metering equipment for PSA Building is supplied from current
transformers and potential transformers located inside the PSA switchboard.

The existing revenue metering equipment will have to be replaced with bi-directional
(capable of measuring electrical power that flows in both directions) metering equipment
that measures: (1) power supplied by NGrid to the PSA Building during periods when
power consumption exceeds the wind turbine generation; and, (2) power supplied to the
NGrid 13.8 kV distribution system during periods when the wind turbine generator
production exceeds the consumption. In addition, a kWh meter will have to be installed
at the output terminals of the wind turbine generator to measure the wind turbine
generator energy production for REC purposes.

1.5.3.1. 480 Volt Interconnection Plan

The new revenue metering equipment will be include three (3) new current transformers
located at the 480 volt terminals of the PSA transformer to supply the current
measurement to the new revenue meter. The new revenue meter is anticipated to
obtain voltage measurements directly from the 480 volt transformer spades.

The operation of the wind turbine generator will only affect the metered consumption of
the PSA Building. It will not affect the consumption of any other loads at the Fall River
WWTF.

The proposed 480 volt generator interconnection and metering plan will allow the PSA
Building to remain a secondary-metered customer of NGrid. Therefore, NGrid will
continue to own the 13.8 kV supply circuit and the 13.8 kV – 480/277 volt transformers.
NGrid may also require a dedicated telephone circuit to be provided as part of the new
revenue metering arrangement for their use.

1.5.3.2. 13.8 kV Interconnection Plan

The required revenue metering modifications for the 2,500 kW interconnection plan will
create what is referred to as a “primary metering” arrangement. It will involve the
installation of new 13.8 kV instrument transformers that will convert the voltage and
current at the 13.8 kV level to the voltage and current levels that can be safely
connected to the new NGrid revenue meter. For that purpose, it is anticipated that
NGrid will require the installation of three (3) voltage transformers and three (3) current
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 55
transformers at the new revenue metering location. NGRID may also require a dedicated
telephone circuit to be provided as part of the primary revenue metering arrangement for
their use.

NGrid may require the Fall River WWTF to purchase all NGrid equipment that will be
located on the load side of the revenue meter including the 13.8 kV riser pole, the 13.8
kV cables, and the PSA 13.8 kV – 480/277 volt transformer. This is a typical
arrangement for NGrid’s primary metered customers. This can be further explored with
NGrid once an interconnection application for the proposed wind turbine generator is
submitted to NGrid.

1.5.4. Operation of Wind Turbine Generator

Under normal electrical grid conditions and with sufficient wind, the wind turbine
generator will automatically start and connect to the PSA Building electrical system. The
wind turbine generator will begin to generate power and will ramp up towards full output
as a function of the wind speed. As the wind subsides or becomes too excessive, the
wind turbine generator will automatically stop generating and shutdown. Once wind
conditions are favorable again, the wind turbine generator will automatically start and
resume generation.

The wind turbine generator is only intended to operate when it is connected to an


energized electrical grid. It is not intended to be a source of standby electrical power in
the event of a power outage. The wind turbine generator includes sensors and
protective relays that will detect abnormal circuit conditions. The sensors and protective
relays will cause the generator to automatically stop generating and shutdown until
conditions return to normal.

The operation of the wind turbine generator will not alter the normal flow of electrical
power within the interior electrical system of the Fall River WWTF. During NGrid
outages, standby generators and transfer switches may be operated in exactly the same
way to provide standby power to the Fall River WWTF.

The proposed wind turbine generator interconnection plan allows all electrical equipment
associated with the wind turbine generator to be completely disconnected from the rest
of the Fall River WWTF electrical system at any time. The 13.8 kV interconnection plan
allows the wind turbine generator to be connected with minimal disruption to Fall River
WWTF’s operations. The 480 volt interconnection plan for the 1,500 kW generator
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 56
would require an outage of the PSA transformer to install the 480 volt termination
enclosure and relocate the NGrid revenue metering equipment.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 57
Figure 1-26
Proposed 480 Volt Wind Turbine Generator Electrical Interconnection Plan

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 58
Figure 1-27
Proposed 13.8 kV Wind Turbine Generator Electrical Interconnection Plan

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 59
1.5.5. Cost Estimate for Electrical Interconnection of Wind Turbine
Generator

The following planning accuracy cost estimates have been developed for use in the
feasibility analysis. The planning accuracy cost estimates are based on conceptual
interconnection plans for the wind turbine generator and are generally expected to be
within an accuracy of +/- 25%. The cost estimate is based on recent project experience
and vendor quotes and could change based on the final design and construction
conditions.

The total planning accuracy cost estimate for the interconnection of the 1,500 kW wind
turbine generator to the 480 volt secondary of transformer #1 is $584,000. The total
planning accuracy cost estimate for the electrical interconnection of the 2,500 kW wind
turbine generator to the overhead 13.8 kV tap circuit is $544,000. Please note that the
1,500 kW generator could be interconnected to the 13.8 kV tap circuit in the same
fashion as the 2,500 kW generator at a cost of $525,000.

The cost estimate for the 13.8 kV interconnection plan includes an allowance of $79,000
for Fall River WWTF to purchase the NGrid 13.8 kV equipment and the 13.8 kV –
480/277 volt PSA Building transformer. This is anticipated to be required as a result of
Fall River WWTF becoming a primary-metered customer of NGrid. The $79,000
allowance is based on the replacement cost of the equipment and includes a 39% adder
for the anticipated cost of NGrid’s tax liability associated with this transaction.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 60
2. Economic Feasibility Analysis
This section provides analysis on the economic viability of installing wind turbines at the
Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility. First it will describe the costs, financing
options, and benefits of installing wind turbines on-site. It then will combine these
factors and analyze scenarios to provide the realistic net benefits for a wind turbine
installation, concluding with recommendations of next steps.

2.1. Costs for Major Scenarios


2.1.1. Capital Costs

The capital costs for wind turbines are substantial. In the 1,500 kW to 2,500 kW
capacity costs range from $2,400/kW to $3,300/kW installed.

Major categories of costs include9:

· Turbine

o Turbine and Tower

o Freight

o FAA Lighting

· Balance of Plant

o Site Development

o Pad Mount Transformer

o Concrete and Rebar

o Foundation Labor

o Tower Imbeds / Bolts

o Cranes, Crane & Erection Labor

o Construction Supervision

9
Adapted from “A Comparative Analysis of Community Wind Power Development Options in
Oregon”, July 2004. “Community Wind” development refers to installations that are of utility
scale, but smaller than most wind farms (i.e., 500 kW to 20,000 kW projects).

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 61
o Monitoring and Control System

· Interconnection

o High Voltage Line Extension

o Interconnection and Metering

o Electrical Labor

· Soft Costs

o Legal

o Permitting

o Development & Engineering

o Insurance

o Meteorological Tower and Feasibility Study

o Contingencies

We estimate capital costs somewhat higher than is generally described in industry


publications and papers because:

· Most estimates assume larger wind farm installations where fixed costs can be
spread over many more turbines.

· The complexity of the electrical system and more stringent Massachusetts


requirements results in higher interconnection costs than is commonly estimated
($350,000 to $400,000 for The WWTF project versus ~$200,000 or less
estimated in the literature).

· Most suppliers of wind turbines are European; the Euro has risen sharply against
the dollar over the past two years.

· The high demand for wind turbines in the U.S. and internationally.

· High cost of steel.

· Construction costs are typically higher in the northeastern U.S. as compared to


the rest of the country.

Table 2-1 demonstrates the estimated customer costs to be expended in the preliminary
phases of the project. The flicker test determines if the position of the sun’s shadow
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 62
through the blade to observers located in the shadow of the blade creates a flicker of
sun/shadow during certain time periods of the year.

Table 2-1 Customer Costs for a Single Turbine Installation


Customer Incurred Cost Costs
Project Management - Overall $20,000
Avian Assessment - Podolsky $30,000
Civil Engineering - Design (Includes GeoTech) $35,000
Foundation Design $5,000
Noise Survey $10,000
FCC Survey $5,000
Electrical Design $65,000
Electrical Interconnection Study $25,000
Flicker Analysis $3,000
Permitting $8,000
RFP Creation + Review $3,000
Legal $20,000
Owners Electrical Engineer $12,000
Commissioning Fee / Bonus $100,000
Total $341,000

Table 2-2 displays estimated capital costs by turbine and component for a single turbine
project. In many cases, the economies of scale are readily apparent. Because the costs
have come from different sources, the not all components align directly.

Table 2-2 Engineering, Procuring and Construction Costs


Cost Component Nordic Fuhrlander GE 1.5 sle Furhlander Furhlander
N1000 - 70m 1.5 MW - 80-m 2.5 MW - 2.5 MW -
Tower 80m Tower Tower 85m Tower 100m Tower
Wind Turbine &
Blades $1,801,629 $2,905,875 $2,905,875

Customs $45,040 $72,645 $72,645


Wind Turbine,
Blades & Tower $1,160,000 $2,415,000

Freight for Wind


Turbine & Blades $50,000 $231,075 $268,200 $268,200

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 63
Cost Component Nordic Fuhrlander GE 1.5 sle Furhlander Furhlander
N1000 - 70m 1.5 MW - 80-m 2.5 MW - 2.5 MW -
Tower 80m Tower Tower 85m Tower 100m Tower
Tower $522,500 $632,500 $732,500
Tower Freight $50,000 $72,500 $82,500 $107,500
Taxes - 5% of
Components $58,000 $116,206 Included $176,919 $181,919

Engineering,
Design, $156,408 $172,000 $272,000
Mobilization
Sitework $100,000 $122,000 $185,650 $144,130 $144,130
Foundation
Construction $200,000 $408,000 $366,575 $510,000 $510,000

Turbine & Tower


Erection $175,000 $326,800 $385,000 $326,800 $342,800

Electrical
Construction $584,000 $584,000 $584,000 $544,000 $544,000

Startup &
Commissioning $13,700 $19,850 $19,850

Total EPC Costs $2,377,000 $4,399,858 $3,936,225 $5,855,419 $6,101,419

Total Costs $2,718,000 $4,740,858 $4,277,225 $6,196,419 $6,442,419


kW 1000 1500 1500 2500 2500
$/kW-Installed $2,718 $3,161 $2,851 $2,479 $2,577
Comments
Manufacturer
for turbine,
tower, and
Source of Cost blades,
Estimates (except inferred for Recent Recent Recent Recent
for electrical other line Indicative Indicative Indicative Indicative
construction) items Quote Quote Quote Quotes

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 64
2.1.2. Operating Costs

While there are no fuel costs for a wind turbine, there are ongoing operating costs
associated with operation. Cost elements include10:

· Operations and Maintenance

· Warranty

· Equipment Repair and Replacement Fund (a/k/a sinking fund)

· Property Taxes

· Equipment Insurance

· Management / Administrative

· Land Lease (only potentially relevant if a third party owns the wind turbine); and,

· Miscellaneous

Note that the cost of additional avian studies were not included in the operations and
maintenance cost elements in the financial model. Table 2-3 displays the estimated
annual costs for each of the selected turbines.

Table 2-3
Estimated Operating Costs Per Turbine for Selected Turbines11
Operating Cost Nordic Fuhrländer GE 1.5 Fuhrländer Fuhrländer
Component N1000 - 1.5 MW - sle 80-m 2.5 MW - 2.5 MW -
70m 80m Tower Tower 85m Tower 100m
Tower Tower
O&M Turbine $12,500 $15,000 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000
Warranty / Sinking $12,500 $15,000 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000
Fund Turbine
All Other $12,625 $12,625 $12,625 $14,000 $14,000

10
Adapted from “A Comparative Analysis of Community Wind Power Development Options in
Oregon”, July 2004. “Community Wind” development refers to installations that are of utility
scale, but smaller than most wind farms (i.e., 500 kW to 20,000 kW projects).
11
Note for small installations (e.g. < 5 turbines) generally the manufacturer will train on-site
personal to do low level maintenance, and pay them to perform these tasks (e.g., visual inspect
after shut-down and restart). Those costs are included. This most likely would work for WWTF
employees, so we believe it to be a reasonable working assumption.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 65
Operating Cost Nordic Fuhrländer GE 1.5 Fuhrländer Fuhrländer
Component N1000 - 1.5 MW - sle 80-m 2.5 MW - 2.5 MW -
70m 80m Tower Tower 85m Tower 100m
Tower Tower
Total Annual Costs $37,625 $42,625 $42,625 $64,000 $64,000

2.2. Benefits of Electricity Production


There are four types of energy revenue and/or avoided costs resulting from DG behind-
the-meter wind turbines. First is to avoid paying utility bill energy charges. Second, if
there is any excess power is to sell part or all of the production of a wind turbine into the
wholesale market. Third, is to capture revenue from selling renewable energy
certificates (RECs) that are available for wind turbines (or any renewable generation)
installed after March 1, 1998. Fourth is to garner forward capacity market payments.

The balance of Section 0 describes these revenue streams in turn, and then describes
potential environmental benefits from wind turbine electricity production.

2.2.1. Benefits of Avoiding Utility Bill Charges

An electric bill from National Grid (NGrid) consists of four types of charges:

1. Customer Charges

2. Demand (kW) Charges

3. Energy (kWh) Charges

4. Other (e.g., metering, interconnection study)

Customer, demand, and “other” charges all are considered purely utility “wire charges”
and generally are not offset by the installation of a wind turbine. The energy charges are
a mixture of “wire” and “generation” charges, and are offset by the installation of a wind
turbine.

The above charges (e.g., demand-kW, energy-kWh) are assessed for various “services”
and include:

· Generation. Generation services currently can be purchased in two different


ways. They are:

1. Basic Service; and,


Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 66
2. Competitive supply service (e.g., Constellation Energy, Select Energy, etc.);
and,

· Distribution;

· Transmission;

· Competitive transition (i.e., stranded costs);

· Energy efficiency; and,

· Renewable energy fund.

Unless a customer opts to totally disconnect from the grid and rely on a combination of
wind turbines and other sources of electricity (e.g., photovoltaics, banks of batteries,
micro-turbines), they can not avoid monthly customer charges nor demand (kW)
charges.

What can be avoided (in part) by the installation of a wind turbine are energy charges12.
The amount of energy charges a customer pays on the utility bill varies by their location,
rate class and consumption patterns.

2.2.1.1. No Implementation of “Standby” Generation Charges

Many utilities impose “standby” generation charges on customers that install on-site
generation. Currently NGrid imposes no standby charges.

2.2.2. Value of Excess Generation Sold into the Wholesale Market

When a wind turbine is producing more energy than is being consumed on-site, the
excess is sold to the wholesale energy market. All other things being equal, the WWTF
will want to size their turbine so at least a majority of the electricity generated by a wind
turbine is consumed on-site and not sold into the wholesale market, as retail rates are
generally much higher than wholesale rates.

As seen in Figure 2-1 the average hourly wholesale locational real time price for the
Southeastern Massachusetts (SEMA) ISO-NE was about 6.0 ¢/kWh (i.e., $60/MWh) in
early 2005, until oil prices started rising. Even before hurricane Katrina hit in August

12
Including a “wires” portion, e.g. the kWh portion of the transmission and distribution charges,
but not the kW portion of the transmission and distribution charges.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 67
2005 prices were ~9.0 ¢/kWh, as the wholesale clearing price is highly correlated with
natural gas prices. Wholesale prices dropped during 2006 as natural gas production
and storage increased. In the last quarter of 2006, spot prices of natural gas dropped
even further because of the low heating demand caused by the uncharacteristically
warm weather during that period. In the first quarter of 2007 natural gas prices rose with
the cold weather and so did the electricity spot prices. During the spring and summer
2007 natural gas prices moderated with high storage levels and so did the New England
spot price for electricity.

The average wholesale price for calendar year 2006 twelve months was 5.82 ¢/kWh,
which is approximately half of the cost of energy at retail that the Fall River WWTF can
expect to avoid by consuming the wind turbine generation on site. This 5.82 ¢/kWh is
the price on average that WWTF would have received in 2006 for any wholesale
production13.

13
Assuming the production was evenly spread over each of the 8760 hours of the year.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 68
Figure 2-1
Average Monthly Recent SEMA Real Time Locational Marginal Prices14

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12
$/kWh

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
04

07
06
4

5
4

7
4

5
05

7
-0

-0
r-0

r-0
r-0

-0

r-0
l- 0

l-0

l- 0

l- 0
n-

n-

n-
n-
ct

ct

ct
Ju

Ju

Ju

Ju
Ap

Ap

Ap

Ap
Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja
O

O
Source: ISO-NE

Beyond entering into a bi-lateral power purchase agreement with a third party wholesale
trader, the NGrid tariff provides three relevant options to WWTF for selling excess
power. They are:

1. Enter a separate customized bi-lateral power purchase agreement with NGrid.

2. For those systems 1 MW or greater in size, receive the hourly ISO-NE spot price.

3. For those systems less than 1 MW, receive the arithmetic average of the ISO-NE
spot price for the previous month.

14
ISO-NE, the New England wholesale operator, has implemented location marginal pricing.
Broadly this means that wholesale prices vary by hour and by location. ISO-NE has designated
eight zones, and within each zone there are many more nodes. Fall River is in the SEMA (South
East Massachusetts) zone. Generally there is very little difference between prices within a zone,
though inter-zonal prices do vary significantly. Summary of location marginal prices can be found
at: http://www.iso-ne.com/markets/hstdata/znl_info/monthly/smd_monthly.xls

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 69
In general the average wholesale spot price will be higher than what can be negotiated
for wind production in a bi-lateral contract as there is a huge amount of deliverability risk
(i.e., not knowing how much generation will be produced from a wind turbine given the
intermittent nature of the wind) for the wholesale trader. Thus if the WWTF entered into
a bi-lateral contract with a wholesale trader it is likely that the WWTF would receive a
very low price for the energy15. The balance of the financial analysis will assume WWTF
will accept the spot price, by choosing either options 2 or 3 above, depending upon the
size of the installation.

2.2.3. Protection from Volatile Electric Rates

For as long as the wind turbine is utilized, its fuel costs will be zero. This is in contrast to
highly volatile natural gas, fuel oil and electricity prices. A DG wind turbine can provide
much of the energy currently consumed on-site (the most likely sizing will be between
25% to 50% of current on-site consumption) though as discussed above some will be
consumed on-site and some will be exported back to the grid, and any significant turbine
project will dampen the risk associated with volatile energy prices, and make budgeting
and forecasting of energy operating costs more certain.

Each 1¢/kWh increase in electric prices translates into $100,000 in increased costs to
the city per year. An installation of a 1,500 kW turbine is expected to save/earn the city
approximately $157,000 net O&M and warranty costs (including loan repayment) in its
first year of installation, and would protect the Wastewater Treatment Facility from
electric rate increases from market volatility. If the WWTF was not making loan
payments and interest is not factored into the calculation, this value would be $549,000.

2.2.4. Renewable Energy Certificate Revenue

An additional revenue stream for wind turbines in Massachusetts comes from a


legislative mandate to promote renewable energy sources. The potential revenue
comes from the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), or so called “green
certificates”. RECs are a tool created as a result of the Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS) legislation adopted in some New England states, notably Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and most recently New Hampshire. Maine has recently

15
It is questionable if a wholesale trader would even consider such a contract given the very
small quantities of electricity (from their viewpoint) involved.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 70
amended their RPS to promote new renewable generation. Vermont has a RPS, but in
practice it does not promote new renewable projects to a great degree16.

Accounting for RECs is the method to certify compliance with an RPS. The primary
purpose of the RPS legislation is to create demand and financial support for new
renewable electric generation sources which have significantly fewer environmental
impacts than traditional fossil fuel based generation and which help diversify the
domestic electricity generation mix thereby leading to greater long-term price stability.

The Massachusetts RPS mandates that 1% of all in-state investor owned utility service
territory (i.e., NSTAR, National Grid, Fitchburg Gas & Electric, and Western Mass
Electric) electric consumption come from new (post-1997) renewable resources by 2004.
These levels increase by 0.5% each year though 2009, and at the discretion of the DTE,
1% for each year from 2010 through 2014 for a total of 9%. Connecticut, Rhode Island
and New Hampshire have similar requirements for in-state electricity consumption in
place. Maine rules are still being promulgated.

The alternative compliance payment (ACP, i.e., penalty) for an electricity supplier (e.g.,
Dominion Retail) not reaching these mandates in 2007 is $57.12/MWh17 for
Massachusetts and Rhode Island served load and $55/MWh for Connecticut served
load. The ACP in Massachusetts and Rhode Island is adjusted for inflation.

An on-site turbine at the Fall River WWTF that was deemed to be a wholesale generator
would be eligible to create RECs to satisfy any state RPS in New England. If the on-site
generator was deemed to be providing electricity that only offset on-site load at the
WWTF it could be used to satisfy the Massachusetts and Connecticut18 RPSs.

2.2.4.1. REC Prices

REC prices are driven by a combination of actual and anticipated supply and demand,
the ACP levels and, importantly, state rules regarding eligibility which affect both supply

16
New Hampshire will have the same ACP for Class I renewables (which includes wind) starting
in 2009 as Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Maine’s ACP is yet to be set. .
17
http://www.mass.gov/doer/rps/acp.htm
18
Connecticut is the only New England state that allows out-of-state, behind-the-meter
generation to be eligible for their RPS.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 71
and demand. Given the uncertainty of and long lead times to implement New England
renewable energy projects, and the legislative and regulatory risks associated with these
government-mandated markets, there is great uncertainty of REC prices in the long-
term. In the short-term, however, demand is strong; supply is short; and consequently
prices, particularly for Massachusetts RECs, are high, as can be seen in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4
Recent Prices for Selected New England RECs19
State-Class Vintage Bid Ask Last
CT-1 2007 $50.00 $52.00
CT-1 2008 $46.00 $44.00
CT-1 2007-2008 $48.00
CT-1 2009 $45.00
MA 2007 $54.00 $55.00
MA 07-09 pkg $48.00 $50.00 $49.00

2.2.5. Forward Capacity Market Payments

While impossible to yet quantify except in the broadest sense, a wind powered
installation will receive payments from the newly implemented ISO-NE forward capacity
market (FCM). Capacity payments are payments for kW generation installed. There is
even more uncertainty because payments, after a transition period through 2010, will be
based on a market clearing auction.

Table 2-5
ISO-NE Forward Capacity Payments during Transition Period
Date Range Transition Payment
December 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007 $3.05/kW Month
June 1, 2007 to May 31 2008 $3.05/kW Month
June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2009 $3.75/kW Month
June 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010 $4.10/kW Month

19
ICAP United REC Recap- week ending September 28, 2007.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 72
For a guess at potential parameters payments we assume capacity clearing prices after
the transition period of $5.00 / kW-month and a wind turbine, as an intermittent resource
or distributed resource, would be de-rated to 75% of a turbine’s capacity factor. Thus we
guess that payments per month for a 1.5 MW wind turbine might be $1,575/month
($5.00/kW * 1500 kW * 75% * 27.9%), or $18,897/ year after the transition period for the
GE 1.5sle turbine.

Such payments are incorporated into a base case pro-forma.

2.3. Analyze Financing / Ownership Options


As detailed above, the cost of a wind turbine installation will be over $1,000,000. Given
the high up front capital cost, various ownership options could be considered. The
financial benefits of a wind turbine would be as described above a combination of
avoided utility costs and REC sales revenue. The degrees of benefits are analyzed in
section 2.4 below.

2.3.1. Fall River WWTF Ownership

In the case of WWTF ownership, management might expect to pay for the project in part
from cash assets, and partially with a loan. The WWTF, as a governmental entity may
be able to and receive and benefit from the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs),
and issue a 0% bond.

CREB is a tax credit bond, a relatively new type of debt instrument. Prior to the
enactment of the CREB program, there was only one type of tax credit bond program in
place for the reconstruction of schools. In a CREB financing, the holder of the debt
instrument receives a federal tax credit in lieu of interest paid by the issuer. Thus,
CREBs provide an issuer with the ability to borrow at a 0% interest rate.20

If Fall River was able to qualify for a competitive CREB they would have to pay some
bond issuing costs, so in practice the bond interest would be probably 2% or less.

Under any ownership structure it is assumed that all major operations and maintenance
of the turbine would be out-sourced.

20
http://www.appanet.org/files/PDFs/CREB.pdf

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 73
2.3.2. Other Ownership Options

The amount of capital needed for a wind turbine project might be larger than the City of
Fall River can or is willing to provide. In this case, a joint venture ownership is also a
viable option. Boreal has found an array of entities potentially interested in a behind-the-
meter turbine ownership or part ownership. These include: out-of-region developers
who have invested in community wind size projects, angel investors, construction firms,
and real estate developers. In order to take advantage of the federal Production Tax
Credit (PTC described below), the investor must both be active and have sufficient tax
appetite or be a passive investor and have a sufficient passive tax appetite. Most any
for-profit corporation should be able to take advantage of the accelerated depreciation
associated with wind turbine installations.

In the scenario analysis below we analyze the potential simultaneous benefits for a third-
party owner to sell the WWTF turbine output at fixed rate.

2.3.3. Grants

2.3.3.1. MTC

There are a large number of organizations that offer grants to share the costs of a wind
turbine installation. Indeed the MTC, which in part funded this feasibility study through
their Large Onsite Renewables Initiative (LORI), has millions of yet to be allocated
dollars in their renewable energy fund earmarked to support on-site private business and
institutional renewable energy development. It should be noted that the MTC fund itself
originated from electric rate-based fees; so in effect, all electric customers in Fall River
have contributed significantly to this funding source historically. Grants are competitive
and awarded twice annually. For the most recent LORI round maximum grant was for
$500,000 or 75% of the project costs (whichever was less). More information can be
found at: http://www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/large_renewables.htm .

2.3.4. Tax Incentives

A third-party owner will be able take advantage of a different array of tax incentives.
Some of the tax benefits almost certainly would flow to WWTF via more favorable
contract terms (e.g., lower fixed price for electricity output) for purchase of the wind
turbine’s output. The primary tax incentives include:

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 74
· Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) is a tax credit for actual power produced
(currently 2.0 ¢/kWh, adjusted for inflation) for the first ten years’ electricity output
from a qualified privately-owned wind generation facility. The output from the
wind generation must be sold to an unrelated third-party in order to qualify for the
PTC. There are additional restrictions that constrict the potential investors that
could benefit from the PTC. The PTC has expired and been reauthorized
multiple times. Currently the PTC is set to expire as of December 31, 2008. In
many cases, if a grant decreases the capital cost of a project, then the PTC
benefits will be decreased on a pro-rata basis (e.g., if a grant covers 20% of the
capital costs of a wind turbine, then the PTC benefits would be reduced by 20%
to 1.52 ¢/kWh). The scenarios below that include potential grants have been
structured to assume a PTC “haircut” associated with a capital grant.

· Federal Modified Accelerated Cost Reduction System (MACRS). Allows the


capital costs of a wind turbine project to be depreciated over five years using a
200% declining balance method).

· Local property tax exemption.

These tax incentives are very valuable to a third-party owner. For wind farms, the rule of
thumb is that tax incentives are about a third of the value of the project. This likely will
be less, but will still be significant for a WWTF wind turbine project. In any event, it is
likely a portion of these tax benefits would flow to the WWTF via more attractive contract
terms with third-party ownership.

2.4. Analyze Project Financials


This subsection analyzes the financial payback for various scenarios of turbine
configurations, ownership, costs, revenue, etc. It first describes the methodology
employed, and then defines the primary base cases used in the analysis. Multiple
scenarios will be presented that are variants of the base cases. Additionally sensitivity
to various input assumptions will be shown. The subsection ends with a comparison of
the various ownership / configurations and recommendations for design and
construction. The analysis establishes the strong, rapid payback for the larger scale
wind energy at the WWTF under most cases.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 75
2.4.1. Methodology

2.4.1.1. Hourly Analysis Foundation

The goal of this analysis is to compute the financial payback of ownership and turbine
configuration options in a realistic fashion and to confirm the suitability of utilizing historic
wind resource and electric use data for forward looking projections. To replicate impacts
that would have occurred for each of the 8760 hours in 2006 from a wind turbine we
have simultaneously taken into account:

· The WWTF’s 2006 hourly electricity consumption. A model of this was formed by
adjusting a generic load profile to mimic the distribution of WWTF’s monthly
energy usage.

· ISO-NE’s 2006 hourly locational marginal price for the SEMA zone

· NGrid’s Time-of-Use tariff structure for the G3 rate class21.

· Estimates of 2006 hourly wind resources at the WWTF Market (scaled to adjust
for long-term wind resources), and the corresponding electricity output from the
analyzed turbines.

From this information for each of the 8760 hours of the year, we are able to calculate the
amount and value of electricity that would have been consumed on-site in 2006, and the
amount and value of electricity sold into the wholesale market.

2.4.1.2. Projecting Financial Impacts to Future Years

A wind turbine has an expected 20-year equipment life. For future years we assumed
replication of 2006 wind resources and the WWTF’s electricity consumption22. We have
increased prices by assumed inflation rates (e.g., wholesale prices), decreased prices
per tariff filings (e.g., NGrid transition costs are expected to decrease over the next few
years) or assumed prices would stay steady (e.g., we assumed that the renewable
energy charge, the portion of the bill that funds MTC’s Renewable Energy Trust, would
21
NGrid’s G3 Time-of-Use rates differ by two periods that are uniquely assigned to each of hour
the year. They are: Peak, and Off-Peak.
22
In reality, electricity consumption almost certainly will increase with the increases in electricity
consuming equipment (e.g., computers, monitors, etc.), additional processing, etc.. This will
increase the percent of on-site consumption and the value of the wind turbine.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 76
stay constant at 0.05 ¢/kWh for the life of the wind turbine), as appropriate. Additionally
we make explicit assumptions about the cost of the wind turbine installation, O&M costs,
percent of time the wind turbine is available (i.e., not undergoing repair or maintenance),
line losses, REC revenue, tax rates, availability of the PTC, interest rates, loan terms,
potential grants, and inflation rates.

All this information is combined to provide nominal costs and benefits of a wind turbine
for each of the 20 years of expected life of operation. From these results, cash flow,
internal rate of return (IRR), and net present value (NPV) can be computed.

2.4.2. Define Major Scenarios and Variants

The base case scenarios for a General Electric 1.5sle installed at the Fall River WWTF
are summarized in Table 2-6.

Table 2-6
Attributes for Financial Base Case Scenarios
Attribute Value Comment
Wind Resources Annual average See Section 0
5.55 m/s @ 40
meters
Electricity Consumption ’05, ’06, ‘07
Patterns Historical
(averaged)
Wholesale Market Prices 2006 Historical Inflation adjustment
Project Start Date January 2008
Months to Complete 12
General Inflation 3.0%
Energy Inflation 4.0%
REC price 5.00 ¢/kWh for first No inflation adjustment
3 years, 4.00
¢/kWh thereafter
Forward Capacity Market $5.00 / kW-Month Inflation Adjusted
Price
Forward Capacity Market De- Net Capacity
Rate kW for Wind Turbine Factor * 75%
Risk Free Interest Rate 5.5% Used to calculate NPV
Interest Rate for Loan 5.0% If Clean Renewable Energy
Bonds available, assume 2%

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 77
Attribute Value Comment
Interest Rate for Loan: Third- 8.5%
Party Owner
Down Payment 20%
Marginal Tax Rate 0% WWTF is a municipally owned
facility
Marginal Tax Rate: Third- 33% Federal and Third-Party Owner only
Party Owner 7% State
Production Tax Credit 0 2.0 ¢/kWh for Third Party +
Inflation adjustment.
Depreciation Schedule for 5 year MACRS Use half-year convention for start
Third-Party of depreciation (i.e., first year
depreciation assumes a July 1
install date)
Capital Costs See Table 2-1; 2-2
Annual Ongoing Costs See Table 2-3
Internal Line Losses 2.5%
Turbine Availability 97.5%

2.4.3. Financial Results

2.4.3.1. City Ownership

Many of the attributes base case scenarios are defined above. In this subsection we
provide a review of the financial results. The largest turbine installation of a single
General Electric 1.5sle has the best payback on both internal rate of return and net
present value bases (with approximately a $2,500,000 net present value on a 20 year
investment, this is in line with the economies of scale that larger turbines have over
smaller turbines). Table 2-7 and

Table 2-8 show results for various turbine installations under $500,000 Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative grant and no grant scenarios respectively.

Figure 2-2 provides a graphic depiction of the yearly and aggregate (total) cash flow for
a GE 1.5sle on an 80 meter tower. Post-tax income is greatest during the second year
of production because of MACRS accelerated depreciation using the half-year
convention.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 78
Table 2-7
Financial Results for Various Turbine Installations Assuming $500,000 Grant23
Turbine IRR-10 NPV-10 Years IRR-20 NPV-20 Years to Cash
Configuration Years Years Years Flow Positive
Nordic N1000 -1.7% ($445,331) 14.7% $707,950 11.3
Fuhrländer FL 5.9% ($421,370) 18.5% $2,128,896 10.1
1500/77
General Electric 12.7% $4,934 22.5% $2,571,659 7.6
1.5sle
Fuhrländer FL 9.3% ($284,730) 20.4% $3,339,313 8.8
2500 – 85m Tower
Fuhrländer FL 9.9% ($243,198) 20.8% $3,579,923 8.5
2500 – 100m
Tower

Table 2-8
Financial Results for Various Turbine Installations Assuming No Grant
Turbine IRR-10 NPV-10 Years IRR-20 NPV-20 Years to Cash
Configuration Years Years Years Flow Positive
Nordic N1000 NC ($883,057) 10.1% $270,225 13.2
Fuhrländer FL -0.1% ($859,096) 15.4% $1,691,170 11.0
1500/77
General Electric 5.7% ($432,792) 18.5% $2,133,933 10.1
1.5sle
Fuhrländer FL 4.6% ($722,456) 17.8% $2,901,587 10.3
2500 – 85m Tower
Fuhrländer FL 5.4% ($680,923) 18.3% $3,142,197 10.1
2500 – 100m
Tower

23
This scenario is assumed for the sensitivity analysis. $500,000 is the maximum combined
design and construction grant available through the MTC’s LORI program.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 79
Figure 2-2
Cash Flow for Installation of GE 1.5sle Assuming $500,000 Grant

$10,000,000

Host Annual Cash Flow


$8,000,000

Host Total Cash Flow


$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

$(2,000,000)
Project Year

2.4.3.2. Third Party Ownership

A Third-Party should be able to take advantage of tax incentives that the City of Fall
River cannot, and share some of those benefits with the City while still providing
substantial savings. In this scenario, the WWTF would consume all the output of a wind
turbine installation it could, and the balance would be sold at wholesale rates. Fall River
will do well in this scenario (see Table 2-9 for results without a grant and Table 2-10 for
results with a $500,000 grant).

For example, assuming the installation of a 1.5sle and the treatment plant as the
consumer of the wind turbine output at 9.0 ¢/kWh, WWTF would reap $74,000 savings in
the first year. These savings increase over time as the financial runs assume the 9.0
¢/kWh is fixed over the 20 year project life, while the model assumes energy inflation at
4.0%, much lower than it has been in recent years. With these assumptions, Fall River
savings are $233,000 and $491,000 for the 10th and 20th year, respectively.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 80
The financial payback for Fall River is better in the ten year time-frame for the 1.5sle
than self-ownership because Fall River reaps net benefits from day one and the benefits
of self-ownership have not caught up with the financial head-start of savings that are
provided by a third-party immediately. Over 20 years, the benefits of third-party
ownership are not as good as self-ownership for Fall River, as in this scenario Fall River
will miss out on “free” electricity after the turbine is paid off. Of course, with third-party
ownership the third party takes all the technology risk. The results including the grant
are shown graphically in

Table 2-8.

Table 2-9
Post-Tax Financial Results of Third-Party Owner –
and WWTF as Off-Taker, No Grant
Turbine Third Third Third Third Years Fall River Fall River
Configuration Party Party Party Party Until NPV-10 NPV-20
IRR- NPV-10 IRR- NPV-20 Cash Years Years
10 Years 20 Years Flow
Years Years Positive24
Nordic N1000 12.3% ($15,026) 20.1% $606,924 4.0 $407,405 $1,005,370
Fuhrländer FL
1500/77 28.1% $650,975 31.4% $2,154,678 3.3 $804,949 $1,985,561

General
Electric 1.5sle 34.7% $898,164 36.9% $2,404,005 3.0 $815,212 $2,011,411

Fuhrländer FL
2500 – 85m 36.4% $1,445,171 38.5% $3,832,393 3.0 $963,170 $2,375,749
Tower
Fuhrländer FL
2500 – 100m 37.4% $1,583,594 39.4% $4,121,552 2.9 $1,001,693 $2,470,628
Tower

Table 2-10
Post-Tax Financial Results of Third-Party Owner –
and Fall River as Off-Taker, $500,000 Grant -
Turbine IRR-10 NPV-10 IRR- NPV-20 Years Fall River Fall River
Configurati Years Years 20 Years Until NPV-10 NPV-20
on Years Cash Years Years
Flow
Positive
Nordic 23.5% $193,624 27.7% $811,464 3.4 $407,405 $1,005,370

24
For third party

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 81
Turbine IRR-10 NPV-10 IRR- NPV-20 Years Fall River Fall River
Configurati Years Years 20 Years Until NPV-10 NPV-20
on Years Cash Years Years
Flow
Positive
N1000
Fuhrländer
FL 1500/77 34.0% $850,833 36.3% $2,349,622 3.0 $804,949 $1,985,561

General
Electric 41.4% $1,092,065 43.0% $2,592,446 2.8 $815,212 $2,011,411
1.5sle
Fuhrländer
FL 2500 – 40.9% $1,636,024 42.5% $4,017,507 2.9 $963,170 $2,375,749
85m Tower
Fuhrländer
FL 2500 – 41.7% $1,773,586 43.3% $4,305,726 2.8 $1,001,693 $2,470,628
100m Tower

Figure 2-3
Cash Flow for Third-Party Owner of GE 1.5sle and WWTF as
Off-Taker- $500,000 Grant

$8,000,000
Host Pre-Tax Annual
$7,000,000 Cash Flow
Host Pre-Tax Total
$6,000,000 Cash Flow
Post-Tax Third-Party
$5,000,000 Annual Cash Flow
Post-Tax Third-Party
$4,000,000 Total Cash Flow

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$-
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

$(1,000,000)

$(2,000,000)
Project Year

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 82
2.4.4. Sensitivity Analysis

This subsection provides an analysis of the major factors that may affect the payback on
a wind turbine. The major factors that are analyzed are wind resources, capital costs,
interest rates, wholesale generation prices, level of debt vs. equity, and the presence of
proposed net metering legislation.

2.4.4.1. Wind Resources

In Table 2-11, the mean wind speeds are varied at 5% intervals from the mean
applicable wind speeds of 6.27 meters/second at a hub height of 80 meters (1.5sle).
The variation of wind resources results in corresponding variations in capacity factor,
and therefore financial payback. As the table shows financial returns are very sensitive
to wind resources.

Table 2-11
Sensitivity of Post-Tax Financial Returns to Wind Speed for a 1.5sle
Wind Speed Mean Capacity IRR- NPV-10 IRR- NPV-20 Years
Adjustment Wind Factor 10 Years 20 Years Until
Speed Years Years Cash
(m/s) at Flow
Hub Positive
80% 5.0 18% NC ($1,254,583) 9.8% $328,931 13.3
85% 5.3 21% -5.4% ($934,636) 13.0% $898,685 11.9
90% 5.7 23% 1.3% ($613,690) 16.1% $1,470,193 10.8
95% 6.0 26% 7.4% ($293,991) 19.4% $2,039,508 9.6
100% 6.3 28% 12.7% $4,934 22.5% $2,571,659 7.6
105% 6.6 30% 17.8% $310,244 25.8% $3,115,260 6.2
110% 6.9 32% 21.9% $560,190 28.5% $3,560,186 5.4
115% 7.2 35% 26.5% $852,977 31.9% $4,081,325 4.7
120% 7.5 37% 30.3% $1,098,164 34.8% $4,517,739 4.3

2.4.4.2. Capital Costs

Capital costs can range above and below the given estimates. Any number of factors
might cause costs to be higher than estimated, including a continuing weak dollar, high
demand and tight supply of wind turbines, unforeseen construction costs. Conversely,
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 83
supply of wind turbines might outstrip demand as U.S. manufacturing plants come on-
line, the dollar may strengthen, and steel prices may decrease.

Table 2-12 shows the sensitivity of financial results to capital cost variation for a 1.5sle.

Table 2-12
Post-Tax Sensitivity to Capital Cost Variation for a 1.5sle
Capital Cost IRR-10 Years NPV-10 IRR-20 Years NPV-20 Years Until
Variance Years Years Cash Flow
Positive
20% -4.0% ($1,181,692) 13.6% $1,385,033 11.7
15% -1.7% ($994,467) 14.6% $1,572,258 11.3
10% 0.6% ($807,242) 15.8% $1,759,483 10.9
5% 3.1% ($620,017) 17.0% $1,946,708 10.5
0% 5.7% ($432,792) 18.5% $2,133,933 10.1
-5% 8.6% ($245,567) 20.0% $2,321,159 9.1
-10% 11.6% ($58,342) 21.8% $2,508,384 8.0
-15%25 14.9% $128,884 23.8% $2,695,609 7.0
-20% 18.4% $316,109 26.2% $2,882,834 6.1
-25% 22.4% $503,334 28.9% $3,070,059 5.4
-30% 26.8% $690,559 32.2% $3,257,284 4.7
-35% 31.8% $877,784 36.0% $3,444,509 4.1
-40% 37.5% $1,065,009 40.7% $3,631,734 3.7

2.4.4.3. Interest Rates

Table 2-13 displays the sensitivity of financial returns for a wind turbine project assuming
changes in the interest rates on borrowing. The low 2.0% borrowing rate would be
applicable if the WWTF could qualify for a CREB loan. Such a loan would make a
project even more attractive.

Table 2-13
Sensitivity of Returns to Interest Rate Variation
Interest Rate IRR-10 Years NPV-10 IRR-20 Years NPV-20 Years Until
Years Years Cash Flow
Positive

25
With a $500,000 grant, capital cost variance is -12%.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 84
Interest Rate IRR-10 Years NPV-10 IRR-20 Years NPV-20 Years Until
Years Years Cash Flow
Positive
2.0% 19.0% $373,519 26.4% $2,940,244 5.9
2.5% 18.0% $314,064 25.7% $2,880,789 6.2
3.0% 16.9% $253,808 25.0% $2,820,533 6.4
3.5% 15.9% $192,758 24.4% $2,759,483 6.7
4.0% 14.8% $130,924 23.7% $2,697,649 7.0
4.5% 13.7% $68,313 23.1% $2,635,038 7.3
5.0% 12.7% $4,934 22.5% $2,571,659 7.6
5.5% 11.6% ($59,204) 21.9% $2,507,521 8.0
6.0% 10.5% ($124,093) 21.3% $2,442,633 8.3
6.5% 9.5% ($189,722) 20.7% $2,377,003 8.8
7.0% 8.4% ($256,083) 20.1% $2,310,643 9.2

2.4.4.4. Retail Generation Price

To review terminology, the retail generation price is the competitive portion of the end-
user (consumer’s) electricity bill charged on per-kWh basis (e.g., the energy portion).
The current retail is generation price is contracted at 8.7 ¢/kWh. There are additional
energy (kWh) charges, plus demand (kW) and customer charges on an electric bill. The
additional “wires” portion of energy charges of ~2.0 ¢/kWh are set per tariff, and are not
negotiable, but are avoidable by a wind turbine.

Table 2-14 displays the sensitivity of financial payback to variations in retail generation
prices. Retail energy prices have risen sharply in recent years, so any of these
scenarios are plausible. As can be seen in Table 2-14 financial returns are sensitive to
changes in retail generation prices. The installation of a wind turbine provides a hedge
against increases in retail prices, and more control on a budget line-item that is
problematic for financial planning purposes.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 85
Table 2-14
Sensitivity of Returns to Generation Price Variation
Retail Generation IRR-10 NPV-10 IRR-20 NPV-20 Years Until Cash
Costs Years Years Years Years Flow Positive
0.070 $/kWh 5% ($408,358) 18% $1,811,205 10.2
0.080 $/kWh 10% ($164,601) 21% $2,259,716 8.6
0.087 $/kWh 13% $6,029 22% $2,573,674 7.6
0.090 $/kWh 14% $79,156 23% $2,708,228 7.2
0.100 $/kWh 18% $322,914 26% $3,156,739 6.2
0.110 $/kWh 22% $566,671 29% $3,605,250 5.5
0.120 $/kWh 26% $810,429 31% $4,053,762 4.9

2.4.4.5. Up Front Equity

For Fall River, there is low sensitivity to the size of any loan used to pay for capital costs
because of the low interest rates incurred by municipal projects.

Table 2-15
Sensitivity of Post-Tax Returns to Percent Equity Variation
Down IRR-10 Years NPV-10 IRR-20 Years NPV-20 Years Until
Payment % Years Years Cash Flow
Positive
10% 14.2% $17,144 24.7% $2,583,869 7.6
20%26 12.7% $4,934 22.5% $2,571,659 7.6
30% 11.7% ($7,276) 20.9% $2,559,449 7.6
40% 11.0% ($19,486) 19.7% $2,547,239 7.6
50% 10.5% ($31,696) 18.7% $2,535,029 7.6
60% 10.1% ($43,906) 17.9% $2,522,819 7.6
70% 9.8% ($56,116) 17.3% $2,510,609 7.6
80% 9.6% ($68,327) 16.7% $2,498,399 7.6
90% 9.4% ($80,537) 16.2% $2,486,189 7.5
100% 9.2% ($92,747) 15.7% $2,473,979 7.5

26
For the base case, a 20% down payment was assumed

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 86
2.4.4.6. Passage of Net Metering Bill

During the 2007 state session, new energy legislation was introduced by House Speaker
Salvatore DiMasi. Included in DiMasi’s omnibus bill, The Green Communities Act, is a
provision establishing net metering within the Commonwealth. Net metering would
permit a party generating up to 2 MW of onsite renewable power to be compensated
with retail rather than wholesale rates for energy exported to the grid. Compensation
would be conducted on a monthly basis. For a project with as large a load as the Fall
River Wastewater Treatment Facility, where turbine production would never exceed
consumption on a monthly basis, this would translate to a monthly credit to the electric
bill in the amount of (Generation Cost + Transmission Cost + CTC27) * kWh exported to
the grid. This amounts to a yearly cash flow of $8,000 above the current scenario given
the 162,663 kWh predicted to be exported with a 1.5 MW wind turbine.

Table 2-16
Sensitivity to Ratification of Proposed Net Metering Legislation
Net Metering IRR-10 Years NPV-10 IRR-20 Years NPV-20 Years Until
Available Years Years Cash Flow
Positive
No 12.7% $4,934 22.5% $2,571,659 7.6
Yes 13.6% $60,629 23.1% $2,674,137 7.3

2.5. Conclusions
A wind turbine installation has the potential for considerable financial and environmental
benefit. Further, there appears no major technical or regulatory constraints to a wind
turbine installation. Conversely, a project this visible will invariably bring out some
community opposition. Nonetheless, given the favorable wind resources and the nature
of the site, a wind turbine is attainable, environmentally beneficial, and financially
compelling.

2.5.1. Next Steps

· Obtain City of Fall River decision to pursue project further

27
The Competitive Transition Cost is currently .14¢/kWh and scheduled to decrease precipitously
as debts on old, uneconomic, traditional generation plants are paid-off.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 87
· Estimate potential noise impacts from a project.

· Perform survey of radio, TV and microwave sources and potential wind turbine
impacts.

· Continue meteorological data collection and analysis

· Proceed to permitting, design, engineering and construction

o Investigate delivery constraints by a qualified engineer. If they are a


critical constraint for larger turbine, select smaller model.

o Begin permitting process at all levels.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 88
Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 89
A. Wind Resource Assessment Methodology
A.1 Correlation between WWTF and New Bedford Regional
Airport
The correlations made between the measurements at the wastewater treatment plant
and New Bedford Regional Airport were adequate providing confidence that New
Bedford long-term wind speeds (with appropriate adjustments) are a good proxy for the
site. Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 show the correlation of wind speeds between New
Bedford and WWTF graphically.

Figure A-1
Scatterplot of Average Hourly Wind Speeds at Fall River and the New Bedford
Regional Airport– July 20, 2007-October 22, 2007

12
New Bedford Regional Airport Wind Speed (m/s)

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Fall River WWTP 20m Wind Speed (m/s)

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 90
Figure A-2 Scatterplot of Average Daily Wind Speeds at Fall River and the New
Bedford Regional Airport– July 20, 2007-October 22, 2007

6
New Bedford Regional Airport Wind Speed (m/s)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fall River WWTP 20m Wind Speed (m/s)

A.2 Calculation of Wind Shear Adjustment


The change in wind speed with height is referred to as wind shear. Almost invariably,
the wind blows at a consistently higher velocity at higher elevations. One estimate of the
method of estimating wind shear is given by the following formula28:

a
U ( z) æ z ö
=ç ÷
U ( z r ) çè z r ÷ø

Where:

U(z) is the wind speed at height z.


28
See Wind Energy Explained. J.F. Manwell, J.G. McGowan, A. L. Rogers. John Wiley & Sons
2002. Eqn (2.3.26), p. 44.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 91
U(zr) is the wind speed at reference height zr, and,

α is the power law exponent.

From this formula α was determined to be 0.17 from 30 to 40 meters.

Estimates of long-term wind speeds at higher elevations at WWTF are calculated by


applying the power law coefficient. These results are shown in Section 1.2.4.3

Fall River WWTF Wind Study June 2008

Page 92
B. Avian Assessment

Initial Bird Assessment of the Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility


Wind Turbine Project Site

Google Earth 2007

Prepared for:
Boreal Renewable Energy Development
41 Margaret St
Arlington MA 02474

By:
Richard Podolsky, Ph.D.
PO Box 1066
Rockport, ME 04856

December 8, 2008
Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 93 June 2008
Table of Contents

Page
1.0 Scope, Purpose, Project Overview .............................................................3

2.0 Birds in the Vicinity of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility .........3
· Massachusetts Audubon Important Bird Areas (IBA)
· Threatened, Endangered, Species of Special Concern and
Regulatory Landscape

3.0 Bird Mortality from Human Activities Including Wind Turbines ..........9
· Risks to Birds from Wind Turbines

4.0 Conclusions and Next Steps……………………………………...………..11

5.0 References…………………………………..……….……………………..14
· Online Sources
· Printed Sources

Appendix A: MA NHESP Letter………………………………………………...……………..17

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 94
Project Site
1. Scope, Purpose and Project Overview
The goal of the Initial Bird Assessment (“Assessment”) was to evaluate the general
characteristics of avian habitat at the proposed turbine location at the Fall River Wastewater
Treatment Facility (WWTF) and the town of Fall River (Figure 2). The motivation for the
Assessment was in the larger context of the planning for the possible installation of a single wind
turbine generator (WTG) at the WWTF.
With 91,802 inhabitants, the City of Fall River is 8th largest in the Commonwealth.
Having a very large electric demand, the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility is
investigating the potential of installing a utility scale wind turbine (approximately 1.5 to 2.5
MW) to help offset electricity demand and rising energy costs and for environmental benefit.
The site is situated on the mouth of the Taunton River at Mt. Hope Bay. 2006 electricity
usage at the facility was approximately 11,350,000 kWh with a peak demand of 3,300 kW.

2. Birds in the Vicinity of the Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility


This initial avian assessment is based on existing information available in the public
domain, upon the best professional judgment of the author and from a site visit conducted in
November 2007. In this context, the WWTF has the potential to support approximately 80
breeding, wintering, and migratory species of aquatic birds (Table 1.).

Table 1. Aquatic species that may occur in the vicinity of the WWTF (M=migration,
B=breeding season, W=winter). Compiled from range maps found in The Sibley Guide to
Birds (Sibley 2000)

Species Seasons
1. American Bittern MB
2. American Black Duck MB
3. American Coot M
4. American Oystercatcher MB
5. American Wigeon M
6. American Woodcock MB
7. Arctic Tern M
8. Black Scoter MW
9. Black Tern M
10. Black-bellied Plover M
11. Black-crowned Night-Heron B
12. Black-legged Kittiwake MW
13. Blue-winged Teal MB
14. Bonaparte's Gull M
15. Brant MW

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 95
Project Site
16. Bufflehead MW
17. Canada Goose MBW
18. Canvasback M
19. Common Eider MW
20. Common Goldeneye MW
21. Common Loon MW
22. Common Merganser M
23. Common Moorhen MB
24. Common Snipe MB
25. Common Tern MB
26. Double-crested Cormorant MB
27. Dunlin M
28. Gadwall M
29. Great Black-backed Gull MBW
30. Great Blue Heron MB
31. Great Cormorant MW
32. Greater Scaup M
33. Greater Yellowlegs M
34. Green Heron M
35. Green-winged Teal M
36. Herring Gull MBW
37. Hooded Merganser M
38. Killdeer MB
39. Laughing Gull MB
40. Least Sandpiper M
41. Least Tern MB
42. Lesser Scaup M
43. Lesser Yellowlegs MB
44. Long-tailed Duck MW
45. Mallard MBW
46. Marsh Wren MB
47. Northern Gannet M
48. Northern Harrier MW
49. Northern Pintail M
50. Northern Shoveler M
51. Osprey MB
52. Pectoral Sandpiper M
53. Pied-billed Grebe B
54. Piping Plover MB
55. Red Knot MB
56. Red-breasted Merganser MW
57. Red-throated Loon M
58. Red-winged Blackbird MB
59. Ring-billed Gull MB
60. Ring-necked Duck M
61. Ring-necked Duck M
62. Roseate Tern M
63. Ruddy Duck M

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 96
Project Site
64. Ruddy Turnstone M
65. Sanderling MB
66. Semipalmated Plover MB
67. Semipalmated Sandpiper MB
68. Short-billed Dowitcher MB
69. Snowy Egret MB
70. Sora M
71. Spotted Sandpiper B
72. Surf Scoter MW
73. Swamp Sparrow MB
74. Tree Swallow MB
75. Virginia Rail MB
76. Whimbrel M
77. White-winged Scoter MW
78. Willet MB
79. Wood Duck M

3. Massachusetts Audubon Important Bird Areas (IBA)


The Massachusetts Important Bird Area Program (IBA) is carried out cooperatively
by staff from Mass Audubon, a volunteer Technical Committee and various partner
organizations. The primary goals of the IBA program are:
· To identify, nominate, and designate key sites that contribute to the preservation of
significant bird populations or communities.
· To provide information that will help land managers evaluate areas for habitat
management and/or land acquisition.
· To activate public and private participation in bird conservation efforts.
· To provide public education and community outreach opportunities.
An Important Bird Area is a site that provides essential habitat to one or more species
of breeding, wintering, or migrating birds. Important Bird Areas generally support high-
priority species, large concentrations of birds, exceptional bird habitat, and/or have
substantial research or educational value. Criteria for IBA Sites include:
1. Sites regularly holding significant numbers of an endangered, threatened,
vulnerable, or declining species. (Category 1)
2. Sites regularly holding significant numbers of species of high conservation
priority in Massachusetts. (Category 2)
3. Sites where birds concentrate in significant numbers in the breeding season,
in winter, or during migration. (Category 3)
4. Sites containing assemblages of species characteristic of a representative,

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 97
Project Site
rare, threatened, or unique habitat within the state or region. (Category 4)
5. Sites important for long-term research and/or monitoring projects that
contribute substantially to ornithology, bird conservation, and/or education.
(Category 5)

Only the following IBA is in proximity to the WWTF (Figure 1.).


1. Allen’s Pond and Westport River Watershed Wompatuck State Park

Figure 1. The WWTF project (indicated by stick-pin) is located in the vicinity of only one
IBA – Allen’s Pond and Westport River Watershed.

Findings: The size of the WWTF wind project is too small and the distances to any IBA is
too great for there to be a concern that the WWTF wind project would put the birds using
these IBAs at risk.

4. Threatened, Endangered, Species of Special Concern and Regulatory


Landscape
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; ESA): The ESA provides strict
protection for any listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
Harming a single individual can lead to serious penalties. In the vicinity of the WWTF,
three species of ESA birds are of potential, albeit remote concern: Bald Eagle, Piping Plover
and Roseate Tern. Bald Eagles could theoretically be found in the vicinity of the WWTF
during any month of the year, typically along shorelines or perched on rocks or in trees.
Piping Plovers are summer residents as well as spring and fall migrants at sandy beaches
along the Massachusetts coast. Roseate Terns are also summer visitors that nest on predator-

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 98
Project Site
free islands in Buzzards Bay and feed at sea and over sandbars in coastal Massachusetts.

Findings: It is not likely that any ESA species would initiate nesting in the industrialized
landscape around the WWTF (Figure 2 and 3), and no critical habitat for these species have
been designated. Therefore, the risks posed by potential wind turbines appear to be
negligible.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703–712; MBTA): The MBTA is the
cornerstone of bird conservation and makes it unlawful to kill (“take”), by any means, any
migratory bird. This category includes almost all species found in the vicinity of the WWTF
except crows and starlings. The MBTA is a strict liability statute, wherein no proof of intent
is part of a violation, and there is no provision for allowing unauthorized take. Bald and
Golden Eagles receive additional protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(16 U.S.C. 668 – 668d; BGEPA).

Findings: In practice, prosecutions arising from violations of the MBTA at wind power sites
have been very infrequent and the USFWS has used prosecutorial discretion where good
faith efforts have been made to avoid the take of migratory birds.

Massachusetts Endangered Species Act: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports several
federally listed endangered and threatened species of fish, turtles, birds, and mammals near
or in coastal waters of Massachusetts, but none are known to be found in the vicinity of the
WWTF.

Findings: The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program (NHESP) in a letter dated _, 2007
(attached at the end of this report) notes; “the NHESP has determined that at this time the
site is not mapped as Priority or Estimate Habitat and the NHESP does not have any rare
species concerns associated with this site”.

The Massachusetts list of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern: Includes those
species that are or may become at risk of extirpation as breeders in Massachusetts. It includes
28 bird species of which 10 are also Federally listed (either under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) or in Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC 2002) and Bird Conservation Region
30 (BCR30)). Eight species on the Massachusetts list might occur within 60 miles of the

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 99
Project Site
WWTF: of these, five are noted above under the Federal lists, these are the three ESA
species, Peregrine Falcon, and two tern species (discussed below). The remaining two on the
list comprise one recent probable breeder in Boston Harbor, the Barn Owl, and one wintering
species, the Long-eared Owl.
Findings: It is unlikely that a single wind turbine at the WWTF would impact any of these
endangered species due to the extreme rarity of these species in the vicinity of the WWTF
coupled with the small size of the project (see also the NHESP letter attached here).

Least Tern: The largest populations of least terns in Massachusetts are found on Cape Cod
and islands in the Gulf of Maine, Nantucket Sound, Vineyard Sound, and Buzzards Bay,
which are over 40 miles away from the WWTF. Least Terns typically nest on sand or gravel
beaches that are scoured by storm tides, resulting in sparse or no vegetation.

Findings: It is a very remote possibility that wind turbines at the WWTF would impact the
least tern.

Roseate Tern: Approximately 2,300 or fifty percent of North America's breeding pairs of
the endangered roseate terns (Sterna dougallii) can be found on two islands in Buzzards Bay;
Ram Island and Bird Island which are over 40 miles SSW of the WWTF, hosts
approximately 800 roseate terns. The USFWS classifies the species as endangered and both
islands are protected under the Buzzards Bay Colonial Bird Nesting and Feeding Areas.
Hence, these two colonies are highly critical seabird habitat. Over the past two decades,
considerable effort has been put into the management of these two key Buzzards Bay
populations to prevent the local extinction of this tern (Buzzards Bay National Estuary
Program: Roseate Tern Recovery in Buzzards Bay. 2006). However, because these islands
are over 20 miles from the WWTF it is unlikely that the WWTF’s wind turbine will have an
impact on these populations.

Findings: It is a very remote possibility that wind turbines at the WWTF would impact the
roseate tern.

Other Birds: In addition to the coastal waterbirds and terns, the WWTF site may also host
migratory and resident passerine (perching) birds including night-migrating Neotropical
birds. In particular, there is a tidal wetland north east of the WWTF by the Fall River

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 100
Project Site
Wastewater Treatment Beach (Figure 2), that may host birds that fly along the shore of the
WWTF.

Findings: Because the WWTF site and vicinity is heavily residential and industrial (Figures
2), it is very unlikely that the site hosts significant numbers of migratory or resident perching
bird species. However because birds are known to be attracted to wastewater facilities, it
would be advisable to survey coastal birds in the vicinity the proposed turbine at the
WWTF during the spring of 2008 to see how many birds fly over and/or near to the
proposed turbine location.

5. Bird Mortality from Human Activities Including Wind Turbines


Research has shown that annual human-induced avian mortality (Corcoran 1999),
may total between 100 million and 1 billion birds per year in the United States alone
(Erickson et. al. 2001). Leading the list of causes are birds colliding with both high and low-
rise buildings, especially those with highly reflective mirror or glass facades that can
disorient birds (Klem 1990 a, b), followed by telecommunications towers (particularly those
supported by guy wires), (Manville, 2000; National Park Service, 2003; Evans 1998),
structures such as light houses that employ intense artificial lighting (Hill, 1992; Ogden,
1996) and high-traffic roads (Forman et. al. 2002) (Table 2.). Similarly, exposure to toxins
can also take a toll on birds and lead to reproductive failure and in extreme cases mortality
(Durell and Lizotte 1998).

Table 2. Estimated annual bird deaths in the USA from various human activities.

· Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million


· Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million
· Powerlines: 174 million
· Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million
· Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000

Source: http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wildlife/avian_collisions.pdf

Risks to Birds from Wind Turbines


Regarding birds and wind turbines, both direct and indirect effects are summarized in
a 2005 document by the National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) entitled: Wind
Turbine Interactions with Birds and Bats: A Summary of Research Results and Remaining

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 101
Project Site
Questions. This document, generally referred to as the “avian fact sheet”, reports that some
impacts of wind turbines to birds and bats have been demonstrated, but that these impacts are
overall very low and are not biologically significant at the population level. Impacts vary
from wind plant to wind plant, the fact sheet reports that the average number of birds that die
from collision with wind turbines is 2.3 bird deaths per turbine per year.

A summary of other significant findings in the avian fact sheet are as follows:

· Two types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind plants:
1) direct mortality from collisions, and 2) indirect impacts from avoidance, habitat
disruption and displacement.
· There have been no documented large fatality events of nocturnal migrant
songbirds at wind projects. The two largest events reported include 14 spring
migrant passerines found at two adjacent turbines in Minnesota on one night and
approximately 30 spring migrants in West Virginia on one night.
· Songbirds (and in some locations bats) appear to be exposed to heightened risk at
wind projects as well as at communication towers during inclement weather
because birds are known to be attracted to nearby artificial lighting.
· While bat mortality at most wind parks is lower than bird mortality, two wind parks
located in the ridge-and-valley region of Pennsylvania and West Virginia have
documented annual mortality of between 2,000 – 4,000 bats per wind park for the last
two years. Efforts are underway to try and determine the cause of these unique events
at the two sites.
· Both migrating and resident birds and bats sometimes die in wind farms as a result of
collisions with wind turbines and meteorological towers (and their supporting guy
wires). For birds, the national average is between 2-4 bird deaths per turbine
per year (National Wind Coordinating Committee).
· Several studies have been published or are on-going on the displacement and
avoidance impacts of wind turbines and associated infrastructure/activities on
grassland breeding songbirds and other open country birds (prairie grouse,
shorebirds, waterfowl, etc.). Some of these studies have documented decreased
densities of and avoidance by grassland song and other birds as a function of distance
to wind turbines and roads. The level of impact varies by species, and on-going
research is quantifying the distance of avoidance caused by the presence of

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 102
Project Site
infrastructure and human activity.

Findings: Fatalities of birds and bats can occur and have been documented at wind farms
worldwide, including in Australia (Hall and Richards 1972), North America (Erickson et al.
2002, Johnson et al. 2003, 2005, Fiedler 2004, Kerns and Kerlinger 2004, Arnett 2005), and
northern Europe (Ahlen 2003). However, in all cases mortality level is generally considered
to be low relative to the other sources of human-induced mortality of birds and bats. It is
considered improbable that the WWTF wind project would have any direct or any indirect
impacts on any bird species.

6. Conclusions and Next Steps


It is concluded that the Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine
Project would not impact any threatened or endangered birds or any species or habitats of
any birds of special concern. This is because of the following; 1. The WWTF site does not
now contain any known nesting sites for these species, and 2. The project itself is too small to
trigger any concerns for listed species. However, the WWTF site itself may attract birds and
be an important flyway for migratory land and waterbirds moving along the coast and along
the shores of Mount Hope Bay.
Regarding next steps, the following is recommended prior to the installation of wind
turbine generators at the WWTF:

1. Remain in contact with MA Audubon Society, USFWS, MA Natural Heritage Program


(see letter at end of this report), and other relevant regulatory officers and stakeholders
informing them of the project and requesting any information and/or concerns they may have
regarding the project.

2. Consider conducting a 3-6 week spring 2008 survey of migratory birds using the shoreline
in the vicinity of the proposed turbine with the goal of ascertaining whether the site is
attracting or presently hosting a high traffic of migratory coastal birds.

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine 103
Project Site
Figure 2. Color ortho-photograph of the WWTF Wind Turbine Project site.

Initial Bird Assessment of Fall River Wastewater Treatment Facility Wind Turbine Project Site 104
7. References
Online Sources

ABC Birds. 2004. Proceedings of the wind energy birds/bat workshop:


understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts.
http://canwea.ca/downloads/en/PDFS/BirdStudiesDraft_May_04.pdf.

Birds of Conservation Concern. 2002.


http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC2002.pdf

Bird Conservation Region #30. http://www.nabci-us.org/bcr30.htm

Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program: Roseate Tern Recovery In Buzzards


Bay. 2006.
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/roseates.htm.

Energy Information Administration. 2005. Wind energy developments:


incentives in selected countries.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/features/wind.pdf.

National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2004. Wind turbine interactions with


birds and bats: a summary of research results and remaining questions.
http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/avian/wildlife_factsheet.pdf.

National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2001. Avian collisions with wind


turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources
of avian collision mortality in the United States.
http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/avian/avian_collisions.pdf.

Kingsley, A., and Whittam, B. 2003. Wind turbines and birds: a guidance
document for environmental assessment.
http://canwea.ca/downloads/en/PDFS/BirdStudiesDraft_May_04.pdf.

USFWS. 2006.
http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/necas/web_link/34_buzzards%20ba
y.htm

Printed Sources

Ahlen, I. 2003. Wind turbines and bats – a pilot study. Final Report. Dnr
5210P-2002-
00473, P-nr P20272-1.

Arnett, E. B., technical editor. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind
turbines in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search
protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind

Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 105 June 2008


turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy
Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA.

Corcoran, L.M. 1999. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: strict criminal liability for non-
hunting, human caused bird deaths. Denver University Law Review
77(2):315-358.

Durell, G.S. & Lizotte, R.D. Jr. (1998). PCB levels at 26 New York City and
New Jersey WPCPs that discharge to the New York/New Jersey Harbor
estuary. Environmental Science and Technology, 32, 1022–1031.

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good.
2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies
and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the
United States. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, WY.
National Wind Coordinating Committee Resource Document, August: 62
pp.

Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K.


Bay, and K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian
and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality information from proposed and
existing wind developments. Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon.

Evans, B. 1998. Deadly towers. Living Bird 17(2):5.

Fiedler, J. K. 2004. Assessment of bat mortality and activity at Buffalo


Mountain
Windfarm, eastern Tennessee. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville

Forman, R.T.T., Reineking, B. & Hersperger, A.M. (2002). Road traffic and
nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape.
Environmental Management, 29, 782–800.

Hall, L. S., and G. C. Richards. 1972. Notes on Tadarida australis (Chiroptera:


molossidae). Australian Mammalogy 1: 46.

Hill, D. 1992. The impact of noise and artificial light on waterfowl behavior: a
review and synthesis of available literature. British Trust for Ornithology
Research Report No. 61.

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd and D.A.
Shepherd. 2000. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind
Resource Area, Minnesota: Results of a 4-year study. Technical report
prepared for Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN. 212 pp.

Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, D. A.


Shepherd, and S. A. Sarappo. 2003. Mortality of bats at a large-scale
wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. The American
Midland Naturalist 150: 332–342.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 106 June 2008


Johnson, G. D., M. K. Perlik, W. E. Erickson, and M. D. Strickland. 2005. Bat
activity, composition, and collision mortality at a large wind plant in
Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 1278–1288.

Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at
the
MWEC Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: annual
report for 2003. Technical report prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC.
for FPL Energy and MWEC Wind Energy Center Technical Review
Committee.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990a. Bird injuries, cause of death, and recuperation from
collisions with windows. Journal Field Ornithology 61(1):115-119.

Klem, D. Jr. 1990b. Collisions between birds and windows: Mortality and
prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology, 61, 120–128.

Manville, Albert M., II. 2000. "The ABCs of avoiding bird collisions at
communication towers: the next steps." Proceedings of the Avian
Interactions Workshop, December 2, 1999, Charleston, SC. Electric
Power Research Institute.

National Park Service, 2003. Environmental Assessment for


Telecommunications Towers in Rock Creek Park.

Ogden, L.J.E. 1996. Collision course: the hazards of lighted structures and
windows to migrating birds. Toronto, World Wildlife Fund Canada and
Fatal Light Awareness Program.

Sibley, D. 2000. The Sibley Guides to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 107 June 2008


Appendix A: Letters from MA Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species Program

Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 108 June 2008


Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 109 June 2008
C. Endangered Species Review

Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 110 June 2008


Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 111 June 2008
Fall River WWTF Wind Study Page 112 June 2008

Оценить