Feasibility Study Report - FINAL

D
OA
westonandsampson.com
ER
BL
TA
49
49
NS
AR
V
U
DB
151
OL
W AY
IS HIGH consultants
environmental/infrastructure
AN ELL
NA T H
Five Centennial Drive, Peabody, MA 01960-7985 AD
RO
tel: 978-532-1900 fax: 978-977-0100

RD
YA
report
CK
I
BR
LD
O
49
AM
OS
RC
CI
LE
Town of
Mashpee
AD
RO
LE
AB
MASSACHUSETTS
ST
RN
Feasibility Study Final Report

BA
D
June 2010
OL
5
30m: 5.0147 m/s
Aerial.mxd 11/19/2009 1:08:00 PM duijveso
50m: 5.7596 m/s

70m: 6.3406 m/s
100m: 7.054 m/s
49
FINAL Wind Turbine Feasibility Study Town of Mashpee, MA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................ V
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1
2.0 WIND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT........................................................................................ 4
2.1 Methodology and Data Sources ...................................................................................... 4
2.2 Obstructions and Their Impact on Wind Resources ....................................................... 4
2.3 Correlation to Long Term Data....................................................................................... 4
3.0 INSTALLATION SITE AND VICINITY ................................................................................... 6
3.1 Evaluation of Site Vicinity.............................................................................................. 6
3.2 Site Physical Characteristics ........................................................................................... 8
3.3 Wind Turbine Location................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Site Access ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.5 Site Geology and Soil Conditions................................................................................... 9
3.6 Mashpee Electricity Use ............................................................................................... 12
3.7 Existing Electrical Infrastructure at Mashpee High School.......................................... 12
3.8 Electrical Interconnection Plan ..................................................................................... 12
3.9 Electrical Interconnection Details................................................................................. 14
3.10 Revenue Metering Modifications ................................................................................. 16
3.11 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimate...................................................................... 16
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY REVIEW AND PERMITTING PLAN ....................... 18
4.1 Environmental Review.................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Reduction in Air Pollution ........................................................................................... 27
4.3 Permitting Plan.............................................................................................................. 27
5.0 WIND PLANT CONFIGURATIONS ...................................................................................... 30
5.1 Foundation and Turbine Support .................................................................................. 30
5.2 Wind Turbine Alternatives ........................................................................................... 30
5.3 Noise Assessment ......................................................................................................... 33
5.4 Visibility Assessment.................................................................................................... 35
5.5 Shadow Flicker ............................................................................................................. 36
6.0 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ......................................................... 37
6.1 Project Economics ........................................................................................................ 37
6.2 Estimated Energy Production ....................................................................................... 37
6.3 Project Costs ................................................................................................................. 39
6.4 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimates .................................................................... 39
6.5 Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................... 41
7.0 PROJECT RISK FACTORS .................................................................................................. 45
7.1 Human Health and Safety ............................................................................................. 46
7.2 Hazards to Navigation and Radar ................................................................................. 46
7.3 Financial Risk ............................................................................................................... 46
7.4 Project Economic Sensitivity Analysis......................................................................... 47
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 48
9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 49
ii
LIST OF APPENDICIES
Appendix A.................................................................................Wind Data Reports (RERL, 2007)
Appendix B .............................................................................................. Relevant Correspondence
Appendix C ................................................................................................... Mashpee Electric Bills
Appendix D...................................................................................................... USFWS Information
Appendix E ......................................................................................................... Visual Simulations
Appendix F............................................................................Selected Wind Turbine Specifications
Appendix G......................................................................................... WindPro Model Output Data
Appendix H.................................................................................................. Economic Calculations
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 ......................................................................................................USGS Topographic Map

Figure 2 .................................................................................................................Site Vicinity Map
Figure 3 .................................................................... Mashpee High School Site with Wind Speeds
Figure 4 .......................................................................................................................Geologic Map
Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................. Soils Map
Figure E-1 ........................................................................................... Electrical One Line Diagram
Figure 6 ......................................................................................................Sensitive Receptors Map
Figure 7 .........................................................North American Flyways with Principal Routes Map
Figure 8 ..............................................................................................................Sound Decibel Map
Figure 9 ............................................................................................................ Shadow Flicker Map
Figure 10 .......................................................................................................... Conceptual Site Plan
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A feasibility study has been completed for the proposed construction of one large scale wind
turbine in the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts. The following report presents a comprehensive
review of the critical factors and considerations analyzed as part of the feasibility for installing a
wind turbine in the Town. This feasibility study incorporated thorough evaluation of existing
published wind data; electrical usage, consumption and generation; economics; environmental,
avian and noise impacts; engineering assessments and permitting issues towards development of
a commercial-scale wind turbine.
The feasibility study addresses the technical and economic feasibility of construction of one 600
kW to 1.5 MW wind turbines within Mashpee. Construction of the wind turbine would offset
electrical consumption at multiple Town-owned facilities through virtual net metering. Based on
the results of this study, installation of a wind energy conversion facility is considered
technically viable, with favorable wind resources and adequate electrical demand town-wide to
justify development of a wind turbine in the Town. Long-term wind speed of 5.76 meters per
second, at a height of 50 meters, is estimated for the Town. Measured and predicated wind
speeds are considered favorable for development of a commercial scale wind turbine at the
Mashpee High School, with the limiting factor being the expected maximum height restriction of
319 feet imposed by FAA. Aesthetic concerns and the degree of public support or opposition is
another limiting factor. We recommend that the Town use the services of a commercial Virtual
Met Mast in order to further refine the wind resource assessment.
The cost for design, permitting, procurement and construction of a single 600 kW to 1.5 MW
wind turbine is on the order of $2,600 to $4,000 to per kW. A project of this size is therefore
estimated to cost on the order of $2,380,000 to $4,690,000. The standard figures of merit,
including: Net Present Value, Net Cash Flow, Benefit to Cost Ratio and Internal Rate of Return
are all positive for the three turbine sizes evaluated (600kW, 750kW, 1.0 MW, and 1.5 MW),
suggesting development of one of these size turbines is economically viable. Gross capacity
factors range from of 22.0% to 25.8% based on an average wind speed of 6.34 m/s at a height of
70 meters based on AWS TrueWind Maps for the Mashpee High School Site. Simple payback
would be on the order of 9.3 to 11.9 years. Internal rates of return were estimated to be 7.4% to
10.5%. Benefit to cost ratios ranged from 1.3 to 1.58. The project economics are improved when
factoring the current possible grant funding from the Mass CEC, if determined eligible.
Based upon the above, it is our opinion that development of a large-scale wind turbine is both
technically and economically viable. The next steps include an internal assessment by the Town
of Mashpee to make a “Go” or “No Go” decision on the project. This would include deciding
upon a procurement strategy, partnerships with interested third parties (such as CVEC and Mass
CEC), and financing options. One of the first steps should be for the Town to obtain project
entitlements for the land on which the proposed wind turbine will be located. If Mashpee decides
to develop the project under municipal ownership, then a draft Town Warrant article to authorize
the debt incurred should be considered. Project permitting could also begin including obtaining a
special permit or variance; filing with the USFWS, Natural Heritage, Massachusetts Historical
Commission; and filing an electrical interconnection application; and performing an acoustical
background study.
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABC American Bird Conservancy

AGL Above Ground Level
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BCC Bird of Conservation Concern
CEC Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
CMR Code of Massachusetts Regulation
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted sound, in decibels
DMS Decimal, Minute, Second
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
ft feet
GWh Gigawatt hours
kV kilovolts
kVA kilovolt Amperes
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hours
m meter
Mass DEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MASS GIS Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information System
MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
MHC Massachusetts Historical Commission
MHD Massachusetts Highway Department
MMA Massachusetts Maritime Academy
mph miles per hour
ms meters per second
MTC Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
MW megawatt
NHESP National Heritage and Endangered Species Program
NIMBY Not In My Back Yard
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
REPI Renewable Energy Production Incentive
rpm revolutions per minute
USDA United State Department of Agriculture
USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
V Volt
WECS Wind Energy Conversion System
v
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A feasibility study has been completed for the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts. The following
report presents a review of the critical factors and considerations analyzed as part of the feasibility
for installing one or more wind turbines within the Town of Mashpee. This feasibility study
incorporated evaluation of wind resources, site characteristics, existing electrical infrastructure,
electrical usage, environmental, avian and noise impacts; a regulatory review, and permitting plan.
An estimate of wind turbine energy production and a financial analysis are also presented.
The Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts is a resort and residential community located on the south
side of the Cape Cod peninsula. Mashpee has an extensive shoreline on Nantucket Sound, which
not only provides inspiring views, but also makes the Town a prime candidate for the siting of a
wind turbine. In August 2007, at the request of MTC’s Renewable Energy Trust, a representative of
the University of Massachusetts Renewable Energy Research Laboratory (RERL) identified seven
potential wind turbine sites and completed a study on the wind power in Mashpee. The report
(included in Appendix A) focused primarily on siting considerations for a MET tower and a fatal
flaw analysis for a wind turbine. The overall conclusion of the study was that there were a number
of factors favorable for a wind energy project in Mashpee.
The Town of Mashpee owns and controls significant land holdings within the Town of Mashpee
which are considered suitable for siting of one or more wind turbines. Four of the seven locations
considered in the Wind Power Report prepared by RERL were considered viable, including the
Municipal Complex (schools, police, and fire stations), the Transfer Station, South Cape Beach,
and Heritage Park. In addition, the Town owns several other properties which include the Mashpee
High School and two large fallow cranberry bogs which may prove to be viable sites on which to
develop one or more large-scale wind turbines. In total eight candidate locations are reviewed for
this report. This feasibility study evaluates a range of turbine sizes focusing on the Mashpee High
School Site.
The proposed wind turbine(s) would provide power for the Town to offset commercial electrical
expenses and will be a showcase renewable energy project for surrounding towns located on the
Cape peninsula. The location of the Town of Mashpee is illustrated on a portion of a USGS
topographic map as Figure 1. A Site Vicinity Map illustrating relevant landmarks within the Town
of Mashpee is provided as Figure 2.
1
Figure 1- USGS Site Location Map
2
Figure 2 - Site Vicinity Map
3
2.0 WIND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
There are many factors that affect the siting of a wind turbine, including topography, soils,
setbacks, access, construction considerations, electrical interconnection, and wind speeds. The
following section presents an assessment of the expected wind resources based on available
published wind data.
2.1 Methodology and Data Sources
Weston & Sampson reviewed the AWS TrueWind Map model of wind speeds for Mashpee.
Predicted annual average wind speeds from the AWS model were as follows:
Table 2-1 AWS True Wind Map Predicted Wind Speeds, m/s
Municipal Transfer South Heritage Mashpee John’s Garner/Farley Coombs

Elevation Complex Station Cape Park High Pond Bogs Elementary
Beach School Bog School
30 meters 5.15 5.51 6.43 5.25 5.01 5.17 5.17 5.15
50 meters 5.89 6.13 7.03 5.99 5.76 5.85 5.92 5.89
70 meters 6.44 6.60 7.48 6.53 6.34 6.36 6.50 6.44
100 meters 7.11 7.21 8.02 7.18 7.05 7.02 7.18 7.11
The AWS TrueWind estimates are useful for site screening and while they do not replace the
accuracy of site specific anemometry, they are considered reliable with a 94% factor of confidence.
Figure 3 shows the AWS true wind speeds for the High School at various heights.
2.2 Obstructions and Their Impact on Wind Resources
The proposed wind turbine location at Mashpee High School is currently wooded. Other than the
trees on site, there are few obstructions at the site which would impact the wind resources. Ideally,
the wind turbine would be placed on the highest available elevation at the site and trees would be
cleared around the turbine sufficient to allow access and a clear area for construction.
2.3 Correlation to Long Term Data
AWS wind speeds are used as the long-term wind speeds for the Mashpee sites. A long-term wind
speed annual average of 5.76 m/s is predicated at a height of 50 meters for the High School site.
The wind speeds at the High School are considered viable for development of a wind turbine. This
wind speed also meets the minimum criteria for grant eligibility under the Commonwealth Wind
Program as having wind speeds of at least 6.0 m/s at 70 meters. We recommend that the Town use
the services of a commercial Virtual Met Mast in order to further refine the wind resource
assessment.
4
Figure 3 – AWS Truewind Speeds
5
3.0 INSTALLATION SITE AND VICINITY
3.1 Evaluation of Site Vicinity
Eight locations within the Town of Mashpee were considered for the installation of a wind turbine
as part of this study. These sites included the Municipal Complex (schools, police, and fire
stations), the Transfer Station, South Cape Beach, Heritage Park, Mashpee High School, John’s
Pond Bog, Garner/ Farley Bog, and Coombs Elementary School. Below is a brief description of
each of each of the site locations considered during this study.
Site 1 Municipal Complex
The Municipal Complex consists of the police station, the fire station, council on aging, and three
school buildings including the Mashpee High School and Coombs Elementary School (which were
also considered as potential sites). The Municipal Complex property contains sufficient land area
for siting of a wind turbine. Precedent for siting of a wind turbine at a public school exists in both
Massachusetts (Town of Hull, Massachusetts) and elsewhere in the United States (Spirit Lake,
Iowa). A wind turbine at this location would be over 600 feet from the nearest residential abutter.
Site 2 Transfer Station
The Transfer Station is a capped landfill near the Mashpee River. The Transfer Station abuts the
Mashpee DPW facility to the south and it is bordered on the west by conservation land. The
Transfer Station property does not contain sufficient land area to locate a turbine unless the turbine
was placed on top of the landfill. The landfill cap would most likely need to be punctured in order
to place a turbine on this site. This potential site features homes that may be situated in close
proximity to the turbine site, therefore a wind turbine would be visible to the residential areas.
Site 3 South Cape Beach
The South Cape Beach is located on Nantucket Sound. It is part state park, part town park. The
state portion is managed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The South
Cape Beach site has the best wind resources out of all the other potential sites due to its proximity
to the ocean. Since the site is remote, electrical infrastructure would be required to transfer power
from the turbine to the grid. There is no electricity demand at this site. This site also features
relatively large areas of open space. Public opposition is anticipated if a wind turbine were to be
constructed at this site.
6
Site 4 Heritage Park
The Heritage Park area includes several town recreational fields west of Carleton Drive. This site
has favorable wind speeds however it is located less than 200 ft. to residential abutters. It is
anticipated that abutters would oppose a turbine at this location due to potential noise and aesthetic
impacts.
Site 5 Mashpee High School
The Mashpee high school is located within a one mile radius of the Municipal Complex on Old
Barnstable Road. There is adequate land area south of the athletic fields to place a turbine. A wind
turbine at this location would be over 1,600 ft. to the nearest residential abutter. The Mashpee High
School is considered the most favorable site for a wind turbine.
Site 6 John’s Pond Bog
John’s Pond Bog is a large fallow cranberry bog located southeast of Otis Air Force Base on
Boghouse Road. This site contains a groundwater remediation system operated by the U.S. Air
Force. Surrounding the bog is Quashnet conservation land.
Site 7 Garner/Farley Bog
The Garner/Farley Bog is located west of Milford Road in Mashpee. The residential abutters on
Thornberry Circle and Lady’s Slipper Lane would be within 500 ft. of a proposed turbine on this
site.
Site 8 Coombs Elementary School
The Coombs Elementary School is located on Old Barnstable Road a turbine located at this school
would be close to residential abutters. Abutter opposition is anticipated due to this short distance.
Height Restrictions and Proximity to Airports
The following is a summary of the obstruction evaluation given as a maximum structure height
above ground level (AGL) at all eight sites:
Table 2-3 Obstruction Evaluation and Maximum Heights
Max Height
Site Name Study Number Study By
AGL (Ft.)
Johns Pond Bog 2008-WTE-4130-OE FAA 97
Transfer Station 2008-WTE-4133-OE FAA 97
Heritage Park 2008-WTE-4134-OE FAA 173
Garner/Farley Bogs 2008-WTE-4131-OE FAA 224
7
Fire/Police Complex 2008-WTE-4339-OE FAA 234

Coombs Elementary 2008-WTE-0910-OE FAA 234
Mashpee High School 07-N-0448.011 ASI 319
South Cape Beach 2008-WTE-4132-OE FAA 425
Based on the height limitations, the South Cape Beach site and the Mashpee High School are the
most favorable locations. However, due to public support concerns the Town requested that this
feasibility study focus on the Mashpee High School site for a large scale turbine.
Proximity to airports is another important siting factor. The location of the Mashpee High School
with respect to operating airports and air navigation facilities was evaluated. The High School is
located 2.3 miles northeast of the nearest airport, which is the Falmouth Airpark Airport located in
Falmouth, MA. The next nearest airfield is located at Otis Air Force Base, which is located
approximately 2.6 miles northeast of the site. Other airports include Cape Cod Airfield, located 7.2
miles northeast of the site and the Barnstable Airport, located 12.3 miles southwest of the site, in
Barnstable, MA. The proximity of the site with respect to these airfields is a potential limiting
factor.
Weston & Sampson retained the service of an aeronautical consultant to provide an obstruction
evaluation in accordance with 14 CFR, part 77 at a nearby location with coordinates:
70° 30’ 23.00” West

41° 36’ 40.00” North.
This location is on the Mashpee High School property in the general area of the proposed wind
turbine. The results of the analysis indicates that a structure 319 feet AGL should be approvable
with a 2-C Survey. A new obstruction evaluation and new height determination should be sought
from the FAA for the location selected for the proposed wind turbine. There are no known AM
radio stations located within three miles of the Mashpee High School. The relevant correspondence
is attached as Appendix B.
3.2 Site Physical Characteristics
The Mashpee High School is located off of Old Barnstable Road near Route 151 in Mashpee. The
site contains one main building and several smaller ancillary buildings for maintenance and
concession. There are baseball/softball fields to the east and south of the High School and a
football field to the south. The area surrounding the school property is forest. The physical
boundary of the property is depicted on Figure 3.
3.3 Wind Turbine Location
The location of the proposed wind turbine at the Mashpee High School is on the southern end of
the property to the south of the football field. This location will allow for the majority of the
playing fields on the property to remain undisturbed. It is also located further from the main school
building. This location is not located in any flight paths for the surrounding airports. It is also
8
considered to be located at a reasonable distance from the school so as to minimize the visual and
sound impact for the school. The coordinates (NAD83) for this location are as follows:
70° 30’ 20.95” West

41° 36’ 42.15” North
The ground elevation at this location is approximately 60 ft. above sea level.
3.4 Site Access
Access to the proposed wind turbine location is available through existing paved highways, roads,
driveways and parking lots. Turning radii and slopes of Routes 28 and 151 on Cape Cod, as well as
local roads are expected to be passable without any significant alterations or modifications. A
detailed transportation study would need to be preformed to better define the preferred access route
and dimensional requirements, based on specific turbine weights and measurements.
Based on average expected weights and lengths of the components of a commercial scale wind
turbine in 100 kW to 1.5 MW class, delivery of the major components and parts to the Mashpee
High School are considered feasible and not considered a fatal flaw. The proposed location at the
school site is currently a wooded area. An access road on school property will need to be provided
so the turbine can be delivered and erected at the selected location.
3.5 Site Geology and Soil Conditions
Based on review of the United Sates Geologic Survey Maps, the bedrock at the Mashpee High
School consists of Unconsolidated Sediment. Figure 4 depicts a portion of the Geologic Map
illustrating the geological conditions in the area of the High School
Review of United State Department of Agriculture Soil Maps for Barnstable County,
Massachusetts, shows that the surficial soil at the High School consists of two soil types. In the
location of the proposed turbine, the soil is Merrimac Fine Sandy Loam, with zero to eight percent
slopes. Refer to Figure 5 for a portion of the referenced USDA Soil Map illustrating soil types at
the High School.
Soil borings should be conducted in the location of any proposed wind turbine in accordance with
ASTM D-1586. The borings should be drilled to a depth of 100 feet or until bedrock is
encountered, whichever is less. Where bedrock is encountered, drilling should include coring at
depth of 10 to 20 feet to confirm the competency of the existing of bedrock. The data from the test
borings should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer who would provide the structural engineer
with design parameters such as bearing capacity, friction angles and other soil characteristics,
including recommendations for a foundation type. A specific design could only be prepared once a
specific turbine has been selected and specific loads are known.
9
Figure 4 Geologic Map
10
Figure 5 Soils Map
11
3.6 Mashpee Electricity Use
NSTAR provides electricity at the Town of Mashpee under multiple accounts. Review of the 2007
electrical data provided from an Energy Audit and the RERL Report indicates a total Town-wide
usage of 3,044,816 kWh per year.
Review of electrical usage data provided by NSTAR indicates that the Mashpee High School has
the highest electrical use when compared to the other town facilities. The annual energy use at the
High School in 2007 was approximately 1,453,000 kWh. The annual electricity use at the High
School from November 2008 through October 2009 was 1,271,280 kWh. The most recent average
cost of electricity is $0.17719 kWh. The estimated value of a net metering credit to the Town of
Mashpee is estimated to be $0.16 per kWh. A copy of a recent High School electric bill is included
in Appendix C.
3.7 Existing Electrical Infrastructure at Mashpee High School
The existing facility is supplied power from an overhead 23kV NStar distribution circuit, located
on Route 151 (Nathan Ellis Highway) in Mashpee, MA. On Pole #34/21 on Nathan Ellis Highway
there exists an underground primary riser to bring the 23kV (22,800 volt) three phase underground
power cable to the Mashpee High School site. The underground primary conduit is 2-4” from the
Pole #34/21 to the existing padmount transformer located behind the High School, on the east side
of the building. Adjacent to the existing padmount transformer is a pedestal which has the revenue
metering for the school, along with a standby generator. This generator provides power to the
emergency and life safety loads of the Mashpee High School facility.
3.8 Electrical Interconnection Plan
A number of alternatives have been considered for the interconnection of wind turbines ranging
from 600kW to 1,500kW (1.5MW). Regardless of proposed turbine size, there is one probable
interconnection option that would allow the new turbine to connect to the existing primary
distribution system at its closest point, which would be the most economical.
The proposed interconnection is illustrated on the attached one-lien diagram Drawing E-1. A
1,500kW wind turbine is shown, but the connection would be similar for any turbine between
600kW-1,500kW.
The wind turbine generator would operate in parallel with the NStar Electric 22,800V distribution
system. This option would require a connection to the closest existing primary point on the
Mashpee High School electrical 23kV distribution system, which is the padmount transformer
behind the building. This location is north of the proposed turbine location, and the capacity of the
existing infrastructure can support the proposed turbine output power, based on no larger than a
600-1500kW single turbine being considered. The proposed wind turbine location is approximately
1,300 feet to the south of the existing padmount transformer. It is the most economical to connect
with primary class (23kV) given this distance, instead of trying to made a low-voltage (480V)
connection to the electrical infrastructure present in the existing facility.
12
Although there is an electrical easement approximately 250 ft. south of the proposed turbine
location, it is not technically advisable to connect at this location. One of the two electrical lines
running through the easement is a high voltage line and the other is a 25kV express line. It is more
economical and technically feasible to connect with primary class voltage as described above.
The wind turbine generator would be connected to supply the electrical load in parallel with the
existing Mashpee High School distribution supply, fed from the local utility NStar Electric.
Electrical power that is produced by the wind turbine generator that is in excess of the Mashpee
High School’s electrical load would flow back into the NStar Electric distribution system.
The wind turbine generators each operate at a 600 volt class generating voltage so the
interconnection facilities for all options must include a generator step-up transformer to convert the
generator voltage to 23 kV. The generator step-up transformer will have a 2000kVA power rating
consistent with the generator power rating of the maximum size 1500kW and 0.9 max power factor.
If a smaller 600kW or 660kW turbine is chosen, then a 750kVA step-up transformer could be
installed.
A 23 kV underground cable circuit will connect the primary of the generator step up transformer to
facilitate the distribution of the wind turbine generator output to the point of interconnection
(existing padmount transformer).
For a generator rated up to 1500 kW, the current carrying requirement of the 23 kV power cable
circuit will be less than 100 amperes and can be accommodated by three, single conductor, 25kV
class, #1 AWG, aluminum cables. New 25kV class cables should be installed in an underground
conduit for physical protection rather than being directly buried.
It is anticipated that NStar Electric will require utility grade relaying be installed with the turbine at
the turbine location. The turbines main low-voltage circuit breaker will be capable of normal
switching and fault current interruption. The new protective relaying is typically required by NStar
Electric for interconnection or parallel generation to their distribution system. The protective relays
sense abnormal circuit conditions that require the wind turbine generators to be disconnected from
the rest of the primary 23 kV circuit. The protective relays that NStar Electric will likely require
include over/under voltage relays, over/under frequency relays, and overcurrent relays.
The interconnection plan also includes a three pole, non-fused disconnect switch for the manual
disconnection and visible isolation of the wind turbine generator from the existing distribution
system. This switch is typically required by the local utility to isolate the turbine, while not
affecting the reliable operation of the existing system. NStar Electric 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 back-energize their 23kV distribution circuit while they are
working on it or when they otherwise deem it necessary.
13
3.9 Electrical Interconnection Details
NStar Electric Interconnection Requirements
NStar Electric has specific standards and requirements for the interconnection of distributed
generation such as the proposed wind turbine generator project. The interconnection requirements
address electrical system protection, revenue metering, operation, and the configuration of the
primary interconnection equipment. NStar Electric will review the proposed design of the electrical
interconnection facilities and will perform analyses to determine the impact of the proposed
generation on their electrical distribution system. Based on the results of NStar Electric’s analysis,
certain modifications may be needed within the NStar Electric distribution system and/or to the
interconnection facilities.
Electrical Interconnection Equipment Details
The technical details of the major power system components associated with the electrical
interconnection of the wind turbine generator are described in this section.
Generator Step-up and Step-down Transformers
The generator step-up transformer is described by specifying the transformer voltage rating
(primary and secondary), power rating (kilovolt-amperes or kVA), winding configuration (primary
and secondary), and construction type. For all transformers they shall be three phase, padmount
type, oil-filled, self-cooled transformers.
The primary voltage rating of the transformers shall be consistent with the nominal voltage of the
NStar Electric distribution supply circuit to Mashpee High School which is 23 kV phase-to-phase
for this part of the campus. To allow flexibility for local voltage deviations that may exist on the
NStar Electric distribution system or within the 23 kV interconnection circuitry, the transformer
primary winding shall be equipped with five (5) fixed taps to change the primary voltage rating +/-
5% from nominal voltage in 2-½ % increments. For the generator step-up transformer, the
secondary voltage rating shall be consistent with the wind turbine generator voltage which is
typically in the range of 575 volts to 690 volts.
The transformers shall be oil-filled and the owner may prefer less flammable oil at a price premium
of approximately 10% or environmentally safe, seed-based, oil at a price premium of
approximately 20%.
The three phase power rating of the generator step-up transformer (expressed in kVA) shall be
consistent with the wind turbine generator power rating (expressed in kW) and increased for the
allowable generator power factor. A 1500 kW wind turbine generator operating at a 90% lagging
power factor requires a padmount transformer with a minimum continuous rating of 2000 kVA.
14
Interconnection Circuit 25kV Class Cables
The wind turbine generator interconnection option requires the use of 25kV class interconnection
circuit cables. A three phase interconnection circuit of approximately 1,300 feet is required from
the generator step-up transformer to the point of interconnection to the Mashpee High School 23
kV system.
The power cables shall be specified for 25kV class insulation and consist of three, single conductor
cables with either aluminum or copper conductors. For a wind turbine generator power ratings of
up to 1500 kW, the size of the power cables shall be a minimum of #1 AWG Aluminum. This is
typically the smallest size primary cable installed by utilities.
The power cables from the wind turbine generator step-up transformer to each 23 kV
interconnection point shall be installed in underground conduit. The conduit shall be Schedule 40
PVC that is encased in concrete At least two (2) additional conduit for communications and control
of the wind turbine generator should also be included in the conduit system, with separate
communications handholds.
Utility Disconnect Switch
The utility, non-fused disconnect switch specified for generator interconnection shall be a manually
operated, three pole switch, necessary to break the current on the secondary side of the wind
turbine transformer. The switch shall be rated 600 amperes continuous current. The disconnect
switch provides a visible open point between the wind turbine generator and the NStar Electric
system. The operating handle of the disconnect switch shall be capable of being padlocked by
NStar Electric’s lock in the open position. The position of the disconnect switch blades shall be
capable of being visually observed to allow positive determination of the electrical connection
between the wind turbine generator and the rest of the 23kV system. The utility disconnect switch
must be accessible to NStar Electric personnel at all times.
Protective Relay Scheme
The required protective relays for the selected generator interconnection option will be specified by
NStar Electric based on the results of their system impact study. Based on a review of the NStar
Electric Interconnection Requirements, it is anticipated that the protective relay scheme for the
interconnection of the wind turbine generator will include over/under frequency relays, over/under
voltage relays, and overcurrent relays. All relays shall monitor all three phases and the overcurrent
protection should include ground overcurrent relaying. Upon sensing conditions that exceed
allowable operating limits, the protective relay scheme shall send a trip signal to the appropriate
tripping devices to open and disconnect the wind turbine generator from the rest of the distribution
system.
For the interconnection, the protective relaying and controls will curtail the operation of the wind
turbine generator if the electrical connection from the wind turbine generator to the Mashpee High
School’s distribution system is disrupted. It will be necessary to include protective relays to sense
the amount of power that flows to the system and disconnect the wind turbine generator if power
flows exceed equipment ratings.
15
3.10 Revenue Metering Modifications
For the interconnection it is anticipated that Mashpee High School will need a meter to measure the
amount of power delivered from the wind turbine generator through the new 23kV interconnection
circuitry. This metering is anticipated to be located at the wind turbine main breaker or the
secondary of the dedicated transformer to be installed at the turbine. It is also anticipated that NStar
Electric will require the existing revenue metering at the Mashpee High School main primary
switchgear to be modified to allow the measurement of power flowing to the NStar Electric 23 kV
system during light load conditions.
3.11 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimate
An Electrical interconnection cost estimates is provided in this section for the recommended
interconnection of the proposed 1500kW (maximum size) wind turbine generator.
The attached planning accuracy cost estimate has been developed for use in the feasibility analysis.
The planning accuracy cost estimate is based on conceptual interconnection plans for the wind
turbine generators 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.
Attached Table 1-1 details the major cost items for the recommended option. After the major
electrical equipment listed, the balance of the interconnection system plant and miscellaneous 23kV
components includes surge arresters, cable terminations, control wiring, and start-up testing. The
balance of the interconnection system plant and miscellaneous 23kV components are estimated at
25% of the total installed cost for the major 23kV interconnection system components.
16
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY REVIEW AND PERMITTING PLAN
4.1 Environmental Review
The following section discusses the environmental and ecological characteristics at the Mashpee
High School. A review of various area receptors was conducted to determine what, if any, impact a
wind turbine would have upon sensitive receptors at the site. The result of this evaluation shows
that development of a single wind turbine is not expected to result in unacceptable negative impacts
to wildlife or other sensitive receptors present at the High School site.
Avian and Wildlife Impact Analysis
The pertinent ecological and environmental factors associated with avian and wildlife impacts from
the proposed construction of a single, commercial-scale wind turbine have been evaluated. The
analysis consisted of a review of existing site conditions and available scientific databases. This
information was correlated with available Mass GIS data layers including a review of aerial
photographic imagery to make an initial determination of the potential ecological impacts of the
proposed project. In addition, a determination of the likely avian impacts were formulated
following the interim guideline developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), which include eight impact evaluation criteria for assessing avian impacts. Methodology
used in making a determination about avian impacts was developed to incorporate three principal
characteristics. These characteristics are environmental attributes, species composition, and
ecological attractiveness of the area. Additional information regarding USFWS impact evaluation
criteria can be found in Appendix D.
Agency Consultation
Federal and State agencies should be contacted to request information concerning endangered or
threatened species and critical habitats within the project area. The Owner should contact the
USFWS, New England Regional office, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, to determine whether any federal listed species or habitats are present in the project area if
construction of a wind turbine is planned. In addition, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP) should be consulted for information regarding any state
listed species and habitats.
The initial correspondence would constitute the beginning of the “informal” or “simple” review
process as outlined by Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Massachusetts
Endangered Species Act (321 CMR 10.0000). If, at the conclusion of these consultations, it is
determined that no federal or state listed rare species are present or in close proximity to the
proposed project site, then the informal or simple review process may be considered complete.
Should the conclusion of these consultations reveals that the project site will likely disturb one or
more listed species, then a more detailed biological assessment or order of conditions may be
required.
18
Landscape Evaluation and Analysis
Composition and spatial variation patterns for wildlife are strongly influenced by a multitude of
biotic and abiotic landscape features. In lieu of comprehensive site surveys, Weston & Sampson
gathered information regarding existing site conditions and habitats on the proposed site and
analysis was conducted through review of site photographs, aerial photography, and scientific
databases and literature.
The landscape evaluation focused on examining aerial photography of existing conditions to

identify those biotic and abiotic features of significance. The Mashpee High School site is a
forested area with trees approximately 30-40 ft high. These trees would require clearing for wind
turbine installation.
Examination of the proposed site reveals the presence of continuous corridors for wildlife
movement. The site has few buffers to the natural communities and movement of wildlife between
suitable habitats. The High School site is bordered on the east, west, north, and south by contiguous
plots of natural communities. Natural corridors exist in the region in the form undeveloped linear
lands, streams, and wetland complexes that connect patches of preferred habitat. Man-made travel
corridors include roads, utility corridors, and urban development.
Mass GIS Data Layers: Data regarding rare species and critical habitats is complied by the
Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (Mass GIS) and organized as
a number of Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers. These layers are represented as
number of polygons drawn in conjunction with existing landscape features, and can be utilized to
determine the spatial relationships between areas of environmental significance (e.g. wetlands) and
a proposed project site. A table of the GIS data layers used in avian impact screenings and
subsequent analysis within this report has been summarized below:
Table 4-1 Mass GIS Screening Data Layers
Data Layers Authority Date of Update
Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife NHESP September 2008

Priority Habitats for Rare Species NHESP September 2008
BioMap Core Habitat NHESP June 2002
BioMap Supporting Natural Landscape NHESP June 2002
Massachusetts Certified Vernal Pools NHESP January 2009
Potential Vernal Pools NHESP December 2000
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern DCR April 2009
DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) MADEP December 2004
Notes/Abbreviations:
NHESP: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
MADEP: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
DCR: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
19
GIS screening of the area shows that no part of the Mashpee High School Site is considered
protected open space. However, the Site is within an area of NHESP Estimated Habitats of Rare
Wildlife and NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species. The NHESP Estimated Habitats of Rare
Wildlife data layer represents estimations of the habitats of state-protected rare wildlife (plants and
animals) populations that occur in Massachusetts, while NHESP Priority Habitats data layer
represents estimations of important state-listed rare species (animals only) habitats in
Massachusetts. The NHESP habitat polygons are drawn by analyzing population records, species,
habitat requirements, and available information about the landscape. The Site is also within a DEP
Approved Zone II area.
BioMap Core Habitat data layers present the most viable habitat for rare species and natural
communities in Massachusetts. The BioMap Supporting Natural Landscape layers buffer and
connect Core Habitat polygons and identifies large, naturally vegetated blocks that are relatively
free from the impact of roads and other development. Based on previous development, a large area
of the site is not mapped as core wildlife habitat. Figure 6 is a map presenting the results of the
habitat GIS screening for Natural Communities, Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife and Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern with respect to the location of the Site.
Figure 6 Area Receptors Map
20
Species Listing and Habitat Considerations
Correctly identifying the species and associated habitats is critical to successfully assessing
potential impacts of a wind turbine. National, regional and local references were reviewed to create
a comprehensive species listing for the Town of Mashpee. Compiling GIS screening information
and visual examination of aerial imagery was performed to assess habitat constraints. These data
were used to determine which species could reasonably be expected in the proposed study area. In
addition, the surrounding areas were considered since regional and daily migratory effects can be
substantial.
Determination of likely impacted avian species was the main objective of this analysis. Species
listings were evaluated from a number of sources and were assembled to account for those species
utilizing the Town of Mashpee area during migratory stopover. Species listings were further refined
to specifically address federally and state listed wildlife with endangered/threatened status or
species of special concern. In total, there are thirty-three federal and state listed species present in
the area near the Town of Mashpee. Table 4-2 lists wildlife that are endangered, threatened or
species of special concern status within the Town of Mashpee, MA, as compiled by the
Massachusetts NHESP. The table includes the state listing status, taxonomic group and most recent
field observation.
Table 4-2 List of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife in Mashpee

MESA Federal Most
Common Status Status Recent
Taxonomic Group Scientific Name
Name Observation
Ammodramus Grasshopper 2007
Bird T
savannarum Sparrow
Bartramia Upland
Bird E 2007
longicauda Sandpiper
Botaurus American
Bird E 2006
lentiginosus Bittern
Charadrius
Bird Piping Plover T T 2006
melodus
Northern
Bird Circus cyaneus T 2003
Harrier
Northern
Bird Parula americana T 2009
Parula
Bird Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern E E 2008
Common
Bird Sterna hirundo SC 2008
Tern
Bird Sternula antillarum Least Tern SC 2007
Bird Tyto alba Barn Owl SC 1991
Barrens
Butterfly / Moth Hemileuca maia SC 2003
Buckmoth
Papaipema Water-willow
Butterfly / Moth T 1994
sulphurata Stem Borer
21
Dragonfly/Damselfly Anax longipes Comet Darner SC 1996

New England
Dragonfly/Damselfly Enallagma laterale SC 2000
Bluet
Dragonfly/Damselfly Enallagma pictum Scarlet Bluet T 1999
Enallagma Pine Barrens
Dragonfly/Damselfly T 1996
recurvatum Bluet
American
Lampetra
Fish Brook T 1988
appendix
Lamprey
Alasmidonta Triangle
Mussel SC 2007
undulata Floater
Tidewater
Mussel Leptodea ochracea SC 2007
Mucket
Eastern
Mussel Ligumia nasuta SC 2007
Pondmussel
Diamond-
Malaclemys
Reptile backed T 1971
terrapin
Terrapin
Eastern Box
Reptile Terrapene carolina SC 2008
Turtle
Broom
Vascular Plant Corema conradii SC 1985
Crowberry
Crocanthemum Bushy
Vascular Plant SC 1935
dumosum Rockrose
Dichanthelium
Mattamuskeet
Vascular Plant dichotomum ssp. E 2007
Panic-grass
mattamuskeetense
Dichanthelium
Commons's
Vascular Plant ovale ssp. SC 1968
Panic-grass
pseudopubescens
Dichanthelium Wright's
wrightianum Panic-grass
Lachnanthes
Vascular Plant Redroot SC 1988
caroliana
Lipocarpha Dwarf
Vascular Plant T 1990
micrantha Bulrush
Polygonum Pondshore
puritanorum Knotweed
Rhynchospora Inundated
Vascular Plant T 1926
inundata Horned-sedge
Terete
Vascular Plant Sagittaria teres SC 1997
Arrowhead
Utricularia Subulate
subulata Bladderwort
22
Table 4-3 Birds of Conservation Concern

Scientific
Common Name Name
Peregrine Falcon Falco
1 peregrinus
Black rail Laterallus
2 jamaicensis
Wilson's Plover Charadrius
3 wilsonia
American Haematopus
4 Oystercatcher palliatus
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia
5 longicauda
Whimbrel Numenius
6 phaeopus
Hudsonian Godwit Limosa
7 haemastica
8 Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
Red Knot Calidris
9 canutus
Purple Sandpiper Calidris
10 maritima
Buff-breasted Tryngites
Sandpiper subruficollis
11
Common Tern Sterna hirundo
12
Least Tern Sterna
13 antillarum
14 Black Skimmer Rynchops niger
15 Razorbill Alca torda
16 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus
17 vociferus
Red-headed Malanerpes
Woodpecker erythrocephalus
18
Sedge Wren Cistothorus
19 platensis
Marsh Wren Cistothorus
20 palustris
Wood Thrush Hylocichla
21 mustelina
22 Blue-winged Vermivora
23
Warbler pinus
Golden-winged Vermivora
23 Warbler chrysoptera
Prairie Warbler Dendroica
24 discolor
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica
25 cerulea
Kentucky Warbler Helmitheros
26 vermivorus
Canada Warbler Oporornis
27 formosus
Henslow's Wilsonia
Sparrow canadensis
28
Salt-marsh Sharp- Ammodramus
29 tailed Sparrow henlowii
Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus
30 caudacutus
31 Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula
Source:
"Birds of Conservation Concern 2002" U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Division of
Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. December 2002.
Special Considerations
The project site is located in the path of the North East Atlantic regional flyway, which can be
identified as running along the east coast of North America. In a broad sense the flyway concept
can be defined as the biological systems of migration routes that directly link sites in ecosystems in
different geographical settings (Boere et al., 2006). Ecosystems primarily comprised of the suitable
habitats of both breeding and non-breeding areas for birds. A flyway is in fact the totality of the
ecological systems that are necessary to enable migratory birds to survive and fulfill their annual
life cycles. Figure 7 illustrates the four generalized North American regional migration flyways,
with respect to the location of the Site. Development of a single large scale wind turbine is not
expected to result in unacceptable negative impacts to wildlife or substantially degrade habitat.
Wetlands
The Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission is an appointed body with authority to protect
and preserve natural resources within the Town. The Conservation Commission's primary role is
the administration of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40)
within the Town of Mashpee. The Wetland Protection Act provides for the protection of several
types of Resource Areas including Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (bordering on lakes, ponds, and
streams), Banks, Land Under Water, Land Subject to Flooding, and Riverfront Areas (area within
200 feet of a river or perennial stream) and coastal resource areas. The Mashpee High School Site
is not classified as having any type of the protected resource areas at the proposed turbine location.
24
Review of Mass GIS Wetland data layer indicates that no portions of the High School property are
protected open space and there are no wetlands on site. The area for the proposed wind turbine is
upland area and greater than 100 feet from the nearest wetland, streams, ponds or surface water
body. To confirm there is no potential for destruction or impacts to wetlands, written notification
should be filed with the Town’s Conservation Commission for a formal determination of no
impacts by the proposed addition of a wind turbine at the Site. Based on review of the wetlands
protection area maps and the expected footprint of a wind turbine, wetlands are not a concern for
development.
25
Figure 7 North American Flyways with Principal Routes
26
4.2 Reduction in Air Pollution
Based on information from the CEC website, a single 1.0-MW turbine displaces 2,000 tons of
carbon dioxide each year, which is equivalent to planting a square mile of forest, based on the
current average U.S. utility fuel mix. To generate the same amount of electricity as a single 1- MW
turbine using the average U.S. utility fuel mix would mean emissions of 10 tons of sulfur dioxide
and 6 tons of nitrogen oxide each year. To generate the same amount of electricity as a single 1-
MW wind turbine for 20 years would require burning 26,000 tons of coal (a line of 10- ton trucks
10 miles long) or 87,000 barrels of oil. To generate the same amount of electricity as today's U.S.
wind turbine fleet (6,374 MW) would require burning 8.6 million tons of coal (a line of 10-ton
trucks 4,321 miles long) or 28 million barrels of oil each year. 100,000 MW of wind energy will
reduce carbon dioxide production by nearly 200 million tons annually.
Since 1993, ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) has analyzed the aggregate emission of SO2, NOX,
and CO2 from fossil fuel-based electrical generating facilities. The 2006 DRAFT New England
Marginal Emission Rate Analysis Report, dated 2008, provides calculated estimates of marginal
SO2, NOX, and CO2 air emissions for the calendar year 2006 in pounds per megawatt hour
(lbs/MWh). Emission rates were estimated using the energy weighted average emission rates of
generating units that typically would increase loading during higher energy demands.
Since the wind turbine uses air to generate electrons versus the predominately fossil-fuel based
generation capacity of the 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. A 1.0 MW wind turbine is estimated to
generate an output of approximately 1,561MWh annually, based on a 19.8% capacity factor. Based
on these statistics, the use of a 1.0 MW wind turbine would have the follow beneficial affect on air
pollution:
Table 4-4 Pollution Reduction Per Year by 1 MW Wind Turbine
Pollutant Rate (From ISO-NE) Energy from Turbine Pollution Displaced

SO2 1.59 lbs/MWh 1,561 MWh 2,482 lbs/yr
NOX 0.67 lbs/MWh 1,561 MWh 1,046 lbs/yr
CO2 808 lbs/MWh 1,561 MWh 1,261,288 lbs/yr
4.3 Permitting Plan
A review of permitting requirements for Local, State and Federal jurisdictions was conducted as
part of the project feasibility study. Below is a summary of the agencies potentially having
jurisdiction, where review and approval should be obtained:
Local Agencies
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission

Town of Mashpee Planning and Zoning Permit
Town of Mashpee Building Permit
27
State Agencies
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)

Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD)
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Federal Agencies
NPDES Permit Application with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
A summary of regulatory stakeholders, applicability to the scope of the proposed project, and
possible administrative review requirements is summarized in below Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Permitting Matrix
Permit or Project Approval

Agency Comments
Approval Relevance Process/Timeframe
Subject site outside the
Scope of work does
Local
Conservation Notice of Intent 100 foot buffer zone of

not involve wetland None
Commission (NOI) any wetland/water
or water resources
resource.
Required for
Environmental
construction projects
MEPA Notification Form N/A N/A
disturbing greater
(ENF)
than 2 acres.
Environmental
Impact Report N/A N/A N/A
(EIR)
Simple review pertains
State
Project does not take to those projects that

ENF/MESA 30 days from point of
NHESP part in Estimated will disturb less than 5
Checklist submission for simple review
Habitat acres of estimated
habitats
Project may not subject
Transportation of these requirements
Mass Turnpike Special Hauling Turbine based on loads and
24 hours notice prior to transport
Authority Permit parts/accessories dimensional
over state Highways characteristics of
material
28
Super load
If regulated as
requirements: >115 x 14
oversize/dimension load, then
x 14 (length, width,
Permit to Move Transportation of same day processing. If
height). All units in
Mass Highway Overweight or Turbine regulated as "super load," then
feet. Any transport of
Department Overdimensional parts/accessories via application must be filed in
any oversized loads
Loads State highways writing and requires full
greater than 13'8" in
structural analysis and detailed
height require a routing
transportation routing plan.
survey.
All projects that
require a permit,
Massachusetts
Project Notification license or funding
Historical Project notification only
Form from any state
Commission
agency must file a
PNF
Must be notified
Interconnection when doing work,
Project notification and possible
with existing and if electricity
NSTAR Interconnection Transmission
transmission system generated will be
System Study
study tied into existing
transmission system.
Construction General
Permit is applied for by
Applies to the entity that has
Notification only, supported with
EPA NPDES/CGP/NOI construction sites operational control over
SWPP plan.
that disturb > 1 acre the job site, and the
ability to enforce SWPP
plan.
Required for all Must file Form 7460-1 at least
Aircraft warning Max height of turbine
FAA towers greater than 30 days prior to start of
lighting expected to be 319 feet
200 feet construction
Required in order to
Federal
Qualifying Facility enter power Must file Form No. 556 with Dependent upon size of
FERC
Status purchase agreement FERC generating facility
w/ electrical utility
If at the completion of
Requires applicant informal consultation,
request a list of all further assessment is
Informal threatened, required a formal
Consultation Notice endangered, Biological Assessment
FWS Notification only
and/or Biological candidate species must be prepared and
Assessment and critical habitats reviewed by FWS. May
prior to beginning require implementation
construction. of Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP)
Town of Mashpee Zoning Bylaw
The Town of Mashpee has a zoning bylaw regarding Land-Based Wind Energy Conversion
Facilities (WECFs). The bylaw states that all WECFs shall require issuance of a special permit by
the Planning Board, acting as the Special Permit Granting Authority. The base of any WECF shall
be set back from any property line or road layout by at least 120% of the proposed height of the
tower where the tower abuts residentially zoned properties; and set back 80% of the proposed tower
29
height where the tower abuts non-residentially zoned properties. The bylaw also states that no
WECF may exceed 100 ft. in height unless approved by the SPGA. Therefore, a variance from the
zoning bylaw must be obtained in order to construct a wind turbine greater than 100 ft. in height.
Federal Aviation Administration
A Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration is required by the Federal Aviation

Administration, Chapter 14 CFR, Part 77 and form 7640-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or
Alteration) for all structures over 200 feet above ground-level, or within a few miles of an airport.
Any wind turbine with a tip-height over 200 feet will also likely require hazard lighting. Form
7640-1 was filed for a nearby location with the FAA for a determination if the proposed height of
319 feet above ground level would pose a hazard to navigation. Copies of the filing are included in
Appendix B as relevant correspondence.
5.0 WIND PLANT CONFIGURATIONS
5.1 Foundation and Turbine Support
Wind turbine foundations vary depending upon the make, model and soil conditions at each site.
Typical foundations include monolithic reinforced concrete slabs, pile supported mono slabs and
deep piling or caissons. The foundation design depends on the tower design, which is most often a
monopole tubular steel tower. The lattice towers are not used as frequently, which also minimizes
the potential for nesting birds. Monopole designs are either straight or tapered poles. Standard
tapered monopoles for a 600 to 1.5 MW wind turbine generally range in height from 50 to 80
meters, would have a base diameter of 10 to 18 feet and taper to four to eight feet at the hub height.
The foundation design will also depend upon the soil type, bearing capacity and tolerances of
actual turbine and tower selected. Given the general soil characteristics of the region and area, a
shallow, monolithic reinforced concrete slab could be used to support a tapered monopole.
Foundations for similar projects have included octagonal-shaped reinforced monolithic slabs with a
length and width of 40 to 50 feet and a thickness of six to eight feet. Deep foundation designs,
which provide stability from overturning through the pressure created by the weight of the soil, is
also likely to be a viable alternative for the Town of Mashpee. Analysis of a specific foundation
design is beyond the scope of this feasibility study, but should be developed in conjunction with a
geotechnical exploration conducted during the design stage of the project, based on actual
equipment specifications. The scope of a geotechnical study typically includes a series of standard
penetration test borings, in accordance with ASTM D-1586, to depths of 50 to 100 feet or until
bedrock is encountered and confirmed by coring.
5.2 Wind Turbine Alternatives
There are a number of commercially produced wind turbines on the market today. Generally, the
most popular models are horizontal axis, three bladed, upwind models which are mounted atop of
monopole towers. There are a large number of generator sizes, rotor blade lengths and tower highs
which are commonly used. Table 5-1 provides a sample of the various manufacturers standard size
30
wind turbine generators, rotor diameters, tower heights and overall height as measured from the
tallest point of the blade in the 12 o’clock position.
Table 5-1 Typical Wind Turbine Dimensions
Generator Tower Rotor Overall Overall

Manufacturer Size (kW) Height (m) Diameter (m) Height (m) Height (feet)
Vestas V-90 2,000 105 90 150 492
95 90 140 459
80 90 125 410
AAER-2000 2,000 100 84 142 466
80 80 120 394
65 71 101 330
Vestas V-82 1,650 80 82 121 397
78 82 119 390
70 82 111 364
69 82 110 359
59 82 100 328
GE 1.5 SLE 1,500 80 77 119 389
Fuhrländer FL-1500 1,500 80 77 119 389
65 70 100 328
AAER-1500 1,500 80 77 119 389
65 70 100 328
Nordic 1000 1,000 70 59 129 326
60 54 114 285
AAER-1000 1,000 82 54 136 358
70 54 124 318
Vestas RRB PS 600 600 65 47 112 290
48 47 95 236
39 47 86 204
Elecon T600-48 DS 600 50 48 98 243
Norwin 225 40 29 55 179
Turbine Availability
The percent of time that a wind turbine is capable of producing power is known as the total
availability. The factors and values used to compute turbine availability at the Site are tabulated in
Table 5-2. The total annual availability of a turbine was computed from the product of the factors
and equaled 93.0% of the year for the Site.
31
Table 5-2- Factors Affecting the Availability of Turbines
Factor Percent/yr
Grid connection efficiency 97.0%
Turbine availability 97.0%
Turbine icing and blade fouling 99.2%
Substation maintenance 99.8%
Utility downtime 99.9%
High wind speed hysteresis 100%
Total Availability 93.0%
The following assumptions were made for the factors affecting availability:
• Grid connection efficiency. The efficiency of the grid connection is estimated to be 97%. This
includes the losses in the transformer and the transmission line. This should be confirmed by an
electric loss calculation once the grid connection has been defined.
• Turbine availability. The technical availability of the turbine is assumed to be 97%. This
figure is based on data from modern operational wind farms. Technical availability may be a
part of the contract terms between the project owner and the wind turbine supplier. It is worth
noting that manufacturers may not guarantee technical availability at the 97% level for small,
one or two turbine projects. It is advisable to review this figure when the terms of the warranty
are established.
• Turbine icing and blade fouling. Serious icing conditions can prevent a wind turbine from
operating, as the turbine shuts down if there is imbalance of the blades. Undoubtedly there is
the prospect for ice to collect on turbine blades located at Mashpee High School. Three days
has been given as the likely total occurrence per year of icing events, which equates to an
availability of 99.2%. Blade fouling is not expected to occur, as this is primarily a problem in
very hot climates where severe insect fouling can affect the aerodynamics of the turbine blades.
• Substation maintenance. The connection to the grid may have to be temporarily shut down for
maintenance. We have assumed that this might occur for a total of 16 hours per year.
• Utility downtime. Most wind turbines will fail to efficiently produce energy during lower wind
conditions when the grid does not actively supply electricity for the machine’s control systems
due to a grid power outage. The will occur, on average, approximately 8 hours per year.
• High wind speed hysteresis. During very high wind conditions, a wind turbine will shut down
to protect its electrical and mechanical components. The machine will only restart when wind
conditions fall significantly below the cut-off wind speed. This factor is used to compensate for
power loss during this restarting delay. Because Mashpee rarely experiences winds above the
typical wind turbine cut-out speeds (~25 m/s), high wind speed hysteresis is not expected to
have any significant effect on power output.
32
5.3 Noise Assessment
Sound evaluations can become quite complicated due to the numerous factors affecting sound
propagation, attenuation and absorption of sound, variable ambient conditions, and the
characteristics of sound waves at different frequencies. The purpose of this sound evaluation is to
qualitatively assess the likelihood of noise impacts from the proposed turbine.
Sound Basics
Sound is produced by pressure waves of a specific frequency or range of frequencies. The human
ear registers sound by detecting very minute variations in sound pressure. The loudness of a sound
as perceived by an individual can be quite subjective, but loudness is generally dependent on the
sound pressure level. The sound pressure level is traditionally defined as a ratio of the sound
pressure from a given source to a reference pressure. Loudness is represented by the unit decibel
(dB) on a logarithmic scale, where 0 dB is undetectable to the human ear.
For reference, normal conversation is typically around 65 dB, a quiet evening in a rural setting is
typically around 30 dB, and a lawn mower is typically around 95 dB from the perspective of the
operator. To facilitate noise evaluations with respect to human receptors, the A-weighted sound
level (dBA) is used. This convention accentuates or “weights” the sound pressure level within the
frequency response of the human ear to better characterize the sound pressure level for a human
receptor.
Aerodynamic sound generation is very sensitive to speed at the very tip of the blade. To limit the
generation of aerodynamic sounds, large modern wind turbines may limit the rotor rotation speeds
to reduce the tip speeds. Large variable speed wind turbines often rotate at slower speeds in low
winds, increasing in higher winds until the limiting rotor speed is reached. This results in much
quieter operation in low winds than a comparable constant speed wind turbine.
Sound Propagation
In order to predict the sound pressure level at a distance from source with a known power level, one
must determine how the sound waves propagate. In general, as sound propagates without
obstruction from a point source, the sound pressure level decreases. The initial energy in the sound
is distributed over a larger and larger area as the distance from the source increases. Thus,
assuming spherical propagation, the same energy that is distributed over a square meter at a
distance of one meter from a source is distributed over 10,000 m2 at a distance of 100 meters away
from the source. With spherical propagation, the sound pressure level is reduced by 6 dB per
doubling of distance. This simple model of spherical propagation must be modified in the presence
of reflective surfaces and other disruptive effects. The development of an accurate sound
propagation model generally must include the following factors:
• Source characteristics (e.g., directivity, height, etc.)

• Distance of the source from the observer
• Air absorption, which depends on frequency
33
• Ground effects (i.e., reflection and absorption of sound on the ground, dependent on source
height, terrain cover, ground properties, frequency, etc.)
• Blocking of sound by obstructions and uneven terrain
• Weather effects (i.e., wind speed, change of wind speed or temperature with height). The
prevailing wind direction can cause differences in sound pressure levels between upwind
and downwind positions.
• Shape of the land; certain land forms can focus sound
Noise Evaluation Criteria
The proposed wind turbine project would be subject to Massachusetts’s noise regulation (310 CMR
7.10). Massachusetts DEP Noise Guideline Document, dated March 2006, stipulates no increase of
ambient sound levels at the property line, and at the nearest inhabited building, by more than 10
dB(A) above ambient conditions with no pure tone conditions.
Wind Turbine Sound Production
Wind turbines in operation produce sound. The sound is produced by the rotating blades passing
through the air, and by the mechanical noise associated with the components in the turbine hub.
Review of manufacture specifications for a Nordic N-1000 indicates the maximum noise level
produced at the hub is approximately 103 dB(A) at wind speed of 9.0 meters per second.
Predicted Noise Levels
Accurately predicting noise levels from a given source at different locations is a complex task, and
involves the identification and quantification of a number of factors including the relative
reflectivity of surrounding surfaces, atmospheric conditions, ambient sound conditions, wind speed
and direction, obstacles, the frequency distribution and intensity of the source, and a number of
other factors. There are a number of computational models available to predict sound propagation,
but each requires a degree of knowledge regarding some or all of these factors, or at the very least a
number of assumptions must be made.
For the purposes of this study, both a qualitative and quantitative approach was taken. The
qualitative approach considers the likelihood of significant noise impacts from a commercial scale
turbine based on the proximity of receptors to the turbine location. Based on discussions with noise
evaluation experts, a useful “rule of thumb” is that noise impacts may be a concern to receptors
within 1,000 feet, and are not likely be a concern to receptors greater than 1,000 feet.
The preliminary quantitative approach relies on a straightforward application of the inverse square
law, which governs the physics of sound propagation in an ideal setting. This law states that sound
intensity decreases as the inverse of the square of the distance from the source. This approach is
obviously rudimentary and does not consider the various factors mentioned above. It was used in
this study to simply support the qualitative approach discussed above.
In order to estimate the increase in ambient noise conditions caused by the turbine, the ambient
conditions must be known. The determination of ambient noise levels is itself a complicated
34
process, typically involving extensive data collection over a length of time to properly characterize
the ambient conditions. The measurement of ambient noise levels was beyond the scope of this
study.
Computer software was also to predict sound impacts. WindPRO DECIBEL module was utilized
for this assessment. The WindPRO module DECIBEL for Noise Impact Calculation makes noise
calculations a relatively simple task. The software uses a database of sound measurements from
various manufactures of wind turbines. It is possible to define Noise Sensitive Positions (spots) as
well as areas described by polygons. These polygons can be drawn directly on the background
maps of the Site. The program calculates based on the noise emission data (Lwa or octave data) the
point on the polygon line with the highest noise impact and prints the coordinates and noise level
for the point in an output report. Differences in elevations between wind turbines and neighbors are
included in the calculations since the coordinates for the wind turbines and the noise sensitive
areas/positions all are given in 3D.
The program automatically calculates these elevations where digital maps are used. For each
polygon/position, the maximum allowable noise level can be entered. In this way, it is possible to
simultaneously carry out, for example, calculations relative to the nearest neighbor based on a 45
dB level and a nearby urban area at another distance based on a 40 dB level. Also it is possible to
enter the initial background noise level without turbines if this is known and then calculate the
additional noise produced by the proposed wind turbine. It is also possible to link a DECIBEL
calculation to a project layout so a noise isoline map is automatically updated in the project
window when changes are made. This makes it easier to find the optimal layout with regards to
noise impact.
Predicted Compliance with Criteria
With respect to the DEP it appears that all provisions with respect to noise will be satisfied without
complaints or requirement to mitigate noise impacts. The closest noise sensitive (residential) areas
are estimated to be approximately 1,600 ft. away from the proposed turbine location at the High
School, and both the qualitative evaluation and preliminary quantitative evaluation suggest that
noise impacts should not be a concern at this location.
WindPRO DECIBEL Module output indicates noise criteria would likely be in compliance with
respect to the DEP regulations at the property boundaries It appears that noise criteria would be
satisfied without the need to mitigate the noise impacts. Should complaints about noise be received
or arise, mitigation strategies, such as limiting rotor speed or erecting sound barriers, could be
considered and implemented. Figure 8, included in Appendix E, depicts the estimated sound levels
produced by the proposed turbine at various distances. At the nearest buildings and residences
located along Old Barnstable Road, the noise level would be approximately 36 dB.
5.4 Visibility Assessment
WindPRO visual was used to produce a photomontage to visually represent the impact from a wind
turbine. The visibility study was conducted to assess how the proposed wind turbine would impact
the look of the site and representative areas beyond the site. The wind turbines used in the
35
simulations was a 1.0 MW Nordic N-100 on an 70 meter tall tower, a Norwin 750 kW machine on
a 65 meter tall tower, a 1.5 MW Fuhrlander FL-1500 on a 60 meter tall tower, and a 600 kW RRB
on a 65 meter tall tower. The Nordic N-100 1MW (or similar) wind turbine is representative of the
largest turbine currently considered for the High School Site. This size configuration, modeled in
the visual simulations included in Appendix E, has a hub height of 70 meters (229.6 feet) above
ground level (AGL) and a rotor diameter of 54 meters (177.1 ft.). The structure would have an
overall height of approximately 97 meters (318 feet). The tower was assumed to be a tubular steel
monopole with a three rotor blades.
Viewpoint Locations
As one moves away from the proposed turbine location, intervening structures, topography, trees
and vegetation quickly block and obscure views of the turbine. Some of the views of the wind
turbine will, therefore, always be partially or completely blocked. Open views of a proposed
turbine at the Mashpee High School Site are represented from the several different locations.
Visually sensitive areas in the vicinity of the proposed project were identified based upon a review
of maps of the area and field reconnaissance. Locations were selected to provide representative
vantage points where the turbine may be visible to simulate the view shed if a wind turbine was
erected as proposed. These include locations that may experience visibility of the proposed turbine.
The locations, which were visited during the area reconnaissance to assess potential visibility,
included the surrounding residential areas and nearby roadways. Multiple locations, termed
viewpoints, were used to simulate the visibility of the proposed turbine. The viewpoints were
selected for simulation purposes to provide a range of distances and directions from the site where
the turbine may be visible. The images were produced using images of a 1.0 MW Nordic N-100 on
a 70 meter tall tower. Refer to Appendix E for a series of photographic simulations, including a
key map depicting the vantage point for each of the simulations. Manufacture details which
describe representative wind turbines in this size range are also provided in Appendix F for
reference.
5.5 Shadow Flicker
Shadow flicker is a phenomenon caused by periodic obstruction of light caused by the rotating
blades of the turbine. Modern commercial-scale turbines are typically three-bladed and rotate at
approximately 20 rpm, which means that shadow flicker, when present, would occur at a frequency
of 60 shadows per minute, or 1.0 Hz. Shadow flicker at this frequency is normally considered a
nuisance issue, but there are no established health and safety regulations or exposure standards to
date in the United States. Shadow flicker is an intermittent nuisance and is generally a concern only
under the following conditions:
• The sun is shining and has a clear unobstructed path to the turbine;
• The turbine is between the viewer(s) and the sun, and within approximately ½ mile of the
viewer(s);
• The turbine is in operation; and
• There are no obstacles between the turbine and the viewer(s).
36
As is evident from the list of conditions above, an evaluation of the significance of shadow flicker
for a particular site is dependent on a number of factors, including site geometry, the locations of
potential viewers, blade finish on the turbine’s rotors, the relative “sunniness” of the location and
the operational status of the turbine at a given time on a daily basis.
As part of this feasibility study, we have attempted to describe the likely extent of shadow flicker in
reference to the proposed turbine location and known receptors, and to qualitatively evaluate the
impacts associated with shadow flicker in the areas of concern. Shadow flicker was modeled using
WindPRO SHADOW module software, and used to produce a map of the area that would be
subjected to shadow flicker. The model computes flicker density contours representing the range of
potential show-flicker hours for the areas near the wind turbine. This distribution was based on a
single Nordic N-100 wind turbine on a 70-meter tall tower. Development of a single Nordic N-100
wind turbine on a 70-meter tall tower is expected to result in a low number of shadow flicker hours
for the surrounding residential areas. In general, locations greater than 1,000 ft. from the proposed
turbine location will fall into the low range. Refer to Figure 9, included in Appendix E, for a
Shadow Flicker Map representing the distribution of shadow flicker produced from a turbine at the
proposed location. Under a worst-case scenario, the nearest residences located along Old
Barnstable Road would experience shadow flicker effects for a total of approximately 10 hours per
year or 1.6 minutes per day. However, much of the area surrounding the site is wooded, and
therefore there will be existing visual barriers to shadow flicker. Model input and output data are
also included in Appendix G.
6.0 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
6.1 Project Economics
This section provides an analysis of the various direct costs and revenue factors associated with the
typical behind the meter large scale wind turbine project, as well as estimates of indirect costs and
benefits. Several financial scenarios are evaluated based upon different turbines, funding sources,
etc. The merits of a net metered wind turbine project are often evaluated on a pre-tax, equity
financed scenario, where simple payback and internal rate of return are easily calculated. A number
of economic risk factors are also identified and discussed in this section.
For a given project, a general rule is the larger the turbine, the higher the output and the lower the
cost per unit of energy produced. The project is also depended upon three significant factors: wind
resource, the value of the energy created and the cost to develop the project. It should be noted, that
market demand for wind turbines over the last several years has increased and fluctuated
dramatically, resulting in increased pricing and decreased availability of equipment, and longer
lead time for delivery of turbines and related equipment. In today’s rapidly evolving wind turbine
market, many utility scale turbine manufactures are not willing to support a single turbine project
and require minimum orders ranging from 20 to 50 megawatts.
6.2 Estimated Energy Production
Based on the predicted wind speed and the wind resource modeling, the wind speed and direction
distribution were derived at the selected wind turbine height. The wind speed distribution gives the
37
number of hours that a particular wind speed blows per year. Using WindPRO modeling software,
this wind speed distribution was then combined with the power curve of four different sized wind
turbine generators to obtain an estimate of the annual wind energy production. The output is
corrected for estimated availability and electrical grid efficiency to obtain an estimate for the net
annual wind energy production.
Based on the wind resource at the Mashpee High School site, four different sized wind turbines
were considered for this assessment. The turbines considered are all within the recommended size
class that would meet the FAA height restriction. The FAA height restriction could limit some
turbines from further consideration if the manufacturer’s minimum height is taller than the
allowable height. The power curve for the various wind turbine generators was obtained from the
modeling software data sources or input from manufactures specifications for modeling purposes.
Copies of specification from the various wind turbines selected are included within Appendix F.
Calculation of Net Energy Production
The WindPRO calculations of energy production and capacity factors for the selected turbines are
summarized in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. In this analysis we used a wind resource probability of 50%
(P50). That is, the average wind speed will be 5.76 m/s at 50 meters at least 50% of the time. It
should be noted that a higher probability, P90 for example, would result in a lower expected wind
speed average, and thus lower expected turbine output. Net output of the turbines has taken into
account a 90% availability factor for the typical losses discussed above. The P50 value has been
evaluated for all four turbines. The P90 number has also been evaluated for the Fuhrländer FL-
1500 wind turbine. Modeling output report is included in Appendix G.
Table 6-1 Summary of Energy Production Modeling (P50)
RRB Norwin Nordic Fuhrländer

Characteristics PS-600 ASR-750 N-1000 FL-1500
Turbine Size, kW 600 750 1,000 1,500
Estimated Project Cost $2,380,250 $2,671,250 $2,660,250 $4,690,250
Possible CEC Grant $300,000 $327,016 $356,076 $400,000
Cost per kW (No Grant) $3,967 $3,562 $2,660 $3,127
Cost per kW (With Grant) $3,467 $3,126 $2,304 $2,860
Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2%
Estimated Net Energy Output, MWh 1,173 1,378 1,734 3,051
Net Output = Gross output at 90% availability factor (90%) at P50.
38
Table 6-2 Summary of Energy Production Modeling (P90)
Fuhrländer
Characteristics FL-1500
Turbine Size, kW 1,500
Estimated Project Cost $4,690,250
Possible CEC Grant $400,000
Cost per kW (No Grant) $3,127
Cost per kW (With Grant) $2,860
Net Capacity Factor, % 21.1%
Estimated Net Energy Output, MWh 2,767
Net Output = Gross output at 90% availability factor (90%) at P90.
Wind resource data and modeling indicate an adequate wind resource at the proposed location.
Estimates of the long-term annual average wind speed for the Mashpee High School were obtained
by using the published wind speed information correlated with AWS True Wind Maps and models.
6.3 Project Costs
The project costs evaluated included estimated soft costs for the required studies, permitting, design
and other related efforts (legal and public relations excluded); capital costs for the procurement and
installation of the turbine; construction of foundation, electrical interconnection, and erection of the
turbine, commissioning, startup costs. Other long term project cost include the principal and
interest payments for financing of the project, as well as ongoing annual operation, maintenance
and insurance costs. Financing terms were set 4% over 20 years, the longest term available under
the Green Communities Act of 2008.
6.4 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimates
A planning level cost estimate has been developed based on the conceptual design concept prior to
completion of formal interconnection of a nominal 1.5MW wind turbine application with National
Grid. The planning accuracy cost estimate is 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 estimated cost for the electrical
interconnection is $440,250. After the major electrical equipment listed, the balance of the
interconnection system plant and miscellaneous 23kV components includes surge arresters, cable
terminations, control wiring, and start-up testing. The balance of the interconnection system plant
and miscellaneous 23kV components are estimated at 25% of the total installed cost for the major
23kV interconnection system components. Table 6-3 details the major cost items for the proposed
interconnection:
39
Table 6-3 –Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimate (Nominal 1.5 MW Turbine)
Item Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost

Excavation, Backfill and Compaction for Primary 1,300 feet $60.00 $78,000.00
Cable Ductbank (2-5")
Additional excavation & backfill for 2-2" 1,300 feet $35.00 $45,500.00
communications conduits
Installation of Primary and Communications 2,600 feet $12.00 $31,200.00
Conduits
Concrete Encasement of conduits 1,300 feet $28.00 $36,400.00
Concrete Pad for New Padmount Transformer 1 each $7,000 $7,000
Grounding of Transformer 1 each $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Installation of Secondary Conduits to Turbine 6-5" 50 feet $80.00 $4,000.00
Installation of Secondary Cable to Turbine, 5 sets 50 feet $170.00 $8,500.00
4W-600MCM
New Padmount Transformer, 2000kVA 690v-23kV, 1 each $60,000.00 $60,000.00
installed
New Utility Disconnect, Installed 1 each $6,500.00 $6,500.00
Installation of New Precast Electric Manhole 6'x8'x8' 1 each $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Installation of New Communication Handholes 2 each $1,200.00 $2,400.00
(36”x24"x22")
Paving of Roadway Trench 1 Lot $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Site Restoration – Loaming and Seeding 1 Lot $3,500.00 $3,500.00
(Manhole/Trench area only)
SUBTOTAL - SITE CONSTRUCTION $293,500.00
Contractor Markup, Insurance, Permits, etc. 15% of $ 44,025.00
subtotal
Additional Electrical Equipment and Testing 25% of $ 73,375.00
subtotal
(Control Wiring, Cable Terminations, Start-up, 547
Relay, etc.)
Contingency 10% $ 29,350.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE $440,250.00
NOTES:
1. Cost Estimate is budgetary for planning purposes and does not include permitting, legal, financing and other
costs beyond those listed above.
2. Cost Estimate does not include communication cable, as type is unknown at this time.
3. Cost Estimate is for interconnection and does not include wind turbine itself
4. An interconnection to a single 1500kW wind turbine is assumed.
For most single turbine behind the meter applications, the capital cost of the wind turbine is the
single largest expense of the project. For this project, we evaluated four different wind turbines
sizes in the 600 to 1,500 kW range. The capital expense of a wind turbine in the 600 to 1,500 kW
size class is $2,700 to $4,000 per kW. Another of the larger cost items is the foundation system,
which can vary, depending upon final design, soil conditions, and other factors.
The total estimated cost of developing a project of this size ranged is $2.3M to $4.7M. The
maximum possible MassCEC grant funding, based on the most recent program criteria, is
$570,000. The unit cost ranged from $2,700 to $4,000 per installed kW, without grant incentives
40
and from $2,100 to $3,000 per kW with maximum grant incentives. A summary of the project costs
are presented in Table 6-4 below:
Table 6-4 Wind Turbine Project Cost Estimates
Turbine Size 600kW 750kW 1,000kW 1,500kW

Design and Permitting $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $200,000
Capital Equipment $1,090,000 $1,381,000 $1,410,000 $3,200,000
General Construction $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000
Foundation installation $350,000 $350,000 $335,000 $500,000
Electrical interconnection $440,250 $440,250 $440,250 $440,250
Installation (crane) $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $125,000
Commissioning/startup $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $100,000
TOTAL $2,380,250 $2,671,250 $2,660,250 $4,690,250
Possible CEC Grant $300,000 $327,016 $356,076 $400,000
Total with Maximum Grant Incentive $2,080,250 $2,344,234 $2,304,174 $4,290,250
If the Mashpee High School desires to incorporate the wind turbine as a component of the science
curriculum an on-line monitoring program could lend itself to this purpose. The cost of an on-line
monitoring program would likely range from $5,000-$7,000 for the initial software program and
set-up. Annual maintenance would likely be approximately $5,000.
6.5 Economic Analysis
For a wind energy project of this nature, the viability is generally based on the wind resource, the
value of the energy created (or displaced) and the capital cost of the project. In this analysis we
used a wind resource probability of 50% (P50). That is, the average wind speed will be 6.34 m/s at a
70 meter hub height at least 50% of the time. It should be noted that a higher probability, P90 for
example, would result in a lower expected wind speed average, and thus lower expected turbine
output, and lower rate of return on the investment. Specific risk tolerances should be considered as
part of the next steps in the development of the project. A sensitivity analysis of this variable is also
given below.
In order to perform an economic analysis for the alternatives presented, the benefits and costs of the
project were evaluated. The project costs include costs for design and permitting, installation and
interconnection, operation and maintenance, and insurance. The benefits of the project include the
value of offset retail energy purchases. The value of the avoided cost was calculated based on the
sum of the estimated value of default service, distribution, transmission and transition kilowatt-
hour charges. The value of the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) was estimated in the
short term at $25 per MWh. The cost and benefits are estimated over the useful life of the project
and are then factored into a simple economic model (discounted cash flows) which estimates the
Net Present Value and other financial metrics of each alternative. For this study, we have modeled
the cost and benefits of three single wind turbine sizes, assuming a project paid with cash with and
without the maximum available grant ($570,000), a loan term of 20 years at 4%, also both with and
without a grant. The table below provides a summary of the economic model assumptions:
41
Table 6-5 Economic Model Variable Input
Project Term 20 years

Value of Net Metering Credit $164.23 MWh
Value of Renewable Energy Certificates $25-30 MWh
Discount/Loan Rate 4.0%
Interest Rate on Principal Debt 4.0%
Term of Debt 20 years
Operation and Maintenance $40 kW
Energy Escalation Rate 2.0%
Inflation Escalation Rate 2.0%
An industry-standard economic metric for a wind turbine project is the net present value (NPV).
The NPV can be defined as the present value of the initial investment, plus all future cash flows.
For a wind turbine, cash flows are evaluated over the useful life of the equipment, usually 20 years,
but sometimes 25 to 30 years, depending upon the manufacturer and care taken during the
maintenance of the equipment.
Another useful measure is a time-adjusted benefit-cost ratio (BCR). The BCR is the present value
of cash inflows divided by the present value of cash outflow. An investment which has BCR which
is greater than 1.00 predicates a positive return on the investment and anything less than 1.00 costs
more than the benefit of the investment. A project with a BCR of 1.00 is considered breakeven.
The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is also used to judge the economic merits of an investment. If the
IRR exceeds the opportunity cost of capital, the investment is attractive. If the IRR equals the cost
of capital, the investment is marginal. The IRR is a capital budgeting metric typically used by
private firms to decide whether they should make investments. It is an indicator of the efficiency or
quality of an investment, as opposed to net present value (NPV), which indicates value or
magnitude. The IRR is the annualized effective compounded return rate which can be earned on the
invested capital, i.e., the yield on the investment. A project is a good investment proposition if its
IRR is greater than the rate of return that could be earned by alternate investments of equal risk
(investing in other projects, buying bonds, even putting the money in a bank account). In general, if
the IRR is greater than the project's cost of capital, or hurdle rate, the project would add value for
the Town. Formally, the IRR of an investment is equal the discount rate at which the investment’s
NPV equals zero (Higgins, 1998).
Project cash flow is based upon the amount of retail power which can be off set by the turbine, sale
of any excess energy which may be produced and the sale of renewable energy certificates (REC)
which have a marketable value. The amount of retail power which can be off-set is also a function
of coincidence factor. The coincidence factor, a measure of the percentage of time power is being
created and used on the site at the same time, in that the value of electricity is instantaneous. If
energy is not being used when it is produced, it is typically sold back to the grid. Since the changes
in net metering allow all of the energy produced from a renewable source with a nameplate rating
of up to 2.0 MW, a 100% coincidence factor is used in this analysis.
42
The economic performance of each scenario improves when factoring in grant funding from CEC
under the Commonwealth Wind program, which can provide, if eligible, up to $300,000 per project
for a public entity for design and construction for 600kW turbines. Grant funding is a significant
factor on the NPV, BCR and IRR, particularly for smaller capital projects. Other economic factors
which impact the project economics are the discount rate (cost of capital) and inflation factors (both
general and fuel-related energy costs). The economic performance erodes as the discount rate and
general inflation rise. The economic modeling herein assumes that the project will be paid for with
equity (cash) or debt (loan). Simple payback estimates, as the name implies, does not consider
inflation and is based on the first full year of net revenue divided by the project cost. The cost
estimates do not include the cost of decommissioning, nor do they include the residual value of the
installation. In this case, these figures are assumed to be of equal value and therefore would have a
net zero impact on the analysis. Below is a summary of the economic analyses for each scenario:
43
Table 6-6 Economic Model Results
Scenario 1: Equity Financing, No Grant

Turbine Size, kW 600 (P50) 750 (P50) 1000 (P50) 1500 (P50) 1500 (P90)
Project Cost $ 2,380,250 $ 2,671,250 $ 2,660,250 $ 4,690,250 $4,690,250
Cost per kW $ 3,967 $ 3,562 $ 2,660 $ 3,127 $ 3,127
Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.06%
Hub Height, Meters 65 65 70 60 60
Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284
NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $812,607 $939,195 $1,736,926 $3,236,613 $2,463,354
20-Year Net Cash Flow $2,549,702 $2,905,463 $4,121,993 $7,534,784 $6,349,500
Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.30 1.30 1.53 1.58 1.44
IRR 7.35% 7.44% 10.13% 10.46% 9.01%
Simple Payback, Years 11.99 11.92 9.52 9.31 10.42
Scenario 2: Equity Financing, With Grant

Turbine Size, kW 600(P50) 750(P50) 1000(P50) 1500(P50) 1500 (P90)
Project Cost $ 1,810,250 $ 2,101,250 $ 2,090,250 $ 4,120,250 $4,120,250
Cost per kW $ 3,017 $ 2,802 $ 2,090 $ 2,747 $ 2,747
Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60
NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $1,360,684 $1,487,272 $2,285,003 $3,784,690 $3,011,431
IRR 10.84% 10.48% 13.65% 12.31% 10.74%
Scenario 3: Debt Financing, No Grant

Turbine Size, kW 600(P50) 750(P50) 1000(P50) 1500(P50) 1500 (P90)
Project Cost $2,380,250 $2,671,250 $2,660,250 $4,690,250 $4,690,250
Cost per kW $3,967 $3,562 $2,660 $3,127 $3,127
Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60
IRR NA NA NA NA NA
Simple Payback, Years NA NA NA NA NA
44
Scenario 4: Debt Financing, With Grant

Turbine Size, kW 600 (P50) 750(P50) 1000(P50) 1500(P50) 1500 (P90)
Project Cost $1,810,250 $2,101,250 $2,090,250 $4,120,250 $4,120,250
Cost per kW $3,017 $2,802 $2,090 $2,747 $2,747
Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60
IRR NA NA NA NA NA

Based on the above, development of a large wind turbine appears economically viable. The
alternatives become more attractive with grant funding to off set initial capital costs, as indicated
by the higher Net Present Value for the grant-funded projects using the same values for discount
rate and inflation factors. The NPV, Net Cash Flow and benefit to cost ratio are all positive and
increase markedly with increase in turbine size. Given the rate at which the Town could expect to
borrow money for a project of this nature, which is estimated to be 4.0%, the investment
opportunity cost is also considered attractive. It should be noted that all of the scenarios are
sensitive to the discount rate (4.0%), rate of general inflation (2%) and energy inflation rate (2.0%),
which have been used in this analysis. Grant funding helps reduce the initial capital cost of the
project, improving all of the scenarios Net Present Value by an amount equal to the grant. Refer to
Appendix H for detailed economic calculations, which include estimated annual operation,
maintenance and insurance cost of the wind turbines.
7.0 PROJECT RISK FACTORS
There are risk factors inherent with implementation of a wind turbine generator. Most of the risk
factors associated with wind turbines have been investigated and are well documented in the
literature. Proponents and advocates of developing wind power, which include the America Wind
Energy Association (AWEA), have developed publications designed to educate and dispel certain
myths associate with the risks and hazards of operating modern wind turbines. The risk factors
considered for this study include: Hazards to human health and safety; Hazards with aeronautical
navigation or interference with radar and other facilities; and Financial risks. Each of the factors is
discussed below.
45
7.1 Human Health and Safety
The hazards to human health and safety include basic life safety issues associated with construction
of the wind turbine. Given the height of the theses facilities, there is a risk of slip, trip or falling
during construction, where complex rigging operations are involved. This factor is effectively
mitigated through use of trained, experienced personnel during the construction, operation and
maintenance phases.
There is also a risk, however small, of a catastrophic structural failure of the turbine and potentially
resulting in death or serious bodily injury from falling ice, ice throw, parts or components.
Installing fencing around the perimeter of the wind turbine can mitigate safety issues. Access
limitation and control over the personnel who have access to the wind turbine will mitigate some of
safety related risk factors. Security and access to the facility can be closely monitored and
restricted, further reducing the risk of injury or harm.
7.2 Hazards to Navigation and Radar
There is a risk that wind turbines can result in interference with radar or pose a hazard to
aeronautical navigation. The hazard to navigation may be mitigated through installation of
additional navigation aids; however, the evaluation of the costs and benefits of these types of
improvements are beyond the scope of this assessment. As noted earlier, a request for
determination for a nearby location has been filed with the FAA. Preliminary studies indicate that a
structure height of up to 319 feet AGL would not likely pose a hazard to air navigation.
7.3 Financial Risk
As discussed briefly in the preceding sections, there are several economic risk factors that could
significantly impact the expected financial performance of the proposed project. These factors are
as follows:
Turbine Cost and Availability
Based upon the research conducted for this study, procuring a single commercial scale turbine is
not a straightforward process. There are relatively few established vendors with proven equipment
that are interested in selling a single turbine, and pricing is subject to significant variability due to
procurement timing, currency exchange rates, and other factors. It is clear that definitive pricing
for the turbine sizes evaluated for this project will not be available until a procurement decision is
made. In addition, it should be noted that current delivery schedules for a single large scale wind
turbine, assuming a turbine can be procured, range from 12 to 24 months, or more. Several
manufactures of a 600 kW wind turbines (Elecon, RRB) have begun to fill single turbine orders in
the North American market. In addition, construction-pricing variability (cost of concrete, steel,
etc) becomes a significant secondary concern for budgeting purposes.
46
Energy Regulatory Framework
The passage of the Green Communities Act of Massachusetts in July 2008 which increases the net
metering criteria from 60 kW to 2 MW, with the ability for virtual net metering, creates a
framework with positive significant impacts on the financial performance of renewable energy
projects. The increased size and ability for virtual net metering, which previously limited use of
energy generated from a renewable energy project to on site use, with excess power made available
to the grid at wholesale rates, now permits excess power to be applied to other meters in the same
ISO NE load zone to receive the credits mandated by the legislation. Net metering takes effect on
December 1 under an order adopted by Department of Public Utilities (DPU) on November 13,
2009. The Act stipulates net metering credits for municipalities include credit for the per kilowatt
hour default service rate, distribution, transmission and per kilowatt hour transition charges.
7.4 Project Economic Sensitivity Analysis
Variations in Energy Production and REC Values
The long-term reliability of the REC markets and the continued availability of grant funding are
both considered significant factors that could impact the economic viability of the project.
Downward pressure has recently been exerted on REC values, as more renewable projects have
been added to the ISO-NE grid. Conversely, the RPS which currently is at 4% of the maximum
peak demand state-wide for 2009, are mandated to rise 1% annually to 15% by the year 2020,
which should serve to stabilize the REC market and value of credits in the future.
The economic model herein uses a constant energy production value, based on the predicted
average annual wind speed and generally expected turbine availability values. Inevitably, the actual
energy production will vary from year to year. Hence, the products which are associated with these
values, namely the credit for displaced energy use, net metered excess power and sale of REC will
be directly impacted by the actual MWh of energy produced. In order evaluate risk tolerances, a
sensitivity analysis can be performed, by simply varying the net capacity factor for the turbine out
put in the model. The same sensitivity can be performed for the value of the REC credits and so
forth for each variable in the model.
Table 7-1 Sensitivity Analyses of Net Capacity Factor
Net Capacity Factor Sensitivity Analyses

S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5
Scenario 2: Equity, With Grant -20% -10% Base Case +10% +20%
Turbine Size, kW 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
$ $ $ $ $
Project Cost 2,101,250 2,101,250 2,101,250 2,101,250 2,101,250
$ $ $ $ $
Cost per kW 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101
Hub Height 70 70 70 70 70
47

NPV (Discount Rate of 4.0%) $1,339,908 $1,812,456 $2,285,003 $2,757,550 $3,230,097
Estimated Simple Payback, years 9.78 8.48 7.48 6.70 6.06
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A feasibility study has been completed for the proposed construction of one large-scale wind
turbine at the Mashpee High School in Mashpee, Massachusetts. The study represents a
comprehensive review of the critical factors associated with the installation of a wind turbine at the
Site. This feasibility study included evaluation of published wind data; electrical usage,
consumption and generation; economics; environmental; engineering assessments and permitting
issues associated with construction of a commercial-scale wind turbine at the site.
The feasibility study addresses the technical and economic feasibility of construction of a nominal
600 kW to 1.5 MW wind turbine at the High School Site. Construction of the wind turbine in this
size range would offset all of the electrical consumption at the Mashpee High School. Installation
of a 1.0 or 1.5 MW wind turbine would create a surplus where additional Town owned facilities
could offset a part of their electricity use through virtual net metering. Based on the results of this
study, installation of a wind energy conversion facility is considered technically viable, with
favorable wind resources and site conditions which favor development of a large scale wind turbine
at the Mashpee High School. Long-term wind speed of 6.34 meters per second, at a height of 70
meters, is estimated for the Site. Measured and predicated wind speeds are considered favorable for
development of a commercial scale wind turbine at the Site.
The cost for design, permitting, procurement and construction of a single 600 kW to 1.5 MW wind
turbine is on the order of $2.38 to $4.69M. The standard figures of merit, including: Net Present
Value, Net Cash Flow, Benefit to Cost Ratio and Internal Rate of Return are all positive for the
four turbine sizes evaluated (600kW, 750kW, 1.0MW and 1.5MW), suggesting development of one
of these size turbines is economically viable. Gross capacity factors range from of 19.8% to 25.8%
for the turbines modeled with a mean wind speed of 6.34 ms at a hub height of 70 meters. Simple
payback would be on the order of 9.3 to 11.9 years. Internal rates of return were estimated to be on
the order of 7.35% to 10.46%. Benefit to cost ratios for ranged from 1.30 to 1.58. The project
economics are improved when factoring the current possible grant funding from the CEC, if
determined eligible.
Based upon the above, it is our opinion that development of a large-scale wind turbine is both
technically and economically viable at the Mashpee High School. The next steps include an internal
assessment by the Town to make a “Go” or “No Go” decision on the project.
48
9.0 REFERENCES
American Wind Energy Association and The American Bird Conservancy. May 18-19, 2004,
Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving
Bird and Bat Impacts, Washington, D.C.
American Wind Energy Association, Facts About Wind Energy And Noise, http://www.awea.org
American Wind Energy Association, Wind Power Myths vs. Facts, http://www.awea.org
Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A. and Stroud, D.A. (eds). Waterbirds Around the World, Stationery
Office, Edinburgh, U.K. 960 pp. (2006).
Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency, Wind Turbine Analysis for Cape Cod Air Force
Station Early Warning Radar and Beale Air Force Base Upgraded Early Warning Radar,
Spring 2007
Higgins, Robert C., Analysis for Financial Management, Fifth Edition, 1998, University of
Washington, Irwin/McGraw Hill.
ISO New England Inc., 2005 New England Marginal Emission Rate Analysis, July 2007
Massachusetts Geographic Information Systems (Mass GIS), 2007, Various Data Layers. Office of
Geographic and Environmental Information, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs.
Rogers, A.L., Manwell, J.F., and Wright, S., Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise, 2002, Amended 2006,
Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003
Skehan, J.W., 1997, Assembly and Dispersal of Supercontinents: The view from Avalon: Journal
of Geodynamics, v. 23, p. 237-262.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-221 A Pictorial Survey of the Bedrock Beneath
Western Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc., July 2005, Feasibility Study for Wind Turbine
Installation, in association with Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, et al.
Wernham, C., Toms, M., Marchant, J., Clark, J., Siriwardena, G., and Baillie, S., 2002. The
Migration Atlas: Movements of the Birds of Britain and Ireland. T & A.D. Poyser, London,
UK. 884 pp.
Zen, E-an, Goldsmith, Richard, Ratcliffe, N.M., Robinson, Peter, Stanley, R.S., Hatch, N.L.,
Shride, A.F., Weed, E.G.A. and Wones, D.R., 1983, Bedrock geologic map of
Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:250000.
49
APPENDIX A
WIND DATA REPORT (RERL, 2007)

Wind Power in Mashpee:
Siting Considerations for a Wind Turbine
Sally Wright, M.S., P.E.
Site visit date: 23 August 2007
Report date: 6 November 2007
Table of contents
Discussion
I. Introduction
II. Sites Considered
III. Wind Turbine Siting Considerations
A. Predicted Wind Resource
B. Noise
C. Proximity to Nearby Airports
D. Environmental Issues and Permitting
E. Wind Turbine Component Transportation & Access
F. Distance to Distribution/Transmission Lines for Power Distribution
G. Potential Electrical Loads Offset
IV. Conclusions & Recommendations
Appendix A Site Survey Data
Appendix B Wind Monitoring Logistics
Appendix C Maps, Photos, & Figures
Locator Map
Mashpee
X
I. Introduction
The town of Mashpee is considering the possibility of a wind power generation facility on public land.
At the request of the town and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s Renewable Energy Trust,
Sally Wright of the RERL visited potential wind turbine and/or wind-monitoring sites in Mashpee, along
with representatives of the town.
This report provides an initial assessment of the suitability of the proposed sites for utility- or medium-
scale wind turbines. The report is in the form of a broad “fatal flaw” analysis, which is designed to
determine whether the town should move forward in considering this type of wind power project. Many
factors are discussed in this report, not all of which present major influence for every site; at the end of
the report, the most significant factor for each site is summarized.
The “Locator Map” on the previous page is an AWS-TrueWind map of the estimated mean wind speeds
in Massachusetts at 70 meters height. Areas of primary interest for utility-scale wind power have
estimated mean wind speeds of 6.5 m/s or greater (dark green or more). On this map, the town of
Mashpee is marked with an “X”.
Appendix A provides details of the site discussed in this report in tabular form. Appendix B focuses on
siting considerations for wind-monitoring towers (met towers) in Mashpee. Wind monitoring is an
important aspect in determining feasibility. Appendix C provides photographs, ortho (aerial)
photographs, and figures for the site.
For more background information

This report assumes some familiarity with wind resource assessment, wind power siting, and other
issues that arise with wind power technology. For an introduction to these areas, please refer to RERL’s
Community Wind Fact Sheets, which are available on the web at:
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/.
These sheets include information on the following subjects:
• Wind Technology Today

• Performance, Integration, & Economics
• Capacity Factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn't blow?
• An Introduction to Major Factors that Influence Community Wind Economics
• Impacts & Issues
• Siting in Communities
• Resource Assessment
• Interpreting Your Wind Resource Data
• Permitting in Your Community
More information on wind turbine technology, policy, and general information can be found at these
websites:
• American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org
• Danish Wind Industry Association, www.windpower.org
Use of this report

This engineering report is intended to be used in consultation with MTC as the town explores its options
for wind development at municipally owned sites.
Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts at Amherst Page 2

II. Sites Considered
The town of Mashpee originally suggested that seven locations be evaluated for their suitability for a
wind power project. The top four are summarized here:
1. South Cape Beach: This beach on Nantucket Sound is part state park, part town park. The state
portion is managed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
2. Transfer Station: a capped landfill near the Mashpee River, bordered on the west by
conservation land
3. Schools & Police/Fire Complex: The town has a cluster of town-owned parcels which are home
to three schools (Coombs Elementary, Quashnet Elementary, & Mashpee High School across the
road to the southwest), the Fire/Police complex, some senior housing, a skate part and many
playing fields.
4. Heritage Park: This area includes several town recreational fields north of Carleton Drive West.
These four sites will be examined in this report (see also Appendix A, lines 1-7 for a data on these
sites.)
The following three additional sites are not considered further in this report for the reasons listed:
5. Town Hall (lat-long: 41.648188 -70.481325): this area is too small for a met tower. The parcel is
somewhat constrained for a full-scale wind turbine, though the town could reexamine this site for
a wind turbine in the future if it likes.
6. Fire Sub-station (lat-long: 41.582935 -70.481874): this area is very closely surrounded by
residences
7. EDIC Lot (lat-long: 41.603227,-70.489515) : this area is also very closely surrounded by
residences

III. Wind Turbine Siting Considerations
Purpose
The purpose of this section is to consider whether there are any “fatal flaws” to siting a wind turbine in
the sites under discussion. For this discussion, we examine the potential for a “utility-” or “commercial-
scale” (600 – 2,500 kW) turbine. The blade-tip heights of these turbines range between 250 and 450
feet.
The following characteristics are important in considering a wind turbine site, and are examined in this
report:
B. Noise
C. Proximity to Airports
F. Distance to Transmission/Distribution Lines for Power Distribution
Each section below briefly describes why the characteristic is important in general and then discusses it
in particular for these sites. Information about these characteristics for the sites is also presented in
tabular form in Appendix A. The corresponding lines are noted in parentheses after each subject line.
About wind resource in general

The economics of wind power at a given site depend on many factors; one of the most important is wind
speed. Understanding wind speed and turbulence is critical to estimating the energy that can be
produced at a given site. The power in wind is related to its speed, and small changes or inaccuracies in
estimated wind speed can mean big changes in annual energy production. For these reasons, wind speed
is the first criterion to examine when considering a wind power project.
The primary motivation for understanding the winds at a proposed wind power site is an improved
understanding of the project feasibility and returns, and thus a lowering of investment risk. Better,
longer, and more site-specific data leads to lower risks. Additional information regarding the
monitoring of wind resources can be found in Appendix B.
When considering wind resource at this screening stage, we look at several factors:
TrueWind estimates: An initial site screening can use estimated wind speeds based on computer models
by AWS TrueWind (http://truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/); for more detail, the wind is monitored on
site.
Existing wind data: High-quality wind data from nearby locations can be useful, primarily for
correlation with on-site data. Concurrent, long-term, nearby data is most useful. Wind resource data
collected by RERL are available on the web: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/resource_data/.
Obstacles to wind: Obstacles cause both turbulence and slowing of the wind. If the surrounding
landscape is built up, forested, or otherwise rough, turbulence will increase. These are important factors

in site selection for a wind turbine because they affect the power production and the longevity of a wind
turbine, and may affect the type of turbine that can function reliably at the site.
TrueWind estimates of annual average wind speed (Lines 8-12)

Of the four sites reviewed here, the coastal site is estimated to have favorable wind speeds, with annual
average wind speeds of 7.5 m/s at 70 meters, according to the AWS-TrueWind model.
The transfer station and Heritage Park are both predicted to have 6.5 m/s at 70 meters.
The schools and safety complexes are in the low-wind center of the town, with an estimated 6.3-6.4 m/s
at 70 meters; this area does not meet the MTC Community Wind Collaborative threshold of 6.5 m/s at
70 meters.
Other available wind data (Line 13)

RERL has maintained anemometry in Falmouth, Barnstable and Bourne. These wind datasets are too
far away to yield sufficient accuracy for determining the feasibility of a utility-scale wind turbine at the
Mashpee sites. Therefore on-site wind monitoring is still advisable. The RERL wind datasets are
available on the web: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/resource_data/
Obstacles to wind flow (Lines 18-19)

With the exception of the coastal site, trees obstruct all the sites under consideration. An especially tall
wind turbine tower will be advisable.
B. Noise
About Noise in general

Noise considerations generally take two forms, state regulatory compliance and nuisance levels at
nearby residences:
A. Regulatory compliance: Massachusetts state regulations do not allow a rise of 10 dB or greater above
background levels at a property boundary (Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations, Regulation
310 CMR 7.10). Regulatory compliance will rarely impose a siting constraint on a large modern wind
turbine, since in most cases modern turbines are quiet enough to meet these criteria easily.
B. Human annoyance: Aside from Massachusetts regulations, residences should also be taken into
consideration. Any eventual wind turbine would be sited such that it would be minimally audible at the
nearest residences. At this stage, to check for fatal flaws, this rule of thumb can be used to minimize
possible noise: site wind turbines at least three times the blade-tip height from residences. Distances
from mixed-use areas may be shorter. Note that noise considerations influence not only siting, but also
sizing decisions.
For example, this first-pass rule of thumb tells us that a turbine with a 77-meter rotor diameter on a 60-
meter tower should be about 300 meters (60 + 77/2 = 98.5, times 3 comes to ~300 m or ~1000 feet)
from residences. Other turbine sizes would suggest other distances. Note that many factors affect the
transmission of sound and that this is a rule of thumb only.
The three-times-blade-tip height suggestion is not a hard rule; wind turbines can be and often are
positioned closer to residences. This initial recommendation is meant to be the beginning of a
conversation among the town’s citizens. The town’s decision to site a wind turbine must take into
consideration the community’s needs and priorities.

If the town would like to consider a site closer than this distance, then a more detailed sound study can
be performed that takes into consideration actual ambient levels and terrain; this site-specific
information would then supersede the rough rule-of-thumb.
Noise at the Mashpee sites (Lines 20-21)

Mashpee is a built-up community and noise will be a siting consideration for a wind turbine at all of the
inland sites under consideration. Consideration of the neighbors will be an important factor in siting and
sizing a wind turbine in Mashpee.
From a noise perspective, the “three-times-blade-tip” distance guideline suggests a utility-scale wind
turbine is possible at all four sites. However, in all but the coastal case, noise considerations will
influence micro-siting and turbine choice. In particular it will probably put a limit on the size of a
turbine in Heritage Park, the transfer station, and all the school/safety complex areas except for the High
School. The High School playing fields are sufficiently far away that a wind turbine there is unlikely to
be heard at residences.
C. Nearby Airports
About airspace in general

The form “7460-1 - Notice Of Proposed Construction or Alteration” must be filed with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) before construction of any structure over 200 feet (i.e. all utility-scale
wind turbines). The corresponding form for the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC form
E10, Request for Airspace Review) must also be filed.
These filings are reviewed by the FAA and the Department of Defense (DOD) for any potential
obstruction or interference with air traffic, aircraft navigation/communication systems, military
RADAR, etc. This process typically takes about three months for a first response. We recommend that
these filings, or a detailed analysis of airspace issues, be undertaken as soon as possible if a site is
seriously being considered for a wind turbine.
The U.S. Air Force recently published a policy to “contest … windmill farms within radar line of sight
of the national Air Defense and Homeland Security Radars.” In Massachusetts, these include the Long
Range Radar Sites in North Truro, Boston, and in the foothills of the Berkshires; additionally, parts of
northeastern Massachusetts are within 60 nm of a long-range radar site in New Hampshire*.
Nevertheless, wind projects have been approved within 60 nm of these long-range radar sites.
While we cannot predict the FAA or DOD response, most sites that are not within about 3-5 miles of a
public or military airport are not considered a hazard to air traffic. At this preliminary stage, we look for
fatal flaws by considering the distance to public and military runways.
Note that the FAA requires that any structure over 200’ be lit. All utility-scale wind power installations
are lit.
Airspace at the Mashpee Sites (Line 27)

Mashpee borders on Otis Air National Guard Base and the FAA will likely place limits on the possible
heights of wind turbines anywhere in town. MTC commissioned a preliminary study by Aviation
*
The FAA offers a “Long Range Radar Tool” that displays these 60 nm radius areas. See their Obstruction
Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) website:
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showLongRangeRadarToolForm
Systems Inc (ASI) to review height limitations at the high school; ASI determined a that likely height
limit will be 316 feet above ground level. The height limits at the other two noon-coastal sites may be
as, or more, restrictive.
The North Truro Joint Use Long Range Radar Site is within 60 nautical miles (69 statute miles) of the
Mashpee sites and the DOD will have to review the potential impact of a wind turbine on this unit;
however, full scale wind turbines have already been approved by the DOD and FAA in this general area.
The FAA form 7460-1 and the corresponding MAC form should be filed early in the process of
considering a wind turbine at any of these sites.
Environmental permitting in general

At this early stage, the following items are reviewed:
- State designations of Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), Open Space,
Wetlands, and other land-use restrictions
- Massachusetts Audubon Society Important Bird Area (IBA)
- Current or former landfill
The permitting implications of these designations are not clear-cut in all cases. For instance, a “Core
Habitat” designation may require a filing with the NHESP, but does not eliminate the possibility of a
wind turbine installation. Compatibility of some land-use restrictions with wind power has not yet been
determined.
Please note that this report is based on publicly available information and conversations with town
representatives. There may, however, be other land-use restrictions, unregistered wetlands, etc. of
which RERL is not aware. It is the town’s responsibility to ensure the environmental appropriateness of
the chosen site.
Environmental permitting at the Mashpee sites (Lines 22-26)

All four sites carry a land-use designation of open space protection. Most of the coastal area is wetlands
including barrier beach dune and salt marsh; a wind turbine installation should be sited with a suitable
setback from these wetlands.
It is not known if any site carries Article 97 restrictions.
At this stage, environmental permitting does not appear to be a fatal flaw to wind power development on
Mashpee town land but can be expected to be a siting constraint.
About transportation and access in general

With blades up to 130 feet long, modern wind turbines require transportation on roads with fairly large
turning radii and only small changes in slope. The example at right shows the set of turning radii (in
millimeters) required for transporting one of the 39-meter turbine blades of a Vestas V80, a 1.8 MW
machine, on a 47-meter tractor-trailer bed. Transportation accessibility for turbine installation is an
important consideration for a potential wind turbine site.

Transportation and access to the Mashpee sites (Line 17)
There may be some logistical difficulties in moving wind turbine components to the sites, but
component transportation does not appear to be a fatal flaw. Road reinforcement will likely be required
for the coastal site.
If the town proceeds with a wind power project at the coastal site in particular, an access plan will be an
important part of the feasibility analysis.
F. Distance to Transmission/Distribution Lines for Power Distribution
About power distribution in general

The power generated by any installed wind turbine must be transported to adequately sized lines, either
on the “load side” of a meter, or out to transmission or distribution lines. Proximity to utility
distribution or transmission lines is an important cost consideration for a wind turbine project.
Power distribution at the Mashpee sites (Line 16)

The coastal site will require bringing in three phase lines at least two miles, which will add to the cost of
the project. All other sites have three-phase distribution lines at the road or on-site, and while voltage
and line capacity was not determined, we expect that a small wind power project should be able to be
interconnected without significant additional expense.
Interconnection does not appear to be a fatal flaw at this stage. The point of interconnection would be
determined later in the project.
About offsetting loads in general

Energy used on-site is more valuable than energy sold onto the wholesale market. At this preliminary
stage, we can compare the energy (kWh) used in a year with the predicted energy that could be
generated in a year of turbine operation.
In fact, a more detailed analysis is needed to better understand the value of the generated energy. For on-
site generators over 60 kW (Massachusetts’ current net-metering limit), energy must be generated at the
same time that it is consumed or else sold to the grid. Therefore, the extent to which on-site loads can be
offset depends on how well the daily profiles of consumption and generation align with each other. This
more detailed analysis could be carried out in a later feasibility study.
About offsetting the load at the Mashpee sites (Lines 14-15)

The school reports the following electricity billed during 13 months:
School Energy billed from 2006/07 to 2007/07 (kWh)
Coombs 245,600
Quashnet 526,864
High School 1,453,400
Total 2,225,864
The high school’s load may be significant enough to warrant net metering if current regulations are
changed to allow this. Grouping other loads together would increase these benefits. Note that current
utility regulations would not allow the combination of these three electrical loads since the High School
lies across a road from the other two. Some changes have been proposed to net billing regulations, but
distance limits in some proposals may also not allow the combination of these loads; this will require
careful review.
RERL did not review other electric bills, although the other sites are not expected to have significant
energy usage. Playing field lights are intermittent and seasonal enough that they may be difficult to
offset. This could be reviewed in more detail if this site is of interest.
A more detailed analysis at a later date could compare the annual and diurnal profiles of electricity
production and consumption at these sites.
IV. Conclusions & Recommendations

The town of Mashpee is interested in a wind power project on municipally owned land. The purpose of
this report is to guide the town to its most promising site(s) for further study of wind power feasibility.
The town should weigh its existing land use plans for these areas, with the factors that influence the
economics of these community wind projects.
The South Cape Beach has the important advantage of higher wind speeds; an economic analysis will
weigh this advantage against the somewhat lower revenue due to lack of local load, and the higher
installation cost due to the longer lines and roads. The Transfer Station, Schools, and Police/Fire
Complex have moderate wind speeds but are located closer to roads and substations; furthermore, the
schools have a large enough load to be an important benefit in the economic analysis. These factors
must be weighed against the moderate wind speeds.
Note that utility regulations have a great influence on the economics of wind power installations and any
future changes to these regulations will necessitate a reevaluation of the economics.
The FAA will probably put prohibitive height limits on the Heritage Park site; thus, if the town is
interested in pursuing this site further, height limits would have to be confirmed with the FAA.
Next steps (Line 29)

A preliminary economic analysis should be an important input as the town weighs its plans for these
sites. After choosing a site for consideration, establishing full feasibility (which may include wind
resource monitoring) is an important next step. The wind monitoring process and met tower siting
considerations are discussed in Appendix B.
In any case, next steps include:
• Economic analysis including estimates of interconnect & transportation costs
• Wind resource assessment
• Phase one avian impact study for coastal site in particular
• File FAA form 7460-1
• South Cape Beach: Determine if DCR is interested in cooperating on neighboring state land.
• Public outreach.

Appendix A: Site Survey Data
Key:
Green shading: Particularly positive aspect that distinguishes this site from the others.
Yellow shading: Significant constraints: these items may force micrositing choices, or may make the site difficult
Red shading: Fatal flaws: these make placement impossible at this site.
Refer to the report “Wind Power in Salem: Siting Considerations for a Wind Turbine” for a discussion of these data.
Table 1: Data for sites 1-4:

1. South Cape Beach 2. Transfer Station 3. Schools & Police/Fire Complex 4. Heritage Park
Site overview
State Beach on Nantucket Sound Town transfer station Multiple use area including: 3 schools, recreational facilities including playing
1. Description, current land use safety complex, senior housing, playing fields
fields, skate park.
380 Asher’s Path E Mashpee High School: 500 Old Ashumet Road
Barnstable Road, Mashpee, MA 02649
Mashpee, MA 02649 Mashpee, MA 02649 Mashpee, MA 02649
2. Address Quashnet School: 150 Old Barnstable
Road, Mashpee, MA 02649
Coombs: 152 Old Barnstable Road
Mashpee, MA 02649
3. State Department of Conservation and Town Town Town

Owner Recreation (DCR)
Location
4. NAD 83, lat & long 41.552111° 41.629478° High school settling ponds: 41.653271°
-70.502597° -70.480101° 41.611456° -70.505241° -70.499225°
Coombs School Playing fields:
41.621742° -70.492918°
Skate park:
41.619217° -70.493752°
5. Degree, minute, second 41°33'7.60"N 41°37'46.12"N HS Settling ponds: 41°39'11.78"N

70°30'9.35"W 70°28'48.36"W 41°36'41.24"N 70°29'57.21"W
70°30'18.87"W
6. Approximate Elevation (feet) 3 ~59 ~39-66 ~100-115
7. Notes Route 151, Old Falmouth Road divides

the high school from the other sites.
Wind Speeds
Estimated Mean Speeds* in m/s

To convert m/s to mph, multiply by 2.24
8. • At height of 100 m 8.1 7.1 7.0-7.1 7.2
9. • At height of 70 m 7.5 6.5 6.3-6.4 6.5
10. • At height of 50 m 7.1 6.0 5.7-5.9 6.0
11. • At height of 30 m 6.6 5.4 5.0-5.1 5.3

12. Wind Speed Summary Favorable Adequate Marginal. Adequate

this may be the lowest-wind area in
(for utility-scale): town. High school is on the lower end of
these ranges.
13. Existing wind data Falmouth WWTP: ~6 miles away

Barnstable: ~9
CCCC: ~10
Upper Cape Tech School, Bourne: ~10
Wind Turbine Considerations:
Economic
14. On-site Electric Loads No No Small Small/intermittent
15. Electric Loads, kWh/year - - Unknown Unknown

Approximately 2 miles to three phase Not a fatal flaw Not a fatal flaw Not a fatal flaw
16. Distance to Distribution/ power.
Transmission lines**
17. Access for blade transportation** Small access roads Not a fatal flaw Not a fatal flaw Not a fatal flaw
Obstructions to wind
18. Terrain Beach Small hills, both wooded & developed Small hills, both wooded & developed Small hills, both wooded & developed
19. Obstacles to wind Open to Sound to the south Trees Trees Trees
Noise
20. Nearby residential areas: No Yes Some, depending on micrositing Yes
21. Radius to residences: (m): ~850, depending on micrositing Up to ~270, depending on micrositing ~250 near skate park, 100 – 230, depending on micrositing
(ideally >~300m for utility scale‡) ~600 near high school

Environmental permitting †
22. Designated by the Natural Yes: Priority & Core Habitat of Rare Yes, along Mashpee River on the west Some areas of core habitat Yes: Core habitat designation
Species edge of this parcel:
Heritage & Endangered Species Priority & Core Habitat of Rare Species
Program as a Core Habitat or a
Supporting Natural Landscape?
23. Designated by the DEP as Barrier beach, et al. No No No

Wetlands?
24. Designated by the No No No No, though the Mass Military

Reservation IBA is nearby to the west.
Massachusetts Audubon Society
as an Important Bird Area (IBA)?
25. Is the site a current or former No Yes No No

land-fill? (RERL does not install Preferred site for a wind turbine may be
met towers on landfills) next to (not on top) of the landfill
formation, due to expense of a
foundation penetrating the cap
26. Other land-use restrictions, e.g. In DCR parcel level of open space Along Mashpee River on the west edge Level of open space protection: limited level of open space protection: limited ,
protection: in perpetuity of this parcel: level of open space for schools for recreation area, but not across the
Article 97 † protection: in perpetuity street to the south
Other permitting
27. Distance to airport(s) Otis: ~5.5 nm Otis: ~2 nm Falmouth Airpark : ~2.6 nm Otis: <1 nm and directly aligned with
the runway
(nautical miles) Falmouth Airpark ~2.7 nm Falmouth Airpark ~3.6 nm Otis ~2.7 nm
Falmouth Airpark ~4 nm
ASI study for High school: 316’ limit to
avoid operational impact.

Wind Turbine: Conclusions

Land use restrictions and park status Not ideal wind speeds Not ideal wind speeds FAA restrictions
28.
Primary constraint(s): Possible FAA limits on turbine size Nearby residences may limit turbine size FAA limits on turbine size Not ideal wind speeds
If this site is of interest for a Lack of local electric load Probable FAA limits on turbine size Lack of local electric load Nearby residences
utility-scale wind turbine, what Lack of local electric load Lack of local electric load
factors will most affect feasibility
and/or micrositing?
29. Phase one avian impact study Economic analysis Economic analysis Economic analysis
Next step / To be FAA filing FAA filing FAA filing FAA filing
determined Determine if DCR is interested in
cooperating on neighboring state land.
To pursue wind power at this
site, these items should be Economic analysis including estimates
of interconnection & transportation
explored first (along with wind costs.
monitoring and public outreach):
30. Possibly Possibly Possibly Not the preferred site
Recommendation
Should the city consider this site
for a utility-scale wind turbine?
See also the discussion section.
31. Yes. Possibly Possibly Possibly
Multiple Turbines Number is most likely a function of
interest and economics
If the city is interested in
installing more than one turbine,
how many could fit at this site?

Met Tower Siting Factors

32. Space availability & level terrain Parking area at beach is too narrow and No spot was identified during site visit. Sufficient space in an area of unused All the currently cleared area consists of
neighboring land too fragile for anchors. However, a cleared area behind the ball fields playing fields.
dump was not toured. There may be a
A parking area 1.3 km to the north, at possible met tower location there, Town requested consideration of
N41.56361 W70.50489, could be large though this would be on the lea side of wooded area on south side of Carleton
enough if cleared. This site will be the landfill formation. Drive. This area would have to be
reviewed below: Alternately, an area of land could be cleared.
cleared to the west of the landfill.
33. Power lines or other obstructions No Unknown No Power lines along road
to met tower. (Met tower must be
set at least 1.5 x the tower
height away from power lines.)
34. Obstacles to wind Trees, houses Trees Trees, ~30’ Trees, ~30’
Landfill formation
35. Clearing requirements Center of area Unknown Possibly minor tree and brush clearing The full area needed by the met tower
required. Some unused bleachers and a would have to be cleared (see Appendix
scoreboard also. B)
36. Soil quality – for met tower Sandy Unknown Not tested, but expected to be ok Not tested, but expected to be ok
anchors
37. Road Access – for met tower Ok Ok Ok Ok

installation
38. Security Public place Gated School yard
39. Existing towers on or near site None None known None known None known
40. Distance to AC power if lighting -- -- -- --

is required
41. Compatibility: If this site were -- --

chosen for a wind turbine but not The transfer station and the schools could possibly stand in for each other
a met tower, where else could
wind be monitored? (i.e., which
of the other sites are within
about 1 mile and have similar
terrain?)

Met Tower: Primary Constraint

42. What factors will most affect Parking lot is in active use part of the Lack of cleared space that is not on the Need to clear
year. landfill formation.
feasibility and/or siting of a met
tower here? Need to clear
Met Tower Recommendation:

43. Recommended site: Possibly Possibly Yes Possibly
44. Recommended met tower height 50 m 50 m 50 m 50 m

(meters)
Notes:
* Estimated Mean Annual Wind speeds, in m/s: based on the AWS-TrueWind computer models. For more information, see TrueWind Solutions,
truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/
‡ Note that this will vary based on location, turbine size, terrain, ambient noise, etc.
** These items can have significant impacts on installation cost. The intention of this report is not to estimate the costs of these items, but only looks for
indications of fatal flaw. However, if one appears to be an issue for the chosen site, it may be advisable to study it further relatively early in the project.
† Please note that this report is based on publicly available information and conversations with site owner representatives. There may, however, be other
land-use restrictions, unregistered wetlands, etc. of which RERL is not aware. It is the city’s responsibility to ensure the environmental appropriateness of
the chosen site.

Appendix B: Wind-Monitoring Logistics
Traditionally, wind is monitored for about a year with a met tower. Some sites may be suitable for other
types of monitoring in addition to a met tower. This section will concentrate on the siting of a met tower.
Figure 1 in Appendix C is a schematic of a met tower.
About met towers

Most met towers are temporary structures that do not require a foundation and are supported by guy
wires in 4 directions. Towers are usually 40 meters (131’) or 50 meters (164’) tall. In most cases,
standard utility anchors are used to anchor the guy wires. The
number and type of anchors required depends on the particular
site. They will be proof-tested at installation to make sure they
can hold enough load.
The tower is raised using a winch; no crane is required. The
tower consists of a set of 6” diameter pipes that stack together;
the whole set-up can be brought in on a pick-up truck.
The pictures on this page give an idea of what this equipment
looks like.
Met A met tower base-plate sits directly

Tower on the ground.
Gin
Pole
In the process of raising a met tower, the “gin

pole” gives the winch leverage to lift the tower.
Typical 6-foot-long utility screw-in
anchor
RERL’s truck loaded with the sections of a 50-meter An anchor, installed, with 2 guy
met tower wires attached
Space required for a met tower
Clearing is necessary both for met tower installation and to reduce ground effect disturbance during data
collection. The cleared area is shaped like a circle for the guy wires, with an additional “wedge” in
which the tower is assembled before raising. An additional buffer is then cleared around that area to
leave some area to work. The minimum cleared areas for guyed towers are:
Tower Height D L Approximate

(Space to lay the total envelope
(Guy Diam.)
tower down) to be cleared
40 meter (131’) 160 feet 135 feet 240 x 190 feet
50 meter (164’) 240 feet 165 feet 310 x 270 feet
Dimensions of a football field, for comparison: 300 x 160 feet
In general, a larger cleared area reduces the disturbances seen by the instruments, and improves data
quality. Therefore, a cleared area larger than the minimum size is preferred.
While it is not necessary to pull stumps, removing as much obstruction and underbrush as possible will
facilitate the raising of the tower. Guy-wires will be pulled across this field, and any obstacles that
entangle the wires make the job more difficult.
It is also essential that there not be any electric or telephone wires within 1.5 times the height of the
tower, i.e. 200 feet of a 40 m tower, or 250 feet of a 50 m tower.
Trees must be cleared at least the height of the trees away from the anchors to eliminate the danger of a
falling tree hitting the guys. For example, a 50-foot-tall tree within less than 50 feet of an anchor must
be cut down.
Note that it is possible to use some of this cleared area after the met tower has been installed; in other
words, after installation, the space is left largely open.
Met Tower Siting Considerations

Generally speaking, wind speed and turbulence should be monitored at, or as close as possible to, the
preferred wind turbine site. Met tower siting, however, involves certain additional considerations, and it
may not always be possible to monitor wind at the proposed turbine site. This section provides an
overview of the feasibility of placing a met tower at the Mashpee sites.
Space Availability at the Mashpee Sites (Line 32-34)

Of the 4 sites under consideration, only the schools area has sufficient room for a 50-meter met tower
without substantial clearing.
• South Cape Beach: The main beach parking area is too narrow, but a parking area to the north
could be big enough with some clearing.
• Transfer Station: no met tower site was toured during the site visit. There may be a sufficiently
clear & level met tower site to the north of the landfill; however, this would be somewhat shaded
from the predominant winds by the landfill. A more appropriate place to monitoring would be on
land to the west of the landfill; however, this would have to be cleared.

• Schools& Police/Fire Complex: there is an area of unused ball field that is large and level enough
for a 50-meter met tower, if some fencing, a scoreboard, and a small amount of scrub oak were
removed. See map below. An example of fencing around a met tower in a schoolyard near ball
fields is shown in Appendix C.
• Heritage Park: the ball fields in this park nearly fill all the area already cleared; additional land
would have to be cleared. An additional area may be cleared for future ball fields to the south of
the road; if this area were cleared a year early, it could be used for wind monitoring for a year.
Clearing requirements (Line 35)

See tables in Appendix A for notes on clearing required at individual sites.
Soil quality & anchor requirements (Line 36)

The soils at the sites were not tested. Installing anchors will require some planning; longer or larger
anchors may be required. The beach site in particular may require larger anchors and the use of a back-
hoe for installation. The anchors would be tested at the time of installation.
Accessibility for met tower installation (Line 37)

All of the sites have good accessibility for RERL’s pick-up truck.
Permitting: Local approval process

Some local permits may be required for the temporary met tower, such as building permits, zoning
variances, DigSafe, etc.
Nearby airports & FAA restrictions for met towers

Most met towers are shorter than 200 feet and do not require registration with the FAA.
Lighting
The FAA does not require met tower lighting at these sites.
Proximity of anemometry & turbine (Line 41)

While wind resource assessment directly on the proposed wind turbine site is preferred, it is not
required. If wind data are collected in one spot, but a site for a wind turbine is later chosen in another
nearby location, then a computer model that considers the wind data and terrain can be used to
extrapolate the data from one location to the other. As the two sites become farther apart, however, the
level of certainty in the data goes down, and thus the amount of risk in the investment goes up. It is
difficult to predict the rate at which the certainty changes with distance; this can only be estimated on a
site-specific basis.
If the proposed turbine and met tower sites are close enough, measurements at one site could be used to
evaluate the feasibility of a turbine at the other. Thus, an understanding of preferred turbine spots is
necessary in choosing a met tower site.
See tables in Appendix A for notes on compatibility of sites.

Met tower size recommendation (Line 43-44)
There are typically two size options for met towers: 40-meter and 50-meter. The choice of a met tower
depends on the site.
If wind monitoring is pursued, a 50-meter met tower is recommended for these sites.
Conclusion: met tower siting recommendations

Wind-monitoring options should be discussed further depending on the turbine size considered and the
allowable uncertainty associated with the project. If the town is interested in installing a utility-scale
wind turbine at either site, then wind monitoring is recommended for that site. If a medium-scale wind
turbine is considered, wind monitoring is not essential, but would improve the level of certainty in the
success of the project.
If the town decides to monitor the wind resource, then it is recommended that a 50-meter met tower be
installed at the site of interest.
The preferred resource assessment method depends on the chosen turbine site:
1. South Cape Beach: in the parking lot to the north
2. Transfer Station: clear an area to the west if possible
3. Schools & Police/Fire Complex: the unused playing field area
4. Heritage Park: clear an area to the south of the road.
Appendix C: Maps, Photos, and Figures

Refer to the report “Wind Power in Mashpee: Siting Considerations for a Wind Turbine” for a
discussion of these maps, photos, and figures.
Source for base maps:

Ortho (aerial) photographs are from the MassGIS website, www.mass.gov/mgis/dwn-imgs.htm. The
entire Commonwealth was photographed in April 2005, when deciduous trees were mostly bare and the
ground was generally free of snow.
Topographic maps, roads, and town boundaries are also from MassGIS.
Mean wind speeds are AWS-Truewind’s estimates for New England, 2003. For more information, see
TrueWind Solutions, truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/.

Map 1: Estimated mean wind speeds at 70-meters height at the Mashpee sites, based on AWS-
TrueWind models. The sites under consideration for a wind power project that are discussed in this
report are marked in pink stars and labeled. For more information on these wind estimates, see
TrueWind Solutions, truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/

Map 2: Orthographic
(aerial) photo of site 1:
South Cape Beach,
showing state and town
parcel lines.
Map 3: Orthographic
(aerial) photo of site 2:
Transfer station, showing
parcel lines, and open
space protection of the
Mashpee River
Reservation across the
road to the west.

Map 4: Orthophotograph
of the schools and the
safety complex
Map 5:
Orthophotograph
showing the Coombs
school’s unused
playing fields

Map 6:
Orthophotograph of
Heritage park, showing
town and federal parcel
boundaries and the
proximity of Otis Air
Base’s runway

Photo 1:
South Cape
Beach
parking lot
Photo 2:
Parking lot
to the north
of South
Cape Beach;
proposed as
possible
location for
a met tower.

Photo 3:
Retention Pond
on the south
side of the
High School
Photo 4: town
parcel across
the street from
Heritage Park

Photo 5:
Example of a
met tower near
school ball fields
(Rockport, MA)
Photo 6:
Example:
Marking met
tower guy lines
and anchors near
school ball fields
(Rockport, MA)

Figure 1. Guy line layout for a 50-meter met tower from Second Wind, Inc.
APPENDIX B
RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE
~ = TC N
55 eM55~N
_I11III0
Dale:
SEP 25 2009
To: Johanna Nagle
Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.
5 Centennial Drive
Peabody, MA 01960
ASI#: 09-0-0632.007
Client Site 10: Mashpee MA
FAA#:
We are sending you herewith the following via:
(;'I US Mail 0 Overnight 0 Fax 0' Email o 2nd Day
(;'I ASI FAR Part 77 Airspace Obstruction Report

D Search Area Study Report
(;'I Copies of our filing(s) with FAA and/or State
D Responses from FAA and/or State
D ASI Opinion Letter
(;'I Quad Chart
(;'I See attachments for Airport Runway data and/or AM Stations(s)
D Certified Survey
Comments:
Sincerely,
2510 W. 237'" Street· Suite 210 • Torrance, CA 90505
Tel: 310.530.3188. Fax: 310.530.3850 • email: asi@aviationsystems.com • www.aviationsystems.com
~' TeON
=
9
''''';.;,' J~
53TE: 53 ~NC:o
Date:
To: Air Traffic Division, ANE-530

New England Regional Office
12 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803-5299
ASI#: 09-0-0632.007
Client Site ID: Mashpee MA
FAA#:
We are sending you herewith the following via:

DUS Mail o Overnight o Fax 0" Email o 2nd Day
Ii'! Copy of Notice of Proposed Construction (7460-1)
Ii'! Quad Chart depiction and supporting data
D Our comments to your Aeronautical Circular or your communication regarding the referenced study number.
Comments:
D Side mounted, not to exceed existing structure.
o The height requested exceeds the FAR 77 filing requirements.

[;'] The height requested does I!'T does not Dexceed FAR 77 obstruction standards.
D The obstruction standards exceeded, if any, wouid not be a hazard to air navigation.
o If FAA determines that further aeronautical study is required, by this Transmittal we hereby
request such study.
D Proponent requests dual marking & lighting in compliance with AC 70/7460-1 K, Change 1.
D Frequency Filing Only
Notes:
Thank you.
Sincereiy,
Aviatj9~ nco
By(
2510 W. 237\h Street. Suite 210 • Torrance, CA 90505

Tel: 310.530.3188· Fax: 310,530.3850 • email: asi@aviationsystemscom • www.aviationsystems.com
AVIATION SYSTEMS, iNC.
Phone: 310-530-3188 Fax: 310-530-3850
crisj@aviationsystems.com
www.aviationsystems.com
FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION REPORT
To: Date: September 25, 2009

Johanna Nagle
Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc
5 Centennial Drive
Peabody, MA 01960
Location: Mashpee. MA
Ciient Case No: Mashpee MA
ASi Case No: 09-0-0632 007
SUMMARY OF FINDiNGS:
At this location any structure over 185 feet AGL will have to be filed with the FAA A structure up to 270
feet AGL should receive a routine approval A structure from 270 to 319 feet AGL should be approvable
but require extended study. Refer to Findings and Comment Section for additional information.
SITE DATA:
Structure: Wind Turbine
Coordinates: 41 '-36'-3960" / 070'-30'-2489" [iliAD 27]
41 -36'-4000" / 070'-30'-2300" [NAD 83]
Site Ground Elevation: 61 • [AMSL]
Studied Structure Height (With Appurtenances): 319' [AGL]
r otal Overall Height: 380' [AMSL]
SEARCH RESULTS:
The nearest public use or military air facility subject to FAR Part 77 is Falmouth Airpark Airport.
The studied structure is located 1.97 NM /11,988 feet NorthEast (044 0 True) of the Falmouth Airpark
Airport Runway 25.
. Q!b5'r public or private airports or helipgrts within 3 NM: I:J. None 0 Printout
. _ -attached
.. --_.
. AM radio stationL?1 within 3NM: o None D PrintouLaltached
Highlighted AM stations on printout reqUire notice under FCC Rules and Policy (Ref.: 47 CFR 73.1692).
ASI Case No: 09-0-0632007
FINDINGS
FAA Notice (Ret: FAR 77.13 (a)(1); FAR 77.13 (a}/21 i, ii, iii):
o Not required at stUdied heioht.
[;') Required at studied heiqht.
[;') The No Notice Maximum height is 185 feet AGL.
IMPORTANT: Our report is intended as a planning tool. If notice is required, actual site construction
activities are not advisable until an FAA Final Determination of No Hazard is issued.
Obstruction Standards of FAR Part 77 (Ref.: FAR 77.23 (a}(1),(2),(3),(4I,(5)):

o Not exceeded at studied heiqht.
[;') Exceeded at studied height and Extended Study may be reqUired.
[;') Maximum nonexceedance heiqht is 270 feet AGL .
. Marking and lighting (Ret: AC 70/74S0-1K, Change 1):

o Will not be required
[;') Will be required at studied heiaht. if structure exceeds:
[;') 200 feet AGL
[;') Obstruction Standard
• Operational Procedures (Ref.: FAR 77.23Ia)(3), (4); FAA Order 7400.2; FAA Order 8260.38):
o Not affected at studied height (FAA should issue a Determination of No Hazard.)
o Affected at studied height and the FAA will consider the studied structure to be a hazard to air navigation.
[;') Maximum height that would not affect operational procedures is 319 feet AGU 380 feet AMSL.
Conclusions/Comments
FAA may require a 2C site surveyor lower maximum allowable height
- This proposed site does fall within the airspace defined by MGL RegUlation Chapter 90 Section 358 and
will require a Permit from the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission.
- There is a medium-level impact potential on Air Defense and Homeland Security radars. Further study
maybe advisable.
- There is minimal to no impact expected on weather surveillance radar. Further study is not necessary.
Actions:
ASI will file with ANE FAA Region and State [;') Yes o No
NotIce ot l'roposed ConstructIon or Alterallon - Utt AIrport l'age j ot 1.
Federal Aviation
Ad min!S!ration
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport

Project Name: WESTO-000130064-09 Sponsor: Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc
Details for Case: Mashpee MA

Show Project Summary
Case status
2009-WTE-9272-0E Date Accepted: 09/25/2009
Status: Accepted Date Determined:
letters: None
Documents: None
Construction I Alteration Information Structure Summary

Notice Of: Construction Structure Type: Wind Turbine
Duration: Permanent Str'l.u::ture Name: Mashpee MA
if Temporary: Months: Days: FCC Number:
Work Schedule - Start: Prior ASN:
Work Schedule - End:
State Filing: Not flied with State
Structure Details Common Frequencv Bands

Latitude: 41 0
36' 40.00" N Low IFreq High Freq Freq Unit ERP ERP Unit
Longitude: 70° 30' 23.00" W

Specific Frequencies
Horizontal Datum: NAD83
Site Elevation (SE): 61 (nearest foot)
Structure Height (AGl): 319 (nearest foot)
Requested Marking/lighting: Dual-red and medium intensity
Other:
Recommended Marking/Lighting:
Current Marking/Lighting: N/A New Structure
Other:
Nearest City: Mashpee
Nearest State: Massachusetts
Description of Location: Mashpee High School
Description of Proposal: Wind Turbine
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/externalleFilingllocationAction.jsp?action~sho\VLocationForm...
9/25/2009
XMap®6
Data use sUbject to license.

=~~::~scale 1 . 24,OOG,_~~_ _
© Delorme. XMap® 6. M'l (,~.1·1'.01 Joo-i l~ 1]°;00 -.I'W;",~_24~="
WNW delorme. com -,j
1" - 2,000.0 ft Data Zoom 13-0
Search Latitude: 41-36-40 Seal'ch Radius: 3

Airports with Runways Search LOl/gitude: 070-30-23 Height (MSL):
ID Nallw City St"te ARP Lal ARP LOllg Type Rways Primary RHTLlII RH-'yLolIg Wev, lJisllNM Dist/[eef Bear
FMH ,CAPE COD COAST GUARD AIR FALMOUTHMA 41-38-30.6000f'DiO-31-17.4000W ML 14/32 32 41·3B·47.3900N J70-30·39.1000W 117.0 2.13 12,917 354.61
STATION
FMH CAPE COD COAST GUARD AIR FALMOUTHMA 41-39·30.6000NJ70-31-17,4000W ML 05/23 05 41-38-40.3S90N J70-31-48.1 020W 117.0 2.26 13,753 332.07
STATiON
6MA6 COTUIT COTUIT MA 41-37-o1.3950N:l70-26-35.0930Vv PR 2.87 17,418 82.99
41MA HANEY MASHPEE MA 41-35-24.9600NJ70-2B-Z8, 31 DOW PR 1.91 11,633 131.'12
IVerJl1esday, September 23, 2(}()9 . Page I ~fl

For Office Use Only
The Commonwealth ofMassachusetts
I Airspace Analysis _
AERONAUTICS COMMISSION Comments Received
lmuals
REQUEST FOR AIRSPACE REVIEW L, AIMS Updated
MAC File No.: FAA File No.: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (For reference only)
Notice is required by 780 CMR (Code of~1assachusetts Regulations) 111.7, HazardS' to air navigation. Pursuant to Massachusetts
Genera! Laws (MGL) Chapter 90, Section 358, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC) agrees to perform an AIRSPACE
ANALYSIS and render a determination for the project listed below. Il\rlPORTANT: All shaded areas must be completed.
:)P-.i1rL~9r (include name, address & telephone number): Sponsor's Representative (same data if applical2k.l:.
- --------
lGary M. Allen ... -- ...-..---.---,
Johanna Nagle
Weston & Sampson Engineers. Inc.
5 Centennial Drive
I12510
Aviation Systems. Inc.
W. 237th Street, Suite 210
Peabody. MA 01960 i Torrance, CA 90505
: (978)532-1900 1(310) 530:3188 _FaxQ.I0) 530-3850

Project Description (please type or print clearly): Location. Height & Elevation Data:
319' AGL Wind Turbine located at Mashpee High School Nearest City, State: Mashpee, MA
-------
Degrees Minutes Seconds

Latitude .--- 4"CI-'-- 36--1 40.00
Longitude 070 30.1 23..c_00_ _
Datum 0 NAD 83 or 0 NAD 27
Site elevation above MSL (ft.): 61 MSL
Maximum height above ground (ft.): 319 AGL
~ RI:QUIRED -\£iach 8", x II inch llIap (e g USC,S Quad sheet) ~hO\Hilg !ocatHll1 ofproJecl 380 MSL
Maximum elevation above MSL (ft.):
Nearest Public-Use Aviation Facility: Falmouth Airpark Airport
--- - -
Print or type. belol',:, the n:lme of person filing this request for re'. . iew
Gary M. Allen, DireClor of Regulalory Affairs
Aviatwn Systems. Inc. . .... .
i ~//1} J / (#
1~~U.:,~ /.d--/1 __ [.t( r-L-
._-
- - ----_._----
-_ _
""'~J;l.sjC~
_.
Slgna9-lrE'
J
tLt ' "' ----------
-----
Date
**uH*** .. ** .. * DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - F9R lAC gfflCE USE ONLY " , .. , .... f ....,
/ ~
MAC's AIRSPACE ANALYSIS concludes the following:
Closest Runway: Distance from RW end: Offset from RW CL: _ Left -.J Right
Project violates MGL Ch. 90. §35B by _ _ _ ft. IRum'iay Horizontal Plane - 3,000' x 2 Statute t\files]
Project violates MGL Ch. 90, §35B by _ _ _ ft. [Runway Approach Plane - 3,000' x 3,000' @20:1 slope]
Project violates 702 CMR. §5.03(l)(a) by _ _ _ ft. [Runway Approacb Plane / Land - 500' x 10,000' @ 20: I slope]
Project violates 702 CMR, §5.03(2)(a) by _ _ _ ft. [Runway Approacb Plane / Water - 500' x 10,000' @20:1 slope]
Project does not violate MAC Airspace La\\'s or Regs.

MAC hereby issnes the following DETERMINATION:
.-- Permit is required*" pursuant to MGL Ch.90, §35B, for: ~ Runway Horizontal Plane [J Runway Approach Plane
* Sponsor must submit a separate written request for a MAC Airspace Permit. Request should be addressed to MAC Chief Legal
Counsel, Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, 10 Park Plaza, Room 6620, Boston, MA 02116-3966
-.J Permit is not required pursuant to ~lGL Ch.90, §35B j No violation of Laws or Regs [J Ch.90 Violation ~ 30' agl
_ MAC has the following additional concerns:

FAA Standards L Noise
Traffic Pattern L Wildlife
VFR Route Other
This determination is based on the foregoing description ofthe proposed project including the location, height and elevation data provided
by the Sponsor. Any change in the data provided to the MAC from that which is shown herein will render this determination null and void
and will necessitate a new request for review.
Mgr. of Airport Engineering, \.1as~acbu~ett$ Aeronautics Commission Date

XMap® 6
-\
Data use subject to license
© Delorme, XMao® 6. M"l 11$ FWI ,.
"............. .;J20' '"X,,_~
wwv-l,deIOime,com
~-----"---~ - - ___ I
1" = 2,000.0 IT
APPENDIX C
MASHPEE ELECTRIC BILLS

APPENDIX D
USFWS INFORMATION
USFWS Impact Evaluation Criteria
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has developed general impact evaluation
criteria used in this preliminary assessment. These eight criteria, listed below, serve to
highlight the critical information needed to make an accurate impact assessment on the
avian community. Assessment of each of the evaluation criteria was conducted included
in conjunction with consultation with federal and state agencies, landscape analysis, GIS
screening, species listings and reviewing special site considerations were employed to
gather the necessary information to address each of the impact evaluation criteria
presented in this section and are addressed individually below:
1. Are the potential locations of turbines located within one mile of documented
locations of any rare species of wildlife or plants?
NHESP databases list twelve species on Moon Island. Site layout and natural
community buffering appears to preclude the frequent presence of rare species on
the developed portion of the site, but more detailed survey would be required to
confirm.
2. Are the potential turbine locations in known local bird migratory pathways or in
areas where birds are highly concentrated (e.g. wetlands, wildlife refuges,
landfills, rookeries, etc…)?
The site is located within the path of a documented North Atlantic Flyway. In
general the flyway concept is often misconstrued and must be viewed with a
certain degree of skepticism when applied directly to real-life applications. There
are a number of limitations within the flyway concept. Most notably birds
migrate in general north-south direction, but with an equally important east-west
component (Bakken et al, 2003). Birds therefore migrate over a broad range, and
as such this element is not always well captured in the traditional flyway models.
3. Are potential turbine locations in known daily movement flyways (e.g. nesting and
feeding/foraging areas) and areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, or low
visibility?
Although a more detailed survey would be required to accurately assess the daily
movement patterns of wildlife in the area, the presence of NHESP priority
habitats surrounding the facility make the daily migration to feeding/foraging
areas likely. However, birds moving in a localized manner between feeding
points are not likely to fly into the swept area of a wind turbine.
4. Are potential turbine locations in areas or features of the landscape known to

attract raptors?
There is the potential for forest raptors to nest in the forested areas surrounding
the site.
5. Are potential turbine locations near known bat hibernation, breeding, and
maternity/nursery colonies, in migration corridors, or in flight paths between
colonies and feeding areas?
Accurate assessment of the bat population would require a more detailed study of
the project area. At this time there are no known bat hibernacula in the area of the
proposed turbine location. Further assessment would be required to determine bat
populations, since landscape features or site development does not avert the
presence of significant bat populations.
6. Do potential turbine locations fragment large, contiguous tracts of wildlife

habitat?
No, habitat fragmentation is considered negligible.
7. Are turbines being proposed in habitat known to be occupied by species that

exhibit extreme avoidance of vertical features and/or structural habitat
fragmentation?
There are no species in the proposed area of the project that have been known to
exhibit extreme avoidance to vertical features. The extent of structural habitat
fragmentation existing currently on the site implies that further developmental
effects would be negligible.
8. Do any significant ecological events occur in the region associated with the
proposed development?
The occurrence of significant ecological events in the area of the site is unknown.
However; a more detailed review of the conditions and observation of the avian
community during the annual migration period would be required to determine if
there are any significant ecological effects that would interrupted by construction
of a wind turbine.
Research by the National Wind Coordinating Committee has determined that roughly 200
to 500 million-bird collisions occur annually. Of these, roughly 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the
collisions are attributed to wind turbines in comparison to the 1 to 2 percent from
communication towers, 25 to 50 percent from windows/buildings, and 15 to 30 percent
from vehicle collision incidents. Therefore, avian impacts from the construction of one
wind turbine in an area that is already developed would likely be minimal in comparison
to annual bird mortality rates.
Research conducted at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, located in Bourne, MA

where a 660 kW wind turbine was installed, indicates that during a post-construction
mortality survey, no bird kills were attributed to the wind turbine. Research has
demonstrated that frequency of bird sightings in the vicinity of the turbine actually
decreases when the wind turbine is operating. This suggests that birds may actually alter
their flight patterns making it even less likely for them to pass through the rotors swept
area.
If a wind turbine is to be installed, monitoring for avian mortality could be included as

part of the normal operation and maintenance of the wind turbine. This would add
valuable data to monitor actual affects of wind turbines on avian species.
Most conservation groups generally support the development of wind energy in the
United States as an alternative to fossil and nuclear-fueled power plants to meet growing
demand for electrical energy. However, concerns have surfaced over the potential threat
to birds, bats, and other wildlife from the construction and operation of wind turbine
facilities, as well as other “Not In My Back Yard” or NIMBY-related issues, due to the
sight and sounds produced by a wind turbine.
In 2003, representatives of the wind industry, environmental community, and biological

research community agreed that it would be useful to convene a meeting to examine the
most current and best data on wind energy impacts to birds and bats; and examine the
measures that are and could be employed to minimize or prevent such impacts. The
Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and
Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts held in Washington, DC on May 18-19, 2004, were
reviewed investigating the potential impacts on birds and bats as part of this feasibility
study. The event was co-sponsored by The American Wind Energy Association and The
American Bird Conservancy.
In summary, the workshop proceedings provided an overview of the current state of the
wind industry regarding technology, siting considerations, and environmental assessment
standards, and also included background on research methods and results of bird and bat
impacts, and wind energy regulation. Excerpts of the aforementioned proceedings are
included by reference herein.
A wide variety of bird species have been killed at wind turbine sites. Fatality searches at
various wind projects have yielded fatalities of a number of USFWS Birds of
Conservation Concern, including particular species of owls, hawks, and other raptors,
sparrows, wrens, warblers, and others. At communication towers (not wind turbines) over
90% of all bird species killed are neo-tropical migrants, with 230 species documented as
being killed at such towers. Sixty-four of those neo-tropical migrant species are on the
USFWS Birds of Management Concern List. Without management measures they may be
listed under the Endangered Species Act in the future. In addition, some endangered bird
species have been killed.
Wind energy production may affect birds in three ways: First and the most widely noted,
are fatalities resulting from collisions with rotors, towers, power lines, or with other
related structures. Electrocution on power lines is also possible. Second, birds may avoid
wind turbines and the habitat surrounding them. Third, the direct impacts on bird habitat
from the footprint of turbines, roads, power lines, and auxiliary buildings.
Annual per-turbine mortality rates average 1.825 outside the State of California (and the
highest recorded per turbine mortality was 7.5 at Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee). There
are a number of environmental concerns. One of the key concerns is mortality or other
effects on ESA-listed species or Birds of Conservation Concern. Cumulative impacts on
species at national and regional scales as well around individual projects, especially large
ones, are of concern. One concern regarding research to date is that most of the wind
projects that have been monitored for bird impacts are in the West. In the eastern US,
locating wind turbines along ridge tops and potentially off-shore are both of concern.
Finally, growth in the number of wind turbines and their increasing height, have the
potential for more avian impacts.
According to Mr. Gerald Winegrad, with the American Bird Conservancy, the use of guy
wires should be avoided, if possible. Transmission lines should be placed underground to
minimize project footprint and lighting should be minimized. Implementation of these
techniques shall be utilized to minimize the number of avian deaths. Bird deaths at the
sites shall also be monitored, to add to the database of bird deaths at wind turbine sites,
using scientifically rigorous methods. The number of bird mortalities, species, date and
prevailing weather conditions shall be recorded as part of the operations and maintenance
plan for the proposed wind turbine facility.
APPENDIX E
VISUAL SIMULATIONS
³
AD
RO
LE
SN
E
TAB
AD
NS
D
O LD BRICKYARD ROAD
R IV E
AR
CAPPAWACK ROAD
DB
OL
LIS HIGHWAY
NATHAN EL
SASSACUS ROAD
V
U
ALGONQUIN AVENUE
151
WAY
LLIS HIGH
NATHAN E
E
IV
DR
N
E
RE
RE G
SU
I
LE
CL
O
ST SES
RU T R
C T ES CLOSEST NON-RESIDENTIAL
UR I DE STRUCTURE: 594'
ABLE RO A D E: N
RNST 1,6 TIA
5
O LD B A 18 L
' 54
53
51 52
49 50
ER LEAF LANE
48
47
4546
44
BO G
43
42
RIVER
41
TH
40
A
39
LE
BE
N 38
D 37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
\\Gisds\gis\DataStore\UnitedStates\NewEngland\MA\Barnstable\Mashpee\Project\Renewable Energy\Figure8_DecibelMap.mxd 12/5/2009 1:05:11 PM duijveso
AD DO
RO
VE
RR
TH
OA
D
OU
FALM
Noise
> 30 dB
!
(
28 > 35 dB
MA > 40 dB
SH
PE > 45 dB
E
FA > 50 dB
LM
OU > 55 dB
TH
> 60 dB
Legend FIGURE 8
5 Proposed Turbine Site Boundary TOWN OF MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS

Location Town Boundary MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOL
Building Footprint WIND TURBINE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Data Sources:
- Town of Mashpee, MA
Sound Decibel Isoline Map
- Weston & Sampson, Inc.
- Office of Geographic and Environmental 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs Scale In Feet
³
AD
O
R
L
EL
W
LO
UE
EN E
NU
AV
VE
GA
A
ON
YU
H UR
CA
MOHAWK ROAD
ALGONQUIN AVENUE
P
AL
OA
ME
NIN I
R
ER
D RIVE
G
BL
RE
TA
T
AD
NS
RO
JA
M
AVENUE
S
ES
BAR
BATE
CI
!
(
D
R
28
OL
CL
CAPPAWACK ROAD
E
ET !
(
KSTRE 28
SASSACUS ROAD
BA T
H WA Y
N
ELLIS HIG
EE
V
U NATHAN
R
ST
10 151
ET
AD
5
RK
RO
MA
JO
BS
RD
FI
S
OLD
H IN
KY
GR
ET
I C OA
BR D
T RE
150
10
20
50
5
100
10
20
50
5
TH S
250
AD
R LEAF LANE
SO U
RO
ET
RE
CK
ST
BA
20
CIA L
NEW
20
5
HE
M ER
T
10
LEA
10 M
O
AD C
5 O
R
\\Gisds\gis\DataStore\UnitedStates\NewEngland\MA\Barnstable\Mashpee\Project\Renewable Energy\Figure9_ShadowFlickerMap_revised011910.mxd 2/9/2010 9:52:00 AM duijveso
TH
U
O
LM
FA
IN
D
US
TR
!
(
28 IA L
DRIVE
MA
SH
PE
E Explanation of Data:
FA
LM
OU This shadow flicker map represents the
TH total shadow flicker hours per year,
based on a worst case scenario, which
unrealistically assumes the sun always
shining from sunrise to sunset (no cloud
cover), the turbine always running, and
the rotor oriented perpendicular to
CA viewpoint (maximum shadow cast). A
SH
'S TRAI real case scenario will therefore show
L
less shadow flicker hours per year.
Legend FIGURE 9 Shadow Flicker Hours
5
TOWN OF MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS High : 315.3
Proposed Turbine Location
MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOL
Site Boundary WIND TURBINE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Town Boundary
Data Sources:
Shadow Flicker Map Low : 0
- Weston & Sampson, Inc.
- Office of Geographic and Environmental 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000
Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs Scale In Feet
AT ³
TI
LA
C
N
SO CO
UT U 49
HP RT AMO
OR S CIR CL E
TD
RI V
E
D
OA
ER
BLA
N ST
PROPOSED POINT OF ELECTRICAL

AR
DB
INTERCONNECTION AT POLE 34/21

OL
49
151
V
U
IGHWAY
ELLIS H
NATHAN
49
E
IV
R
D
N
EE
R
G
E
R
U
IS
LE
NEW PAD-MOUNT
TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
ELECTRICAL DUCTBANK
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED NORDIC N-1000 WIND 477.3' (1.5x STRUCTURE

HEIGHT) OFFSET FROM
TURBINE WITH 70m HUB HEIGHT
POWER LINE EASEMENT
!
4 ROTOR DIA.: 177.1'

9
PROPOSED 40' x 40'

CRANE PAD WITH
FENCE AND GATE FALLZONE: 318.2' DIA.
\\Gisds\gis\DataStore\UnitedStates\NewEngland\MA\Barnstable\Mashpee\Project\Renewable Energy\Figure10_Conceptual_Site_Plan.mxd 1/21/2010 9:56:13 AM duijveso
49
POWER LINE EASEMENT

Legend
10' Contours Paved Road

49 Offset from Power Line Easement Unpaved Road
Buildings Parking area
300 0 300
Scale In Feet
FIGURE 10
MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOL - MASHPEE, MA
WIND ENERGY FACILITY
4 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

Data Sources: 49
9
- Office of Geographic and Environmental Information

(MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts
JANUARY 2010 SCALE: NOTED
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
- Town of Mashpee
- Weston & Sampson
\\Gisds\gis\DataStore\UnitedStates\NewEngland\MA\Barnstable\Mashpee\Project\Renewable Energy\Photography Key Map_11x17_revised.mxd 1/26/2010 4:38:16 PM duijveso
Location Number Location Description 55 Camera Distance to WTG (Feet) WTG Visible?
W
1A View from the north end of the H.S. football field 1,027 Yes
HO G A N
AM
N
IN
PINE HILL
BOULEVARD 6 1B View from the north end of the H.S. tennis courts 818 Yes
PA
IG
R
2 View from Deer Crossing between buildings Q and R 2,745 No
NO
ET
AG
3 View from the northwest corner of Old Barnstable Rd. and Rt. 151 2,118 No
AV
DR
4 VE side of Old Barnstable Rd. across from #570
View from west 1,689 No
EN
DR
W AY
U
5
IV
5 View from the Southport Clubhouse parking lot 3,390 No
ALGONQUIN AVENUE
E
E
SACHEM R OAD
AM
SO 6 View from the north side of Pine Hill Blvd. across from Pacific Ave. 3,523 No
OS
UT AD No
S
AT 7 View from Christ the King parking lot 3,826 N RO
HP A S
CI
OR LA 8 View from intersection of Bog River Bend and Fern Gully Pass 3,164 RY TE No
BA
R
TD N
CL
9 View from intersection of Bog River Bend and Miller Farm Rd. 3,131 No
SAGAMORE ROAD RI RIVE
TI
DView
E
VE 10 from Leather Leaf Lane looking east on NStar electric easement 3,366 Yes
SNEAD
CO
NOHONO ROAD FRAN
KE
UR
HIC
T
KS
DR
IV
E
!
(
WAMPANOAG AVE
AD
CAPPAWACK RO 28
MOHICAN AV
V
U151
AY 7
V
U
LIS HIGHW
ENUE
NATHAN EL
OLD BRICKYARD ROAD
SASSACUS ROAD
!
(
NUE
151 BA 28
MASSASOIT AVENUE
T
NO NK
EE
RT
3 STEEPLE STREET HS ST
TR
TR R EE
KS
EE T
T
ET
OA
RE
ST
NE
E FO
IV UN
EE
DR TA
IN
ET
GR
S
N
TR
EE
RE
E ET
GR
ST
RE
T
KE
AD HOBOMOCK ROAD
SU
ANT RO
RBIT
R
LEI
MA
CO
JO
4 S
B
FI
1A SH
IN
N G
RU RO
AD
1B
RIVER
DONNAS LANE
T
REE
D
LE ROA
T
STAB
TH S
BARN
OLD
SOU
5
AY
KW
10
2
AC
LB
EL
SH
SS
Y PA
!
(
A F LA N E
LL 280
NGU 600 600
F ER
8 WA Scale In Feet
R LE
GS
RO
AD
QU
HE
AD
AT
AS
RO
LE
HN
TH
ET
R FARM ROAD TOWN OF MASHPEE, MA
EE
T
OU
LLE
WO
MI R
WIND ENERGY FACILITY
LM
ST
9
OD
E
FA
AL
IV
SD
CI
DR
ER
RIV
GRANT BREEN
M
PHOTOGRAPHY KEY MAP
M
ND
E
BO G RIV E R BE
CO
DECEMBER 2009 SCALE: NOTED
Vantage Point 1A - Fully Rendered
View from the north end of the high school football field
Vantage Point 1B - Fully Rendered
View from north end of the high school tennis courts
Visual Simulation
Vantage Point 1A - Fully Rendered

View from the north end of the high school football field
Visual Simulation
Vantage Point 1B - Fully Rendered

View from north end of the high school tennis courts
Vantage Point 2 - Wireframe
View from Deer Crossing between buildings Q and R
Visual Simulation

View from the northwest corner of Old Barnstable Road and Rt. 151
Visual Simulation

View from west side of Old Barnstable Road across from #570
Visual Simulation

View from the Southport Clubhouse parking lot
Visual Simulation

View from the north side of Pine Hill Blvd. across from Pacific Ave.
Visual Simulation

View from Christ the King parking lot
Visual Simulation

View from intersection of Bog River Bend and Fern Gully Pass
Visual Simulation

View from intersection of Bog River Bend and Miller Farm Road
Visual Simulation
Vantage Point 10 - Fully Rendered

View from Leather Leaf Lane looking east on NStar electric easement
Visual Simulation

View from Leather Leaf Lane looking east on NStar electric easement
APPENDIX F
SELECTED TURBINE SPECIFICATIONS

Home | Careers | Media | Photo Gallery | Contact us
Concept : Principle & Pawan Shakthi PS-600 Purpose Objective Policies Wallpapers
Company Profile History Mechanism Advantages kW Clean Development Procedure for
Philosophy CMD's Brief Long Term Energy Mechanism establishing a Wind Farm
Biography CMD's Desk Sustainability & Security Project Planning Project
Awards Vision Reflections Wind Power Development Execution as per standard
Strengths Certificates Goalin India Wind Resources & specifications
Potential in India
Pawan Shakthi PS-600 kW
Pawan Shakthi PS-600 kW Proven Performance

Technical Data At RRB Energy Limited (RRBEL) we spend a lot of time on
testing and documenting the performance of our Wind Electric
Schematic Diagram
Generators (WEGs) in order to ensure that our WEGs meet the
Power Curve very highest requirement with regard to energy production,
Clean Development Mechanism availability factor, power quality and sound levels.
Contact Us We prove what we claim

RRBEL has repeatedly demonstrated that its wind turbines are
Name
matchless and are in a class of their own. RRBEL turbines are
based on the world's best, most modern and proven technology
Company Name in the field of Wind Energy. Repeat orders of customers, based
on our proven performance, espouses their confidence in us.
When you buy a RRBEL Wind Turbine you surely feel proud to
Question / Comments own one of the World's best engineered Wind Electric
Generator.
Features & Benefits

RRB Energy Limited. All rights reserved. Numbers of visitors : 10791 Updated as on: 1 October 2009.
Home | Careers | Media | Photo Gallery | Contact us
Concept : Principle & Pawan Shakthi PS-600 Purpose Objective Policies Wallpapers
Company Profile History Mechanism Advantages kW Clean Development Procedure for
Philosophy CMD's Brief Long Term Energy Mechanism establishing a Wind Farm
Biography CMD's Desk Sustainability & Security Project Planning Project
Awards Vision Reflections Wind Power Development Execution as per standard
Strengths Certificates Goalin India Wind Resources & specifications
Potential in India
Technical Data
Details Pawan Shakthi-600 kW
Pawan Shakthi PS-600 kW
Technical Data
Schematic Diagram
Overall Data
Power Curve Cut in wind speed 4 m/s
Clean Development Mechanism Cut out wind speed 25 m/s
Survival wind speed 70 m/s
Contact Us Tip speed 64 m/s
Rotor speed 26.2 rpm
Name Hub height 50 m / 65 m
Nacelle tilt angle 5º
Company Name Regulation Pitch
Question / Comments
Gearbox
Type Planetary / Helical
Gear Ratio 1 : 58.2
No of steps 3
Generator
Rated power output 600 kW
Type Single Wound Asynchronous
Voltage 690 V
Revolutions 1527 rpm
Frequency 50 Hz
Tower
Type Lattice
Height (Optional) 48.1 m / 63.1 m
Material Steel
Sections 6/9
Nacelle Cover Fiber glass

Reinforced Polyester
Rotor
No of blades 3
Diameter 47m
2
Swept area 1735 m
Power regulation Pitch regulated
Brake System
Aerodynamics Full feathering of blade
Mechanical Disc Brake
Yaw System Slewing system with gear motors yawing
Controls Microprocessor based
RRB Energy Limited. All rights reserved. Numbers of visitors : 10791 Updated as on: 1 October 2009.
750kW Wind
Turbine
225kW Wind
Turbine
Contact Info.
About Norwin NA
NORWIN 46/47-ASR-600 kW/750 kW
Press Releases
Downloads
Pictures MAIN FEATURES OF DESIGN
Videos
Norwin 46/47-ASR-600/750 is an ASR regulated wind turbine with a rotor
Home diameter of 46 or 47 m. The turbine uses LM 21.0P blades, which is the latest
technological development from LM Glasfiber. The blades can be feathered to
obtain optimal operational conditions at both at low and high wind speed.
This system together with our intelligent control we call ASR - Active Stall
Regulation.
ASR - Active Stall Regulation

Turbine Wind Power
Pictures The ASR wind turbines utilize the best things from both the stall- and the
pitch regulated wind turbines. The ASR turbine has the same regulation
Links possibilities as the pitch regulated turbine, but by using the stall properties of
http://www.norwin.dk/ the blades the large load and power fluctuations that are typical for a pitch
http://www.awea.org/ regulated machine is avoided.
Why ASR?
By using ASR a lot of advantages are gained that a normal stall regulated
wind turbine cannot offer:
• ASR will generally give a higher production because the blade angle
is optimized according to the actual wind speed.
• At high wind speed the power is stabilized because problems with

air density changes, double-stall and change in grid frequency are
eliminated. This means that stand still due to overproduction is
avoided, and that the loads on individual components, i.e. gearbox
and generator is minimized, resulting in a longer lifetime.
• The possibility of feathering the blades at extreme wind speeds

means that the characteristic extreme loads are decreased
compared to a normal stall regulated turbine.
• It is possible for the turbine to down-regulate the produced power if

the local grid has high loading. However, this demands a special
unit for grid surveillance.
• With blade regulation it is possible to make a much smoother cut-in

to the grid at startup, and cut-out at shut down. This will give much
less noise on the grid in these situations and at the same time
extend the lifetime of the turbine.
• The possibility of reducing the power by feathering of the blades

means that the switch over between the small and the large
generator is taking place in a quiet and gentle manner.
The ASR system is under constant development and optimization i.e. through
R&D activities supported by The Danish Energy Agency and the European
Commission.
ASR and the future!
The wind turbine manufacturers know that the future in design of more
efficient and more reliable wind turbines lies in the development of better
control strategies and more effective blades. Using ASR the NORWIN turbine
is in front in both areas - today and in the future. With the wind turbine as
the centre, a long-term research and development program on the ASR
controller is being conducted. Some of this work is made with co-financial
support from the European Commission's R&D programmes. It is worth
noting that not only the next generations of NORWIN turbines will benefit
from this work. The wind turbines produced today can be upgraded with
newer versions of 'intelligence'.
Brief descriptions of development work:

Power Optimisation:
The controller is developed to self-optimise the blade angle control

for wind speeds below rated power. The main benefits are that no
costly work and interference from personnel is needed during the
process of pitch angle optimisation and that it is ensured that the
turbine runs in the most optimal configuration. Practical tests have
shown an energy production increase of more than 1%, after
running a test version of the power optimisation system.
Load control:
The load on a wind turbine can vary a lot from site to site and
development work is being conducted to develop a Load Control
system where the turbine is not only controlled to reach the
nominal power, but also is controlled according to the loading
history. The objective of using such a system is to ensure the
projected lifetime of major components or to enable us to use these
to a maximum within the projected lifetime. The first phase of this
work has been finalised, with the development of the fundamental
control scheme for gearbox load control.
Laser Wind Measurements:
In co-operation with the National Institute of Risø and others, the

development of a laser-based device for measuring of the wind
speed before it reaches the wind turbine and a control strategy to
utilise this knowledge is being conducted. The potential of the
system is to increase the turbine efficiency and reduce the loading
by taking advantage of the knowledge about the incoming wind.
Further the system could make it easier to make power curve
measurements.
We do not stop here!
The blades have a crucial influence on the wind turbine performance

and despite the fact we use some of the most modern and
optimised blades we would like to do it even better in the future.
For this reason NORWIN is participating in a project developing a
blade especially made for optimal performance with the ASR control
strategy. This means that the basic principles of ASR were taken
into consideration when designing the blade. The first test set is
now running on a NORWIN turbine. The work is supported by The
Danish Energy Agency funds for Developing Renewable Energy.
Not all is new!

By using standard components both we and our customers gain two
great advantages: You are guaranteed to get a well tested product
and the customer is assured that spare parts will be available in 15
years, if it should be necessary. Examples on relatively standardised
parts are: Gear, generator, main bearing, blade bearings, yaw
bearing, yaw gearing, control modules and so on. It takes
experience and knowledge about wind turbine technology to choose
the right components and to combine these with the specially
designed parts that a modern wind turbine also consists of in a way
to achieve a product of high quality. That is why the 19 years of
experience in construction and maintenance of wind turbines has
been used in the development of the NORWIN 46-ASR-600 kW /
750 kW wind turbines.
Features of Design
Rotor:
The blades are made by LM Glasfiber A/S. Each blade is mounted on

an extender, - mounted on a four-point ball bearing,- mounted on
the hub. Each blade has stays connected to the pitch mechanism
inside the hub so that all three blades acts simultaneously when
pitching. The pitch actuator is a hydraulic cylinder placed inside the
hub. The hub is mounted to the forged flange of the main shaft with
bolts.
Main frame:
The main frame is a relatively flat welded design, which provides

access from the tower to the nacelle directly through a manhole in
the frame.
Shaft, bearing and gearbox arrangement:
The rotor, shaft and gearbox arrangement is designed to be highly

flexible for movements in the yaw and tilt directions. The main shaft
is connected to the main frame at the front with a roller bearing and
a bearing truss. The main bearing absorbs the axial loads of the
rotor. The rear bearing is integrated in the gearbox, which is
connected on both sides to the main frame with a support including
a rubber element. In this way the system is supported at 3 places,
making the forces run smoothly from the rotor and into the tower. A
large cooler with external fan cools the gear oil while the oil is
passing through a 10 micron filtering unit.
Generator arrangement:
The generator is mounted to the main frame behind the gear

opposite to the main shaft and connected to the gear via a flexible
coupling. The standard generator is an asynchronous double-
wound, induction generator. Casing IP54. The isolation is in
accordance with classification F, utilization with classification B.
Blade turning system:
The blade turning mechanism is placed inside the hub. The actuator
is a hydraulic cylinder, supplied by either a hydraulic power
package, including a proportional valve, placed in the nacelle for
normal operation, or a accumulator system placed in the hub, for
emergency operations. The position transducer is placed in the hub
parallel to the cylinder. The power and control package has been
placed in the hub, to insure that the system is easy to adjust and
service. The hydraulic control lines from the power package to the
hub, is transferred through a rotating union placed on the back of
the gearbox. The necessary electrical control lines are transmitted
through slip-rings also placed on the back of the gearbox. In an
emergency situation, the primary supply of hydraulic pressure will
come from hydraulic accumulators placed inside the hub. Placed
here, the system is well protected against a fire in the nacelle, and
the system will also work in case of a complete pressure drop in the
power package. The power package including separate accumulator
will serve as a secondary safety system.
Braking system:
The mechanical safety brake is mounted on the high-speed shaft of

the gearbox. The ‘fail safe’ spring type disk brake is activated
instantly in an emergency situation. In the normal situation the
mechanical brake is only used to hold the rotor, after the blades
have brought it to stop. Hereby, heavy loads on the gearbox are
avoided during braking. Activating the pitch system allows
aerodynamic braking. At normal braking the blades are pitched to
20° to take the power from the rotor and slowly decrease the
rotational speed. A while after the rotor has stopped the blades will
return to the nominal position, to be ready for operation. During
emergency braking the blades are feathered, to make it impossible
for the rotor to catch speed even in an extreme wind situation, and
at the same time to decrease the thrust on the rotor. When the
blades are pitched to -85° the mechanical brake is retracted so that
the rotor is able to run free. This is done to prevent high loads in
the transmission system at extreme wind situations. Running free in
the emergency pitch angle position the rotor will rotate slowly with
a speed of up to 2 rpm.
Yaw system:
The yaw system is a combined yaw brake and active yawing system
designed in a very flexible manner so that it is possible to add
additional yaw brakes or motors if the turbine is to be erected on a
very rough site. The connection between the nacelle and the tower
is through a four-point ball bearing. The yaw drives are electrical
driven standard units consisting of an electrical motor with brake
included, a helical and a planetary gear. The number of yaw drives
can be determined by the conditions on the site but is normally 4.
Apart from the brakes in the yaw drives, a hydraulic actuated disk
brake system with a number of positive brake caliber's is used. This
system has a separate warning system for leakage. The yaw drives
are actuated through soft starters, to equalize the torque between
the motors, and to prevent a high peak torque in the starting
situation.
Nacelle and cooling:
The nacelle is made of glass fiber with steel reinforcements, and

mounted to the main frame with steel supports through rubber
dampers. The nacelle will provide standing height so that servicing
may take place in protected surroundings. Noise reducing
ventilating ducts are integrated.
Cooling and ventilation are controlled for nacelle, gearbox, and

generator. Through control of the cooling air to and from the gear
and the generator, the nacelle temperature will generally be kept at
a minimum of 7°C above outside temperature, thus preventing
condensation and thereby corrosion.
Tower:
The tower is a closed, conical tube tower fabricated in steel with a

door at the bottom of the tower, and internal ladder and platforms
at the tower connections to ease service at the connections points.
Controller:
The main control panel is placed at the bottom of the tower. With
the possibility of adjusting selected parameters, authorized
personnel can change operational limits of the turbine directly on
the front panel.
A stationary or portable additional control panel can be mounted

and connected to the top box in the nacelle for manual control of
the turbine, when servicing. A battery back up system supplies the
emergency light.
Safety surveillance will monitor possible faults in the turbine and, if

necessary, bring the turbine to a standstill. Should the turbine come
to a standstill due to some unacceptable conditions, it will start up
automatically when proper conditions have been restored, e.g.,
after grid failure. When faults require service, the turbine will not be
able to start up again until the fault has been corrected.
One of the special features of the turbine is that it has a number of

back-up functions built in, and that the controller utilizes the
possibility to operate the turbine even if a secondary system has
broken down. This system increases the availability and makes it
easier to schedule service of the turbine. If such an error appears a
message will appear on the screen and on a remote monitoring
device.
The turbine is equipped with an external emergency system,

working independently from the electronic control system
supervising speed of rotor, nacelle vibrations and manual
emergency push buttons. A circuit breaker is installed in the power
section, disconnecting the turbine from the grid in case of overload
current or short circuit current.
Noise:
According to experience, the high-speed shaft of the gearbox and

the rotor itself are the sources of eventual noise problems from
wind turbines. The rotor is the main source for broad-spectrum
noise, where the main problem with the gear is pure tones. The
gears used in the turbine are designed from state of the art
knowledge about how to build low noise gears, and further, each
gear is tested for noise and vibration before accepted and installed
into the turbine. Ventilation air through the nacelle will go through
noise damped ducts, damping the air borne noise.
1. Rotor system
2. Transmission
3. Yaw system and mainframe
4. Nacelle cover
5. Tower
6. Hydraulic station (not shown)
7. Generator
8. Pitch system
NORWIN 47-ASR-750 kW
Power Curve and Energy Production, ro = 1.225
The power curve is for our 750 kW turbine, with a rotor diameter of 47, double generator and featuring
Active Stall Regulation. A system that among others compensate for the natural variations of the stall
level due to variations in air density and pollution of the blades.
The power curve is valid for:
1.225 kg/m3 air density, clean blades and undisturbed horizontal indflow.
Elect.
Wind speed
800.0 power
[m/s]
[kW]
700.0 3 4
4 24
600.0 5 52
6 91
Electrical power [kW]
500.0 7 152
8 234
400.0 9 332
10 440
300.0
11 540
12 635
200.0
13 714
14 740
100.0
15 750
0.0 16 750
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 750
18 750
Wind Speed [m/s]
19 750
20 750
21 750
22 750
The annual energy production is calculated for different annual mean wind 23 750
speed in hub height. 24 750
A Rayleigh wind speed distribution and 100 % availability is assumed 25 750
2921
3000
2472
2500
Energy production [MWh]
1959
2000
1419
1500
901
1000
471
500
0
4 5 6 7 8 9
Annual mean wind speed [m/s]

NORWIN 47-ASR-750 kW
Power Curve and Energy Production, ro = 1.225
The power curve is for our 750 kW turbine, with a rotor diameter of 47, double generator and featuring
Active Stall Regulation. A system that among others compensate for the natural variations of the stall
level due to variations in air density and pollution of the blades.
The power curve is valid for:
1.225 kg/m3 air density, clean blades and undisturbed horizontal indflow.
Elect.
Wind speed
800 power
[mph]
[kW]
700 7 6
8 15
600 9 24
10 36
Electrical power [kW]
500 11 50
12 65
400 13 82
14 105
300
15 132
16 164
200
17 199
18 238
100
19 280
0 20 326
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 21 373
22 421
Wind Speed [mph]
23 468
24 513
25 557
26 600
The annual energy production is calculated for different annual mean wind 27 641
speed in hub height. 28 679
A Rayleigh wind speed distribution and 100 % availability is assumed 29 711
30 729
31 737
2921
3000 32 744
2472 33 748
2500
34 750
Energy production [MWh]
1959 35 750
2000
36 750
1419 37 750
1500
38 750
901
1000 39 750
471 40 750
500
41 750
. .
0
. .
8.95 11.18 13.42 15.66 17.90 20.13
Annual mean wind speed [mph] 56 750

N1000 1-MW TURBINES
Light & Flexible Design
Greater Reliability
& Lower Cost

Simple light-
Gearbox and Drive train weight design:
Low capital cost Principle Ideas of Design
A key component of turbine reliability is gearbox survivability. The N1000 1-MW turbine implements a lighter, sim-
N1000 gearboxes show exceptionally low wear, even after many Demonstrated Easy, inexpensive pler design than traditional wind turbines, providing a
years of operation. Many design features reduce gearbox loading: lower overall cost of energy and greater reliability.
reliability: maintenance
sThe reduced hub weight reduces load on the drive train. In traditional turbine design, the amount of construc-
sThe teeter-hub dissipates loads harmlessly before they reach the gearbox. Reduced weight & tion material is proportional to the anticipated wind
crane time, ground-
Inexpensive loads. The N1000’s revolutionary “flexible design”
sThe main drive-shaft bearings are integrated into the proprietary gearbox installation
design for greater strength. based assembly: evens out the impact of turbulence and wind shear
without adding material and weight. This patented
sAn integrated cylindrical machinery housing locks the gearbox, drive shaft
design approach is based on precise calculations of
and generator into one lightweight, robust load-absorbing unit. Low drive train Exceptionally
the eigenfrequency oscillations of the entire system
loading: high reliability and configures the turbine so that high component
loads never occur.
DNV certification, Lender & investor
The result is a turbine that is both lighter and more
strong track record: acceptance reliable. In fact, Nordic’s turbines have performed at
98% reliability, with no major component failures, for
up to ten years. They have provided more than
100,000 hours of trouble-free operation in normal and
Blades extreme wind conditions.
A two-blade system minimizes
loads and costs. Two blades
allow the use of a damped
teeter hub to dissipate wind Easy to Install
loads on the gearbox and
drive-train, virtually eliminating & Service
fatigue issues and providing
The two-blade design greatly
Yaw System significantly longer service life
simplifies construction. Unlike
and trouble-free operation.
The N1000 passively orients to the three-blade turbines, the two
wind without using the yaw drives, Because of reduced fatigue blades are attached before
something that 3-bladed turbines do loading, the design can focus
not do. By using the whole swept Tower on extreme conditions. Stall
lifting the nacelle. In addition,
area to determine wind direction, the Because of the flexible, control for limiting power in ground assembly is much
N1000 achieves truer instantaneous lightweight turbine design, high wind reduces drive train safer, faster, and easier to QA. And with the rotor
orientation than conventional the tower is lighter than those loads and lowers system cost. attached, the nacelle can be lifted at higher wind
turbines. The hydraulic yaw motors needed for heavier turbines. For shutdown, unique tip speeds, reducing weather delays.
provide damping for smooth opera- Overall, the N1000—including brakes pivot the tip of the
tion and for reducing tower loads and tower, nacelle and blades—is blade. And as an added safety Reduced component complexity and a roomy nacelle
oscillations. The system needs no up to 40% lighter than other feature, the hydraulic system interior (.8-meter wide passage around the machinery)
expensive yaw brakes. turbines with the same output. activates passively. make service and maintenance much easier.
Simple light-
Gearbox and Drive train weight design:
Low capital cost Principle Ideas of Design
A key component of turbine reliability is gearbox survivability. The N1000 1-MW turbine implements a lighter, sim-
N1000 gearboxes show exceptionally low wear, even after many Demonstrated Easy, inexpensive pler design than traditional wind turbines, providing a
years of operation. Many design features reduce gearbox loading: lower overall cost of energy and greater reliability.
reliability: maintenance
sThe reduced hub weight reduces load on the drive train. In traditional turbine design, the amount of construc-
sThe teeter-hub dissipates loads harmlessly before they reach the gearbox. Reduced weight & tion material is proportional to the anticipated wind
crane time, ground-
Inexpensive loads. The N1000’s revolutionary “flexible design”
sThe main drive-shaft bearings are integrated into the proprietary gearbox installation
design for greater strength. based assembly: evens out the impact of turbulence and wind shear
without adding material and weight. This patented
sAn integrated cylindrical machinery housing locks the gearbox, drive shaft
design approach is based on precise calculations of
and generator into one lightweight, robust load-absorbing unit. Low drive train Exceptionally
the eigenfrequency oscillations of the entire system
loading: high reliability and configures the turbine so that high component
loads never occur.
DNV certification, Lender & investor
The result is a turbine that is both lighter and more
strong track record: acceptance reliable. In fact, Nordic’s turbines have performed at
98% reliability, with no major component failures, for
up to ten years. They have provided more than
100,000 hours of trouble-free operation in normal and
Blades extreme wind conditions.
A two-blade system minimizes
loads and costs. Two blades
allow the use of a damped
teeter hub to dissipate wind Easy to Install
loads on the gearbox and
drive-train, virtually eliminating & Service
fatigue issues and providing
The two-blade design greatly
Yaw System significantly longer service life
simplifies construction. Unlike
and trouble-free operation.
The N1000 passively orients to the three-blade turbines, the two
wind without using the yaw drives, Because of reduced fatigue blades are attached before
something that 3-bladed turbines do loading, the design can focus
not do. By using the whole swept Tower on extreme conditions. Stall
lifting the nacelle. In addition,
area to determine wind direction, the Because of the flexible, control for limiting power in ground assembly is much
N1000 achieves truer instantaneous lightweight turbine design, high wind reduces drive train safer, faster, and easier to QA. And with the rotor
orientation than conventional the tower is lighter than those loads and lowers system cost. attached, the nacelle can be lifted at higher wind
turbines. The hydraulic yaw motors needed for heavier turbines. For shutdown, unique tip speeds, reducing weather delays.
provide damping for smooth opera- Overall, the N1000—including brakes pivot the tip of the
tion and for reducing tower loads and tower, nacelle and blades—is blade. And as an added safety Reduced component complexity and a roomy nacelle
oscillations. The system needs no up to 40% lighter than other feature, the hydraulic system interior (.8-meter wide passage around the machinery)
expensive yaw brakes. turbines with the same output. activates passively. make service and maintenance much easier.
N1000 Technical Data
GENERAL BRAKING SYSTEM
Nominal power 1,000 kW Air brake Turnable blade tips
Rated wind speed 16 m/s Activation/deactivation Centrifugal force/hydraulics
Operational range 4-25 m/s, 4-22 m/s Mechanical brake Disc brake with two calipers
Extreme wind speed 55 m/s (standard) Activation/deactivation Springs/hydraulic pressure
Control principle Stall GEARBOX
WIND TURBINE Type 2 planetary & 1 stage helical,
Turbine diameter 54 m, 59 m integrated turbine bearings
Orientation Upwind Gear ratio 1:87
Rotational speed 25 rpm, 1.5 rpm Cooling Heat exchanger
Blade tip speed 71 m/s, 66 m/s YAW SYSTEM
Blade material GRP / Carbon Type of bearing Rolling bearing
Type of hub Teeter Drive Hydraulic motors with
Teeter bearing Elastomeric planetary gearboxes
Maximum teeter ±2°
TOWER
GENERATOR - 600V & NEMA 3 are options Type Welded steel tube, painted
Type of generator 4-pole induction Hub height 70 m standard
Rating 1,000 kW Diameter top/bottom 1.9/3.0 m
Voltage 600 V / 690 V
CONTROL SYSTEM
Protection NEMA3 / IP54
Distributed control system
Cooling Liquid (glycol-water)
IEC 61131-3 compliant turbine controller
Power factor 0.98 at 100% power
SCADA system
North American headquarters:

125 University Avenue, Second Floor,
Berkeley, CA 94710, USA
tel: +1 510 665 9463 fax: +1 510 665 9466
US assembly plant:
Building 36, 669 W. Quinn Road, Pocatello, ID 83201
UK technology office:
2430 The Quadrant, Azrec West, Almondsbury,
Bristol, BS32 4AQ, United Kingdom
Registered office:
100 New Bridge Street,
London EC4V 6JA, United Kingdom
email: info@nordicwindpower.com
www.nordicwindpower.com
© Copyright 2008, Nordic Windpower Ltd.
www.friendly-energy.de
FL 2500 FL 1500 FL MD 70/77
Fuhrländer
wind turbines
2.500 kW - 1.500 kW
Englisch
Friendly Energy
Friendly World
As a pioneer of wind energy utilisation in gaining valuable experience due to the close links between dealing with customers, suppliers and partners. Support
Germany and a group-independent manufacturer development, manufacturing and service. Our customers instead of dominance – that is our motto.
of wind turbines, Fuhrländer has focused benefit from sound investments in wind turbines with a high
its operations towards robust system concepts technical availability. Even at difficult locations our wind Friendly energy is more than merely utilising environmentally
for more than 15 years. At present turbines range farms demonstrate their strengths, in reliability and compatible energy. It means hope and a future characterised
from 30 kW to 2,5 MW. We are constantly operational safety. People are the focus of our actions in by training, work and added value on site.
Turnkey wind parks FLAGserv for maximum

operational safety
Fuhrländer AG established itself a long time ago as inter- Wind turbines are technically complex systems made service team online. This allows rapid response and target
national partner for the realisation of turnkey wind parks up of a variety of mechanical, electrical, electronic and orientated service activity which puts the wind turbine back
including grid connection via a substation. We are happy to hydraulic components. Fuhrländer developed FLAGserv as on the grid as fast as possible. This condition monitoring
make our experience from a multitude of different projects an Internet based communications platform, which also allows maintenance with foresight and contributes to the
available to our customers. functions independently from manufacturers, to maximize value creation of the turbines.
the technical availability of our robust wind turbines and to
Each location makes different demands to a wind park recognise potential faults in the preliminary stages. Further- This means a gain in availability and profitability of the
planner. Legal regulations, specifics of grid connection, feed more the FL system provides the best possible conditions for turbine for the investor. The type specific insurance of the
options, financing and much more must be coordinated. documenting data for operation managers, investors and reliable FL turbines also supports this concept.
manufacturers.
High flexibility and individual handling from planning to
construction to the start up of operation of the turbines If faults occur, the wind turbines automatically generate a
characterise our activities and lead to optimum results. message to the Fuhrländer data server which informs our
Power: 2.5 MW Rotor
Rotor: Ø 80/90/100 m Diameter 80/90/100 m
Tower heights: Surface area 5‘027 / 6‘362 / 7‘854 m2
65*/ 85* m (with 80 m Rotor, IEC Ia) No. of blades 3
* * ** ** **
85 /100 /117 /141 /160 m (with 90 m Rotor, IEC IIa) Speed 11.7 ... 20.4 / 10.4 ... 18.1 /
* * ** ** ** 9.4 ... 17.1 min-1
85 /100 /117 /141 /160 m (with 100 m Rotor, IEC IIIa)
Power control pitch
*
tubular tower ** lattice tower
Gear
Design Combined spur wheel/planet
FL 2500: Even more Stages 3
FL 2500 economic efficiency

Multiplication 1:64.3 / 1:72.3 / 1:79.6 (50 Hz)
Generator
Design Asynchronous machine with
slip ring motor
The new 2,5-MW turbine with variable speeds sets
Speed 750 ... 1310 min-1 (50 Hz)
benchmarks: due to the possible rotor blade sizes of Voltage (frequency) 690 V (50/60 Hz)
80, 90 und 100 m it can be harmonized with all Converter system Indirect converter with DC vol-
tage intermediate circuit
locations and wind conditions in the best possible way.
Power
1 Adjustment of individual 2 Large roller bearings to 4 Crane system for the replace- 5 Silicone oil transformer in Tubular towers of 65, 85 and 100 m as well as lattice
blades by means of lithium ion avoid the effects of axial and ment of all main components the nacelle Rated output 2,500 kW
accumulators radial forces on the gear unit towers of up to 160 m create the prerequisite for
at 14.5 m/s; 13 m/s; 11.5 m/s
a high economic efficiency and reliability as to the Start wind 3.5 ... 4 m/s
production of wind power. Thanks to the high hub Stop wind 25 m/s
1 Survival speed 70 / 59.5 / 52.5 m/s

heights inland locations, e.g. in woodlands, can also be (3-seconds mean)
4
developed even more economically. Tower
2 The innovative driving conception with the large roller Hub height 65*/85*/100*/117**/141**/160**m
6 5
3 bearing, the shaft coupling and the compact gear unit Design *tubular tower
**lattice tower*
provides for more safety and a longer life. The same
Weights
applies to the especially designed hub with its closed
7 Rotor 48‘000 / 50‘000 kg
operating room. Nacelle 96‘000 kg
3 Direct passageway 6 Fire detection and fire
between nacelle and hub extinguishing system Thanks to the crane concept permitting the replace- Tower 170‘000 kg ... 350‘000 kg
Subject to technical alterations. Data can vary depending on components.

7 Underfloor area for ment of all main components without an expensive Control
lubricating and truck-mounted crane the mounting and operating Speed control Electrical pitch system
cooling systems
cost can be reduced. Yawing control 4 gear motors
Main brake independant triple pitch
system
2nd Brake system Hydraulic disk brake
Medium wind 80 m Rotor 90 m Rotor 100 m Rotor Monitoring Fixed network/radio/Vabera
Output Power curve FL 2500 speed at hub Annual yield Annual yield Annual yield
[kW] (theoretical) height [m/s] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] Sound
10 10’733’000 11’918’000
Sound output level 80 m Rotor (on request)
9.5 10’083’000 11’289’000 (theoretical) 90 m Rotor 104.6*/104.11**dB (A)
9.0 9’363’000 10’581’000 11’900’000 100 m Rotor 105.1*/ 104.6** dB (A)
100 m Rotor 8.5 8’580’000 9’800’000 11’144’000 (*tubular tower, **lattice tower)
8.0 7’745’000 8’950’000 10’307’000
90 m Rotor 7.5 6’868’000 8,039’000 9’393’000
80 m Rotor 7.0 5’964’000 7’081’000 8’409’000
6.5 5’052’000 6’088’000 7’365’000
6.0 4’154’000 5’083’000 6’277’000
5.5 3’295’000 4’093’000 5’170’000
Wind speed [m/s] 5.0 2’502’000 3’150’000 4’080’000
Yields calculated to IEC 61400-12

Power: 1.5 MW Rotor
Rotor: Ø 70/77 m Diameter 70 m / 77 m
Tower heights: Surface area 3‘848 m2 / 4‘657 m2
65 / 100 m (mit 70 m Rotor) No. of blades 3
61,5 / 100 m (mit 77 m Rotor) Speed 11-22 / 9.7-19 min-1
Power control pitch
Gear
Stages 3
FL 1500: The compact
FL 1500
Multiplication 1:90.038 / 1:104.125
turbine for all situations Generator

Design Double-fed three-phase
asynchronous machine
Speed 1000...1800 min-1
Fuhrländer expanded its megawatt class by a
Voltage (frequency) 690 V (50/60 Hz)
compact, pitch controlled turbine, the FL 1500. The Converter system Puls-width modulated IGBT
turbine adapts to coastal and interior locations due to
Power
1 High security due 2 Combined planet spur 3 Disk brake as 2
nd
4 Variable speed, double-fed its different hub heights and two different rotor sizes.
Rated output 1,500 kW
to individual blade wheel gear for high effec- safety system asynchronous generator for high Its individual blade adjustment via maintenance-free at 12 / 11 m/s
adjustment tiveness profitability
AC-motors and the integrated free running provide Start wind 3.0 m/s
Stop wind 25 / 20 m/s
high operational safety. The intelligent torque control
Survival speed 59.5 / 52.5 m/s
ensures a constantly high release of power to the long
Tower
live, double-fed three phase generator.
Hub height 61.5/65/100/114.5 m
Design tubular tower
2 3
Weights
1 4 Rotor 32‘500 / 34‘000 kg

Nacelle 51‘000 kg
Tower 93‘000...260‘000 kg
6 5
Control
Speed control Microprocessors
Yawing control 4 gear motors
6 Four azimuth driving 5 Robust and compact machine
motors for safe and stable wind support with sound decoupling for the Main brake Blade angle adjustment
direction tracking main components nd
2 brake system Disk brake
Monitoring Fixed network/radio/Vabera
Sound
Output Power curve FL 1500 Sound output level 103.3 / 104 dB (A)
[kW] (70 m measured / 77 m theoretical) Measurement of 02.07.03
Medium wind 70 m Rotor 77 m Rotor

speed at hub Annual yield Annual yield
height [m/s] [kWh] [kWh]
8.5 6’195’000
8.0 5’699’000
7.5 5’122’500 5’296’000
7.0 4’546’000 4’735’000
6.5 3’919’500 4’131’000 77 m Rotor
6.0 3’293’000 3’502’000 70 m Rotor
5.5 2’675’500 2’867’000
5.0 2’058’000 2’251’000
4.5 1’542’500 1’683’000
4 1’027’000 1’188’000
Wind speed [m/s]

Power: 1.5 MW Rotor
Rotor: Ø 70 m Diameter 70 m / 77 m
Tower heights: 65*/ 80*/ 85*/ 114,5**m Surface area 3‘848 m2 / 4‘657 m2
Rotor: Ø 77 m No. of blades 3
Tower heights: 61,5*/ 85*/ 100*/ 111,5** m Speed 10-21 / 10-19 min-1
Power control pitch
*
tubular tower **
lattice tower Gear
Stages 3
FL MD 70/77: A concept
FL MD 70/77
Multiplication 1:94.7 / 1:104
sets standards Generator

Design Double-fed three-phase
asynchronous machine
Speed 1000...1800 min-1
The field-proven concept of the FL MD 70/77 with
Voltage (frequency) 690 V (50/60 Hz)
individual blade adjustment and double-fed Converter system Puls-width modulated IGBT
asynchronous generator as well as its large rotor
1 High security due to 2 Combined planet spur 3 Large disk brake as 4 Variable speed, double-fed asynchronous Power
individual blade adjust- wheel gear for high 2nd safety system generator for high profitability stands side by side with the 2 MW-class. Rotors with
ment effectiveness Rated output 1,500 kW
70 and 77 m diameters and different tower heights at 11.6 / 13 m/s
up to more than 100 m allow the optimum adapta- Start wind 3.0 m/s
Stop wind 25 / 20 m/s
tion to each location. Robust machine construction in
Survival speed 56 / 50.1 m/s
combination with the latest control technology and
Tower
4 experienced engineering set standards in this class in
3 Hub height MD 70 65*/80*/85*/114,5**m
terms of profitability and reliability. MD 77 61,5*/85*/100*/111,5**m
2
Therefore, more and more investors are enthusiastic Design *tubular tower
1 **lattice tower
about the FL MD 70/77, which Fuhrländer already
exported to countries such as Portugal, Hungary and

Weights
5
6 Rotor 31‘000 / 33‘400 kg

Japan, also in a 60-Hz version.
Nacelle 56‘000 kg
Tower 93‘000...260‘000 kg
6 Four azimuth driving motors 5 Robust and compact machine Control

for safe and stable wind direction support with sound decoupling for
Speed control Microprocessors
tracking the main components
Yawing control 4 gear motors
Main brake Blade angle adjustment
nd
2 brake system Disk brake
Monitoring Fixed network/radio/Vabera
Output Power curve FL MD 70/77
[kW] (measured) Sound
Medium wind FL MD 70 FL MD 77 Sound output level 103.3 / 104 dB (A)
speed at hub Annual yield Annual yield Measurement of 25.08.98 / 13.08.02
height [m/s] [kWh] [kWh] FL MD 77
8.5 5’727’000
FL MD 70
8.0 5’232’000
7.5 4’669’000 5’351’000
7.0 4’105’000 4’820’000
6.5 3’508’000 4’205’000
6.0 2’910’000 3’589’000
5.5 2’341’000 2’956’000
5.0 1’771’000 2’324’000
Wind speed [m/s]

Stand-alone-systeme and
Wind-Diesel-combinations
Regional and energy supplies can be realised or stabilised at for use in extreme conditions. The diesel generator merely
international locations where there is no electricity supply by provides a reference frequency of 50/60 Hz and the energy
way of small and medium-sized wind turbines combined with supply during low wind periods. The wind turbine supplies
a small diesel generator. For example the robust FL 100 and more than 70 % of the energy created via this fuel safe
FL 250 are ideally suited for supplying self-sufficient units and system.
The vast FL turbine range

Salt water desalination and
drinking water treatment Power [kW]
Fuhrländer has developed a technology that utilises wind

FL 2500
energy to operate filtration plants in particular in regions
with an insufficient supply of energy and water. This
combination enables drinking water to be extracted very
efficiently and independent of raw materials, for example by
way of salt water desalination or brackish water treatment.
The wind energy created via a FL 250 could produce

FL 1500
more than 100,000 m³ of potable water each year and FL MD 70/77
consequently supply several thousand people. Furthermore
FL 1250
the surplus wind energy can stabilise the regional power
output supply.
FL 600
FL 250
FL 100
FL 30
50 100 150 Tower heights [m]
www.friendly-energy.de
Auf der Höhe 4

D-56477 Waigandshain
Fon +49 (0) 26 64.99 66-0
Fax +49 (0) 26 64.99 66-33
mail@fuhrlaender.de
www.fuhrlaender.de
© Fuhrländer AG 2/2007
FL 2500 – FL 1500 – FL MD 70/77

APPENDIX G
WINDPRO MODEL OUTPUT DATA

WindPRO version 2.6.1.252 Jan 2009
Project: Printed/Page
Mashpee Wind Feasibility Study 11/23/2009 4:19 PM / 1

Licensed user:
Weston & Sampson Engineers Inc.

Five Centennial Drive
US-PEABODY, MA 01960
+1 978 532 1900
Calculated:
11/23/2009 4:16 PM/2.6.1.252
METEO - Main Result

Calculation: AWS wind speed
Name AWS wind speeds
Site Coordinates
UTM NAD 83 Zone: 19 East: 374,475.36 North: 4,607,735.51
Air density calculation mode Individual per WTG
Result for WTG at hub altitude 1.215 kg/m3 to 1.215 kg/m3
Hub altitude above sea level (asl) 83.0 m to 88.0 m
Annual mean temperature at hub alt. 14.4 °C to 14.4 °C
Pressure at WTGs 1,002.7 hPa to 1,003.3 hPa
Calculation is based on "AWS wind speeds", giving the Weibull distribution

for the wind speed on the site.
Using the selected power curve, the expected annual energy production is
calculated.
Scale 1:25,000
Meteorological Data
Weibull data 70 m above ground level
Sector A- parameter Wind speed k- parameter Frequency Wind gradient exponent
[m/s] [m/s] [%]
0 0 7.16 6.34 2.000 100.0 0.350
All 7.16 6.34 2.000 100.0
Calculation Results
Key results for height 50.0 m above ground level
Wind energy: 2,006 kWh/m2; Mean wind speed: 5.7 m/s;
Key results for height 65.0 m above ground level
Wind energy: 2,450 kWh/m2; Mean wind speed: 6.2 m/s;
Calculated Annual Energy

WTG type Power curve Annual Energy
Valid Manufact. Type-generator Power, Rotor Hub Creator Name Result Result-10.0% Mean Capacity
rated diameter height wind Factor
speed
[kW] [m] [m] [MWh] [MWh] [m/s] [%]
Yes RRB Energy Ltd. PS-600-600 600 47.0 65.0 USER RRB PS-600 Power Curve 1,303.5 1,173 6.2 24.8
Yes NORWIN NW47-ASR-750-750/180 750 47.0 65.0 USER Default Power curve (April 2009) 1,531.6 1,378 6.2 23.3
Yes NORDIC 1000/54-1,000 1,000 54.0 70.0 EMD Level 0 - calculated - - 03-2001 1,924.9 1,732 6.3 22.0
WindPRO is developed by EMD International A/S, Niels Jernesvej 10, DK-9220 Aalborg Ø, Tlf. +45 96 35 44 44, Fax +45 96 35 44 46, e-mail: windpro@emd.dk
WindPRO version 2.7.419 Beta Dec 2009

Licensed user:
TEST LICENSE
Time limited until March 1, 2010
Olle Duijvesteijn, duijveso@wseinc.com

Calculated:
3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419
Loss&Uncertainty - Main result

Calculation: Park calculation - Fuhrlander
Main data for PARK
PARK calculation 2.7.419: Park calculation - Fuhrlander
Count 1
Rated power 1.5 MW
Mean wind speed 6.1 m/s at hub height
Sensitivity 2.2 %AEP / %Mean Wind Speed
Expected lifetime 20 Years
RESULTS
P50 P84 P90
NET AEP [MWh/y] 2,974 2,775 2,718
Capacity factor [%] 22.6 21 21
Full load hours [h/y] 1,983 1,850 1,812
Scale: 25,000
Result details
P50 Uncertainty
GROSS AEP *) 3,446 MWh/y 6.7 % Loss: 13.7 %
Bias correction 0 MWh/y 0.0 % 0.0 %
Loss correction -471 MWh/y -13.7 % 0.0 %
Wake loss 0.0 %
Other losses -13.7 %
NET AEP 2,974 MWh/y 6.7 %
100
95
90
1. Wake effects 0.0 % 2. Availability 5.0 %
85
3. Turbine performance 3.0 % 4. Electrical 2.5 %
80 5. Environmental 3.0 % 6. Curtailment 0.0 %
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE [%]
7. Other 1.0 %
75
70
65
60
55
50
Uncertainty: 6.7 %
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
A. Wind data 6.6 % B. Wind model 0.7 %
2,600 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300 3,400
C. Power conversion 1.0 % D. BIAS 0.0 %
AEP [MWh/y] E. LOSS 0.0 %
*) Calculated Annual Energy Production before any bias or loss corrections

Assumptions: Uncertainty and percentiles (PXX values) are calculated for the expected lifetime

Licensed user:
TEST LICENSE

Calculated:
3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419
Loss&Uncertainty - Assumptions and results

ASSUMPTIONS
LOSS Loss Uncertainty, std dev

Method *) AEP AEP on AEP Comment
[%] [MWh/y] [%]
1. Wake effects
Wake effects, all WTGs Calculation 0.0 0 0.0
2. Availability
Turbine availability Estimate 5.0 172 0.0 Conservative availability: 95%
3. Turbine performance
Wind flow Estimate 2.0 69 0.0 Turbulence effects
Other turbine performance Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Controls
4. Electrical
Electrical losses Estimate 2.5 86 0.0 Line losses
5. Environmental
Performance degradation not due to icing Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Expected wear on blades
Performance degradation due to icing Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Expected performance degradation due to icing on blades
Shutdown due to icing, lightning, hail, etc. Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Expected icing events causing turbine shutdown
6. Curtailment No input
7. Other
Other loss Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Micrositing
LOSS, total 13.7 471 0.0
UNCERTAINTY Std dev

Method *) on wind speed on AEP Comment
[%] [%]
A. Wind data
Wind measurement/Wind data Estimate 3.0 6.6
Long term correction
Year-to-year variability
Future climate
Other wind related
B. Wind model
Vertical extrapolation Calculation 0.3 0.7
Horizontal extrapolation
Other wind model related
C. Power conversion
Power curve uncertainty Calculation 1.0
Metering uncertainty
Other AEP related uncertainties
D. BIAS, total uncertainty 0.0
E. LOSS, total uncertainty 0.0
UNCERTAINTY, total (1y average) 6.7
UNCERTAINTY, total (20y average) 6.7
VARIABILITY
Years Variability Total
(std dev) std dev
1 0.00 6.7
5 0.00 6.7
10 0.00 6.7
20 0.00 6.7
Comment
Turbine availability
Conservative availability: 95%
Wind flow
Turbulence effects

Licensed user:
TEST LICENSE

Calculated:
3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419
Loss&Uncertainty - Assumptions and results

Other turbine performance

Controls
Electrical losses
Line losses
Performance degradation not due to icing

Expected wear on blades
Performance degradation due to icing

Expected performance degradation due to icing on blades
Shutdown due to icing, lightning, hail, etc.

Expected icing events causing turbine shutdown
Other loss
Micrositing
RESULTS
AEP versus exceedance level / time horizon
PXX 1y 5y 10 y 20 y
[%] [MWh/y] [MWh/y] [MWh/y] [MWh/y]
50 2,974 2,974 2,974 2,974
75 2,839 2,839 2,839 2,839
84 2,775 2,775 2,775 2,775
90 2,718 2,718 2,718 2,718
95 2,645 2,645 2,645 2,645
*) Calculation means that a calculation method available in the WindPRO software is used. This still typically involve a user judgement and user data where the quality of those decides the accuracy. If
calculation method is used, the values will often be different from turbine to turbine, here the average is shown, but at page "WTG results" the individual turbine results are shown.

Licensed user:
TEST LICENSE

Calculated:
3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419
Loss&Uncertainty - WTG results

Main data for PARK
PARK calculation 2.7.419: Park calculation - Fuhrlander
Count 1
Rated power 1.5 MW
Mean wind speed 6.1 m/s at hub height
Sensitivity 2.2 %AEP / %Mean Wind Speed
Expected lifetime 20 Years
Scale: 25,000
Expected AEP per WTG including bias, loss and uncertainty evaluation
20 years averaging
Description Calculated GROSS*) Bias Loss Unc. P50 P84 P90
[MWh/y] [%] [%] [%] [MWh/y] [MWh/y] [MWh/y]
1 FUHRLÄNDER FL 1500-70 1500 70.0 !O! hub: 60.0 m (4) 3,445.7 0.0 13.7 6.7 2,974.4 2,775.5 2,718.0
PARK 3,445.7 0.0 13.7 6.7 2,974.4 2,775.5 2,718.0

Licensed user:
TEST LICENSE

Calculated:
3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419
Loss&Uncertainty - Vertical extrapolation

Vertical extrapolation uncertainty

WTG Uncertainty input Uncertainty input Measure Measure height Delta elevation Delta height Result (std dev
elevation measure height elevation AEP)
difference difference
[%/10m] [%/10m] [m a.s.l.] [m a.g.l.] [m] [m] [%]
Proposed Turbine - Fuhrlander FL1500 0.05 0.30 18.0 70.0 0.0 -10.0 0.7

Licensed user:
TEST LICENSE

Calculated:
3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419
Loss&Uncertainty - Power curve uncertainty

Description Calculation type
Input Unit Result
[%]
FUHRLÄNDER FL 1500-70 1500 70.0 !O! hub: 60.0 m (4) Simple, constant-% 1.00 % 1.0
APPENDIX H
ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS
ECONOMIC SUMMARY
Wind Turbine Installation
Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Turbine Size, kW 600 750 1000 1500 1500 (P90)
Project Cost $ 2,380,250 $ 2,671,250 $ 2,660,250 $ 4,690,250 $ 4,690,250
Cost per kW $ 3,967 $ 3,562 $ 2,660 $ 3,127 $ 3,127
Hub Height, Meters 65 65 70 60 60
IRR 7.35% 7.44% 10.13% 10.46% 9.01%

Turbine Size, kW 600 750 1000 1500 1500 (P90)
Project Cost $ 1,810,250 $ 2,101,250 $ 2,090,250 $ 4,120,250 $ 4,120,250
Cost per kW $ 3,017 $ 2,802 $ 2,090 $ 2,747 $ 2,747
Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60
IRR 10.84% 10.48% 13.65% 12.31% 10.74%

Turbine Size, kW 600 750 1000 1500 1500 (P90)
Project Cost $ 2,380,250 $ 2,671,250 $ 2,660,250 $ 4,690,250 $ 4,690,250
Cost per kW $ 3,967 $ 3,562 $ 2,660 $ 3,127 $ 3,127
Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60
IRR NA NA NA NA NA

Turbine Size, kW 600 750 1000 1500 1500 (P90)
Project Cost $ 1,810,250 $ 2,101,250 $ 2,090,250 $ 4,120,250 $ 4,120,250
Cost per kW $ 3,017 $ 2,802 $ 2,090 $ 2,747 $ 2,747
Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60
IRR NA NA NA NA NA

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA
600 kW RRB Cost Quantity Rate Amount

Design and Permitting $150,000 1 1 $150,000
Capital Equipment $1,090,000 1 1 $1,090,000
General Construction $125,000 1 1 $125,000
Foundation installation $350,000 1 1 $350,000
Electrical interconnection $440,250 1 1 $440,250
Installation (crane) $150,000 1 1 $150,000
Commissioning/startup $75,000 1 1 $75,000
Subtotal $2,380,250
Possible MTC Grant $570,000 1 -1 ($570,000)
Total Cost with Grant $1,810,250
750 kW Norwin Cost Quantity Rate Amount

Subtotal $2,671,250
1000 kW Nordic Cost Quantity Rate Amount

Subtotal $2,660,250
1500 kW Fuhrlander Cost Quantity Rate Amount

Subtotal $4,690,250
Design and construction incentive levels for per Commonwealth Wind Solicitation No.
2010-CWIPCS-01
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA
Description Amouunt Amouunt Amouunt Amouunt

Nameplate Rating, kW 600 750 1000 $1,500
Design and Permitting $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $200,000
Capital Equipment $1,090,000 $1,381,000 $1,410,000 $3,200,000
General Construction $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000
Foundation Installation $350,000 $350,000 $335,000 $500,000
Electrical Interconnection $440,250 $440,250 $440,250 $440,250
Crane & Rigging $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $125,000
Commissioning/Startup $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $100,000
Total $2,380,250 $2,671,250 $2,660,250 $4,690,250
Possible MRET Grant $570,000 $570,000 $570,000 $570,000
Total with Grant Incentive $1,810,250 $2,101,250 $2,090,250 $4,120,250
Cost per kW (No Grant) $3,967 $3,562 $2,660 $3,127

Cost per kW (With Grant) $3,017 $2,802 $2,090 $2,747
Simple Payback, years (No Grant) 11.99 11.92 9.52 9.31

Simple Payback, years (With Grant) 9.12 9.38 7.48 8.18
Net Capacity Factor Sensitivity Analyses

S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5
Scenario 2: Equity, With Grant -20% -10% Base Case +10% +20%
Turbine Size, kW 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Project Cost $ 2,101,250 $ 2,101,250 $ 2,101,250 $ 2,101,250 $ 2,101,250
Cost per kW $ 2,101 $ 2,101 $ 2,101 $ 2,101 $ 2,101
Hub Height 70 70 70 70 70
NPV (Discount Rate of 4.0%) ($380,398) $92,149 $564,696 $1,037,244 $1,509,791
Estimated Simple Payback, years 19.29 16.72 14.75 13.20 11.94
Wind Turbine Pro Forma
Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA
Existing Power Use and Cost Basis

Wind Turbine RRB 600 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWh
Turbine size (kW) 600 Tower Height 65 meters
Gross Capacity Factor 24.80% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate Total
Net Capacity Factor 22.32% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 $ 12,661
Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,173,139 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 $ 19,792
Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 $ 25,604
Retail Offset Rate (kWh) $ 0.16423 General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 $ 23,560
Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) $ 0.16423 Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 $ 139,828
REC value Y1-Y10 $ 0.030 Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 $ 636
REC value Y11-Y20 $ 0.025 Project Cost $ 2,380,250 Energy Conservation 0.00250 $ 3,178
Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant $ 1,810,250
Net Present Value $812,607 Simple Payback 11.99 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 $ 225,258
Net Cash Flow $2,549,702 Simple Payback with Grant 9.12 years
Present Value Benefit $3,541,793 IRR 7.35% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%
Present Value Cost $2,729,186 Residual Value 25%
Benefit Cost Ratio 1.30 Cost of Energy $0.1302 kWh
Net Metering Excess Energy RECs Total Annual Cummulative Annual Annual Annual Annual Total Annual Net Annual Cummulative
Year Credit Credit Revenue Revenue Revenue O&M Insurance Principal Interest Cost Cash Flow Cash Flow
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 $ 2,380,250 $0 $2,385,500 ($2,385,500) ($2,385,500)

2 $192,666 $0 $35,194 $227,860 $227,860 $24,000 $5,355 $0 $0 $29,355 $198,505 ($2,186,995)
3 $196,519 $0 $35,194 $231,713 $459,573 $24,480 $5,462 $0 $0 $29,942 $201,771 ($1,985,224)
4 $200,449 $0 $35,194 $235,644 $695,217 $24,970 $5,571 $0 $0 $30,541 $205,103 ($1,780,121)
5 $204,458 $0 $35,194 $239,653 $934,869 $25,469 $5,683 $0 $0 $31,152 $208,501 ($1,571,621)
6 $208,548 $0 $35,194 $243,742 $1,178,611 $25,978 $5,796 $0 $0 $31,775 $211,967 ($1,359,654)
7 $212,718 $0 $35,194 $247,913 $1,426,523 $26,498 $5,912 $0 $0 $32,410 $215,502 ($1,144,151)
8 $216,973 $0 $35,194 $252,167 $1,678,690 $27,028 $6,031 $0 $0 $33,058 $219,109 ($925,043)
9 $221,312 $0 $35,194 $256,506 $1,935,197 $27,568 $6,151 $0 $0 $33,720 $222,787 ($702,256)
10 $225,739 $0 $35,194 $260,933 $2,196,130 $28,120 $6,274 $0 $0 $34,394 $226,539 ($475,717)
11 $230,253 $0 $29,328 $259,582 $2,455,711 $28,682 $6,400 $0 $0 $35,082 $224,500 ($251,218)
12 $234,858 $0 $29,328 $264,187 $2,719,898 $29,256 $6,528 $0 $0 $35,784 $228,403 ($22,814)
13 $239,556 $0 $29,328 $268,884 $2,988,782 $29,841 $6,658 $0 $0 $36,499 $232,385 $209,570
14 $244,347 $0 $29,328 $273,675 $3,262,458 $30,438 $6,791 $0 $0 $37,229 $236,446 $446,016
15 $249,234 $0 $29,328 $278,562 $3,541,020 $31,047 $6,927 $0 $0 $37,974 $240,588 $686,605
16 $254,218 $0 $29,328 $283,547 $3,824,566 $31,667 $7,066 $0 $0 $38,733 $244,813 $931,418
17 $259,303 $0 $29,328 $288,631 $4,113,197 $32,301 $7,207 $0 $0 $39,508 $249,123 $1,180,541
18 $264,489 $0 $29,328 $293,817 $4,407,015 $32,947 $7,351 $0 $0 $40,298 $253,519 $1,434,060
19 $269,778 $0 $29,328 $299,107 $4,706,122 $33,606 $7,498 $0 $0 $41,104 $258,003 $1,692,063
20 $275,174 $0 $29,328 $304,503 $5,010,624 $34,278 $7,648 $0 $0 $41,926 $262,576 $2,549,702
Scenario 1 Equity Financing, No Grant

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Wind Turbine Norwin 750 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWh
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 $ 2,671,250 $0 $2,677,813 ($2,677,813) ($2,677,813)

2 $208,783 $17,482 $34,443 $260,709 $260,709 $30,000 $6,694 $0 $0 $36,694 $224,015 ($2,453,797)
3 $212,959 $17,832 $34,443 $265,234 $525,943 $30,600 $6,828 $0 $0 $37,428 $227,807 ($2,225,991)
4 $217,218 $18,188 $34,443 $269,850 $795,793 $31,212 $6,964 $0 $0 $38,176 $231,674 ($1,994,317)
5 $221,563 $18,552 $34,443 $274,558 $1,070,351 $31,836 $7,103 $0 $0 $38,940 $235,618 ($1,758,699)
6 $225,994 $18,923 $34,443 $279,360 $1,349,712 $32,473 $7,246 $0 $0 $39,718 $239,642 ($1,519,057)
7 $230,514 $19,302 $34,443 $284,259 $1,633,970 $33,122 $7,390 $0 $0 $40,513 $243,746 ($1,275,311)
8 $235,124 $19,688 $34,443 $289,255 $1,923,225 $33,785 $7,538 $0 $0 $41,323 $247,932 ($1,027,379)
9 $239,827 $20,082 $34,443 $294,351 $2,217,577 $34,461 $7,689 $0 $0 $42,150 $252,202 ($775,177)
10 $244,623 $20,483 $34,443 $299,549 $2,517,126 $35,150 $7,843 $0 $0 $42,993 $256,557 ($518,620)
11 $249,516 $20,893 $27,555 $297,963 $2,815,089 $35,853 $8,000 $0 $0 $43,852 $254,111 ($264,510)
12 $254,506 $21,311 $27,555 $303,371 $3,118,460 $36,570 $8,160 $0 $0 $44,729 $258,642 ($5,868)
13 $259,596 $21,737 $27,555 $308,887 $3,427,348 $37,301 $8,323 $0 $0 $45,624 $263,263 $257,395
14 $264,788 $22,172 $27,555 $314,514 $3,741,862 $38,047 $8,489 $0 $0 $46,537 $267,978 $525,373
15 $270,084 $22,615 $27,555 $320,253 $4,062,115 $38,808 $8,659 $0 $0 $47,467 $272,786 $798,159
16 $275,485 $23,067 $27,555 $326,107 $4,388,223 $39,584 $8,832 $0 $0 $48,417 $277,691 $1,075,850
17 $280,995 $23,529 $27,555 $332,078 $4,720,301 $40,376 $9,009 $0 $0 $49,385 $282,693 $1,358,543
18 $286,615 $23,999 $27,555 $338,169 $5,058,470 $41,184 $9,189 $0 $0 $50,373 $287,796 $1,646,339
19 $292,347 $24,479 $27,555 $344,381 $5,402,851 $42,007 $9,373 $0 $0 $51,380 $293,001 $1,939,340
20 $298,194 $24,969 $27,555 $350,718 $5,753,568 $42,847 $9,560 $0 $0 $52,408 $298,310 $2,905,463

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Wind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWh
Net Present Value $1,736,926 Simple Payback 9.52 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 $ 225,258
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $ 2,660,250 $0 $2,669,000 ($2,669,000) ($2,669,000)

2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $279,292 ($2,389,708)
3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $284,011 ($2,105,697)
4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $288,824 ($1,816,873)
5 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $293,733 ($1,523,140)
6 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $298,740 ($1,224,400)
7 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $303,848 ($920,552)
8 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $309,058 ($611,494)
9 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $314,372 ($297,123)
10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $319,792 $22,669
11 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $316,648 $339,317
12 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $322,287 $661,604
13 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $328,039 $989,643
14 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $333,906 $1,323,549
15 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $339,890 $1,663,440
16 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $345,994 $2,009,434
17 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $352,221 $2,361,655
18 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $358,571 $2,720,226
19 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $365,049 $3,085,275
20 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $371,656 $4,121,993

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Wind Turbine Fuhrlander 1500 Overall Structure Height 312 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWh
Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant $4,120,250
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $ 4,690,250 $0 $4,703,375 ($4,703,375) ($4,703,375)

2 $208,783 $292,303 $76,278 $577,364 $577,364 $60,000 $13,388 $0 $0 $73,388 $503,976 ($4,199,399)
3 $212,959 $298,149 $76,278 $587,386 $1,164,749 $61,200 $13,655 $0 $0 $74,855 $512,530 ($3,686,868)
4 $217,218 $304,112 $76,278 $597,608 $1,762,357 $62,424 $13,928 $0 $0 $76,352 $521,255 ($3,165,613)
5 $221,563 $310,194 $76,278 $608,034 $2,370,391 $63,672 $14,207 $0 $0 $77,879 $530,155 ($2,635,458)
6 $225,994 $316,398 $76,278 $618,669 $2,989,061 $64,946 $14,491 $0 $0 $79,437 $539,232 ($2,096,226)
7 $230,514 $322,726 $76,278 $629,517 $3,618,578 $66,245 $14,781 $0 $0 $81,026 $548,492 ($1,547,734)
8 $235,124 $329,180 $76,278 $640,582 $4,259,160 $67,570 $15,076 $0 $0 $82,646 $557,936 ($989,798)
9 $239,827 $335,764 $76,278 $651,868 $4,911,028 $68,921 $15,378 $0 $0 $84,299 $567,569 ($422,229)
10 $244,623 $342,479 $76,278 $663,380 $5,574,408 $70,300 $15,686 $0 $0 $85,985 $577,395 $155,166
11 $249,516 $349,329 $61,022 $659,866 $6,234,275 $71,706 $15,999 $0 $0 $87,705 $572,162 $727,327
12 $254,506 $356,315 $61,022 $671,843 $6,906,118 $73,140 $16,319 $0 $0 $89,459 $582,384 $1,309,712
13 $259,596 $363,442 $61,022 $684,060 $7,590,178 $74,602 $16,646 $0 $0 $91,248 $592,812 $1,902,523
14 $264,788 $370,711 $61,022 $696,521 $8,286,699 $76,095 $16,979 $0 $0 $93,073 $603,447 $2,505,971
15 $270,084 $378,125 $61,022 $709,231 $8,995,929 $77,616 $17,318 $0 $0 $94,935 $614,296 $3,120,267
16 $275,485 $385,687 $61,022 $722,195 $9,718,124 $79,169 $17,665 $0 $0 $96,833 $625,361 $3,745,628
17 $280,995 $393,401 $61,022 $735,418 $10,453,542 $80,752 $18,018 $0 $0 $98,770 $636,648 $4,382,276
18 $286,615 $401,269 $61,022 $748,906 $11,202,448 $82,367 $18,378 $0 $0 $100,745 $648,161 $5,030,437
19 $292,347 $409,294 $61,022 $762,664 $11,965,112 $84,014 $18,746 $0 $0 $102,760 $659,904 $5,690,340
20 $298,194 $417,480 $61,022 $776,697 $12,741,808 $85,695 $19,121 $0 $0 $104,815 $671,881 $7,534,784

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant $4,120,250
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $ 4,690,250 $0 $4,703,375 ($4,703,375) ($4,703,375)

2 $208,783 $245,690 $69,182 $523,656 $523,656 $60,000 $13,388 $0 $0 $73,388 $450,268 ($4,253,107)
3 $212,959 $250,604 $69,182 $532,745 $1,056,401 $61,200 $13,655 $0 $0 $74,855 $457,890 ($3,795,217)
4 $217,218 $255,616 $69,182 $542,016 $1,598,417 $62,424 $13,928 $0 $0 $76,352 $465,664 ($3,329,553)
5 $221,563 $260,728 $69,182 $551,473 $2,149,890 $63,672 $14,207 $0 $0 $77,879 $473,594 ($2,855,960)
6 $225,994 $265,943 $69,182 $561,119 $2,711,009 $64,946 $14,491 $0 $0 $79,437 $481,682 ($2,374,278)
7 $230,514 $271,262 $69,182 $570,958 $3,281,966 $66,245 $14,781 $0 $0 $81,026 $489,932 ($1,884,346)
8 $235,124 $276,687 $69,182 $580,993 $3,862,959 $67,570 $15,076 $0 $0 $82,646 $498,347 ($1,385,999)
9 $239,827 $282,221 $69,182 $591,229 $4,454,189 $68,921 $15,378 $0 $0 $84,299 $506,930 ($879,069)
10 $244,623 $287,865 $69,182 $601,670 $5,055,859 $70,300 $15,686 $0 $0 $85,985 $515,685 ($363,384)
11 $249,516 $293,622 $55,346 $598,484 $5,654,342 $71,706 $15,999 $0 $0 $87,705 $510,779 $147,395
12 $254,506 $299,495 $55,346 $609,346 $6,263,689 $73,140 $16,319 $0 $0 $89,459 $519,887 $667,282
13 $259,596 $305,485 $55,346 $620,426 $6,884,115 $74,602 $16,646 $0 $0 $91,248 $529,178 $1,196,460
14 $264,788 $311,594 $55,346 $631,728 $7,515,843 $76,095 $16,979 $0 $0 $93,073 $538,655 $1,735,115
15 $270,084 $317,826 $55,346 $643,256 $8,159,098 $77,616 $17,318 $0 $0 $94,935 $548,321 $2,283,436
16 $275,485 $324,183 $55,346 $655,014 $8,814,112 $79,169 $17,665 $0 $0 $96,833 $558,181 $2,841,617
17 $280,995 $330,666 $55,346 $667,007 $9,481,119 $80,752 $18,018 $0 $0 $98,770 $568,237 $3,409,854
18 $286,615 $337,280 $55,346 $679,240 $10,160,360 $82,367 $18,378 $0 $0 $100,745 $578,495 $3,988,349
19 $292,347 $344,025 $55,346 $691,718 $10,852,078 $84,014 $18,746 $0 $0 $102,760 $588,958 $4,577,307
20 $298,194 $350,906 $55,346 $704,446 $11,556,524 $85,695 $19,121 $0 $0 $104,815 $599,630 $6,349,500

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 $ 1,810,250 $0 $1,815,500 ($1,815,500) ($1,815,500)

2 $192,666 $0 $35,194 $227,860 $227,860 $24,000 $5,355 $0 $0 $29,355 $198,505 ($1,616,995)
3 $196,519 $0 $35,194 $231,713 $459,573 $24,480 $5,462 $0 $0 $29,942 $201,771 ($1,415,224)
4 $200,449 $0 $35,194 $235,644 $695,217 $24,970 $5,571 $0 $0 $30,541 $205,103 ($1,210,121)
5 $204,458 $0 $35,194 $239,653 $934,869 $25,469 $5,683 $0 $0 $31,152 $208,501 ($1,001,621)
6 $208,548 $0 $35,194 $243,742 $1,178,611 $25,978 $5,796 $0 $0 $31,775 $211,967 ($789,654)
7 $212,718 $0 $35,194 $247,913 $1,426,523 $26,498 $5,912 $0 $0 $32,410 $215,502 ($574,151)
8 $216,973 $0 $35,194 $252,167 $1,678,690 $27,028 $6,031 $0 $0 $33,058 $219,109 ($355,043)
9 $221,312 $0 $35,194 $256,506 $1,935,197 $27,568 $6,151 $0 $0 $33,720 $222,787 ($132,256)
10 $225,739 $0 $35,194 $260,933 $2,196,130 $28,120 $6,274 $0 $0 $34,394 $226,539 $94,283
11 $230,253 $0 $29,328 $259,582 $2,455,711 $28,682 $6,400 $0 $0 $35,082 $224,500 $318,782
12 $234,858 $0 $29,328 $264,187 $2,719,898 $29,256 $6,528 $0 $0 $35,784 $228,403 $547,186
13 $239,556 $0 $29,328 $268,884 $2,988,782 $29,841 $6,658 $0 $0 $36,499 $232,385 $779,570
14 $244,347 $0 $29,328 $273,675 $3,262,458 $30,438 $6,791 $0 $0 $37,229 $236,446 $1,016,016
15 $249,234 $0 $29,328 $278,562 $3,541,020 $31,047 $6,927 $0 $0 $37,974 $240,588 $1,256,605
16 $254,218 $0 $29,328 $283,547 $3,824,566 $31,667 $7,066 $0 $0 $38,733 $244,813 $1,501,418
17 $259,303 $0 $29,328 $288,631 $4,113,197 $32,301 $7,207 $0 $0 $39,508 $249,123 $1,750,541
18 $264,489 $0 $29,328 $293,817 $4,407,015 $32,947 $7,351 $0 $0 $40,298 $253,519 $2,004,060
19 $269,778 $0 $29,328 $299,107 $4,706,122 $33,606 $7,498 $0 $0 $41,104 $258,003 $2,262,063
20 $275,174 $0 $29,328 $304,503 $5,010,624 $34,278 $7,648 $0 $0 $41,926 $262,576 $3,119,702
Scenario 2 Equity Financing, With Grant

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 $ 2,101,250 $0 $2,107,813 ($2,107,813) ($2,107,813)

2 $208,783 $17,482 $34,443 $260,709 $260,709 $30,000 $6,694 $0 $0 $36,694 $224,015 ($1,883,797)
3 $212,959 $17,832 $34,443 $265,234 $525,943 $30,600 $6,828 $0 $0 $37,428 $227,807 ($1,655,991)
4 $217,218 $18,188 $34,443 $269,850 $795,793 $31,212 $6,964 $0 $0 $38,176 $231,674 ($1,424,317)
5 $221,563 $18,552 $34,443 $274,558 $1,070,351 $31,836 $7,103 $0 $0 $38,940 $235,618 ($1,188,699)
6 $225,994 $18,923 $34,443 $279,360 $1,349,712 $32,473 $7,246 $0 $0 $39,718 $239,642 ($949,057)
7 $230,514 $19,302 $34,443 $284,259 $1,633,970 $33,122 $7,390 $0 $0 $40,513 $243,746 ($705,311)
8 $235,124 $19,688 $34,443 $289,255 $1,923,225 $33,785 $7,538 $0 $0 $41,323 $247,932 ($457,379)
9 $239,827 $20,082 $34,443 $294,351 $2,217,577 $34,461 $7,689 $0 $0 $42,150 $252,202 ($205,177)
10 $244,623 $20,483 $34,443 $299,549 $2,517,126 $35,150 $7,843 $0 $0 $42,993 $256,557 $51,380
11 $249,516 $20,893 $27,555 $297,963 $2,815,089 $35,853 $8,000 $0 $0 $43,852 $254,111 $305,490
12 $254,506 $21,311 $27,555 $303,371 $3,118,460 $36,570 $8,160 $0 $0 $44,729 $258,642 $564,132
13 $259,596 $21,737 $27,555 $308,887 $3,427,348 $37,301 $8,323 $0 $0 $45,624 $263,263 $827,395
14 $264,788 $22,172 $27,555 $314,514 $3,741,862 $38,047 $8,489 $0 $0 $46,537 $267,978 $1,095,373
15 $270,084 $22,615 $27,555 $320,253 $4,062,115 $38,808 $8,659 $0 $0 $47,467 $272,786 $1,368,159
16 $275,485 $23,067 $27,555 $326,107 $4,388,223 $39,584 $8,832 $0 $0 $48,417 $277,691 $1,645,850
17 $280,995 $23,529 $27,555 $332,078 $4,720,301 $40,376 $9,009 $0 $0 $49,385 $282,693 $1,928,543
18 $286,615 $23,999 $27,555 $338,169 $5,058,470 $41,184 $9,189 $0 $0 $50,373 $287,796 $2,216,339
19 $292,347 $24,479 $27,555 $344,381 $5,402,851 $42,007 $9,373 $0 $0 $51,380 $293,001 $2,509,340
20 $298,194 $24,969 $27,555 $350,718 $5,753,568 $42,847 $9,560 $0 $0 $52,408 $298,310 $3,475,463

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $ 2,090,250 $0 $2,099,000 ($2,099,000) ($2,099,000)

2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $279,292 ($1,819,708)
3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $284,011 ($1,535,697)
4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $288,824 ($1,246,873)
5 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $293,733 ($953,140)
6 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $298,740 ($654,400)
7 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $303,848 ($350,552)
8 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $309,058 ($41,494)
9 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $314,372 $272,877
10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $319,792 $592,669
11 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $316,648 $909,317
12 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $322,287 $1,231,604
13 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $328,039 $1,559,643
14 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $333,906 $1,893,549
15 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $339,890 $2,233,440
16 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $345,994 $2,579,434
17 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $352,221 $2,931,655
18 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $358,571 $3,290,226
19 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $365,049 $3,655,275
20 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $371,656 $4,691,993

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $ 4,120,250 $0 $4,133,375 ($4,133,375) ($4,133,375)

2 $208,783 $292,303 $76,278 $577,364 $577,364 $60,000 $13,388 $0 $0 $73,388 $503,976 ($3,629,399)
3 $212,959 $298,149 $76,278 $587,386 $1,164,749 $61,200 $13,655 $0 $0 $74,855 $512,530 ($3,116,868)
4 $217,218 $304,112 $76,278 $597,608 $1,762,357 $62,424 $13,928 $0 $0 $76,352 $521,255 ($2,595,613)
5 $221,563 $310,194 $76,278 $608,034 $2,370,391 $63,672 $14,207 $0 $0 $77,879 $530,155 ($2,065,458)
6 $225,994 $316,398 $76,278 $618,669 $2,989,061 $64,946 $14,491 $0 $0 $79,437 $539,232 ($1,526,226)
7 $230,514 $322,726 $76,278 $629,517 $3,618,578 $66,245 $14,781 $0 $0 $81,026 $548,492 ($977,734)
8 $235,124 $329,180 $76,278 $640,582 $4,259,160 $67,570 $15,076 $0 $0 $82,646 $557,936 ($419,798)
9 $239,827 $335,764 $76,278 $651,868 $4,911,028 $68,921 $15,378 $0 $0 $84,299 $567,569 $147,771
10 $244,623 $342,479 $76,278 $663,380 $5,574,408 $70,300 $15,686 $0 $0 $85,985 $577,395 $725,166
11 $249,516 $349,329 $61,022 $659,866 $6,234,275 $71,706 $15,999 $0 $0 $87,705 $572,162 $1,297,327
12 $254,506 $356,315 $61,022 $671,843 $6,906,118 $73,140 $16,319 $0 $0 $89,459 $582,384 $1,879,712
13 $259,596 $363,442 $61,022 $684,060 $7,590,178 $74,602 $16,646 $0 $0 $91,248 $592,812 $2,472,523
14 $264,788 $370,711 $61,022 $696,521 $8,286,699 $76,095 $16,979 $0 $0 $93,073 $603,447 $3,075,971
15 $270,084 $378,125 $61,022 $709,231 $8,995,929 $77,616 $17,318 $0 $0 $94,935 $614,296 $3,690,267
16 $275,485 $385,687 $61,022 $722,195 $9,718,124 $79,169 $17,665 $0 $0 $96,833 $625,361 $4,315,628
17 $280,995 $393,401 $61,022 $735,418 $10,453,542 $80,752 $18,018 $0 $0 $98,770 $636,648 $4,952,276
18 $286,615 $401,269 $61,022 $748,906 $11,202,448 $82,367 $18,378 $0 $0 $100,745 $648,161 $5,600,437
19 $292,347 $409,294 $61,022 $762,664 $11,965,112 $84,014 $18,746 $0 $0 $102,760 $659,904 $6,260,340
20 $298,194 $417,480 $61,022 $776,697 $12,741,808 $85,695 $19,121 $0 $0 $104,815 $671,881 $8,104,784

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $ 4,120,250 $0 $4,133,375 ($4,133,375) ($4,133,375)

2 $208,783 $245,690 $69,182 $523,656 $523,656 $60,000 $13,388 $0 $0 $73,388 $450,268 ($3,683,107)
3 $212,959 $250,604 $69,182 $532,745 $1,056,401 $61,200 $13,655 $0 $0 $74,855 $457,890 ($3,225,217)
4 $217,218 $255,616 $69,182 $542,016 $1,598,417 $62,424 $13,928 $0 $0 $76,352 $465,664 ($2,759,553)
5 $221,563 $260,728 $69,182 $551,473 $2,149,890 $63,672 $14,207 $0 $0 $77,879 $473,594 ($2,285,960)
6 $225,994 $265,943 $69,182 $561,119 $2,711,009 $64,946 $14,491 $0 $0 $79,437 $481,682 ($1,804,278)
7 $230,514 $271,262 $69,182 $570,958 $3,281,966 $66,245 $14,781 $0 $0 $81,026 $489,932 ($1,314,346)
8 $235,124 $276,687 $69,182 $580,993 $3,862,959 $67,570 $15,076 $0 $0 $82,646 $498,347 ($815,999)
9 $239,827 $282,221 $69,182 $591,229 $4,454,189 $68,921 $15,378 $0 $0 $84,299 $506,930 ($309,069)
10 $244,623 $287,865 $69,182 $601,670 $5,055,859 $70,300 $15,686 $0 $0 $85,985 $515,685 $206,616
11 $249,516 $293,622 $55,346 $598,484 $5,654,342 $71,706 $15,999 $0 $0 $87,705 $510,779 $717,395
12 $254,506 $299,495 $55,346 $609,346 $6,263,689 $73,140 $16,319 $0 $0 $89,459 $519,887 $1,237,282
13 $259,596 $305,485 $55,346 $620,426 $6,884,115 $74,602 $16,646 $0 $0 $91,248 $529,178 $1,766,460
14 $264,788 $311,594 $55,346 $631,728 $7,515,843 $76,095 $16,979 $0 $0 $93,073 $538,655 $2,305,115
15 $270,084 $317,826 $55,346 $643,256 $8,159,098 $77,616 $17,318 $0 $0 $94,935 $548,321 $2,853,436
16 $275,485 $324,183 $55,346 $655,014 $8,814,112 $79,169 $17,665 $0 $0 $96,833 $558,181 $3,411,617
17 $280,995 $330,666 $55,346 $667,007 $9,481,119 $80,752 $18,018 $0 $0 $98,770 $568,237 $3,979,854
18 $286,615 $337,280 $55,346 $679,240 $10,160,360 $82,367 $18,378 $0 $0 $100,745 $578,495 $4,558,349
19 $292,347 $344,025 $55,346 $691,718 $10,852,078 $84,014 $18,746 $0 $0 $102,760 $588,958 $5,147,307
20 $298,194 $350,906 $55,346 $704,446 $11,556,524 $85,695 $19,121 $0 $0 $104,815 $599,630 $6,919,500

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,173,139 Financing Debt Distribution 0.01557 $ 19,792
Net Present Value $721,059 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 $ 225,258
Net Cash Flow $1,427,093 Simple Payback with Grant NA years
Present Value Benefit $3,541,793 IRR NA Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 $ 79,933 $95,210 $180,393 ($180,393) ($180,393)

2 $192,666 $0 $35,194 $227,860 $227,860 $24,000 $5,355 $83,130 $92,013 $204,498 $23,362 ($157,031)
3 $196,519 $0 $35,194 $231,713 $459,573 $24,480 $5,462 $86,455 $88,687 $205,085 $26,628 ($130,403)
4 $200,449 $0 $35,194 $235,644 $695,217 $24,970 $5,571 $89,914 $85,229 $205,684 $29,960 ($100,443)
5 $204,458 $0 $35,194 $239,653 $934,869 $25,469 $5,683 $93,510 $81,633 $206,295 $33,358 ($67,086)
6 $208,548 $0 $35,194 $243,742 $1,178,611 $25,978 $5,796 $97,251 $77,892 $206,918 $36,824 ($30,262)
7 $212,718 $0 $35,194 $247,913 $1,426,523 $26,498 $5,912 $101,141 $74,002 $207,553 $40,359 $10,098
8 $216,973 $0 $35,194 $252,167 $1,678,690 $27,028 $6,031 $105,186 $69,957 $208,201 $43,966 $54,063
9 $221,312 $0 $35,194 $256,506 $1,935,197 $27,568 $6,151 $109,394 $65,749 $208,863 $47,644 $101,707
10 $225,739 $0 $35,194 $260,933 $2,196,130 $28,120 $6,274 $113,770 $61,373 $209,537 $51,396 $153,103
11 $230,253 $0 $29,328 $259,582 $2,455,711 $28,682 $6,400 $118,320 $56,823 $210,225 $49,357 $202,460
12 $234,858 $0 $29,328 $264,187 $2,719,898 $29,256 $6,528 $123,053 $52,090 $210,927 $53,260 $255,720
13 $239,556 $0 $29,328 $268,884 $2,988,782 $29,841 $6,658 $127,975 $47,168 $211,642 $57,242 $312,962
14 $244,347 $0 $29,328 $273,675 $3,262,458 $30,438 $6,791 $133,094 $42,049 $212,372 $61,303 $374,265
15 $249,234 $0 $29,328 $278,562 $3,541,020 $31,047 $6,927 $138,418 $36,725 $213,117 $65,445 $439,710
16 $254,218 $0 $29,328 $283,547 $3,824,566 $31,667 $7,066 $143,955 $31,188 $213,876 $69,670 $509,381
17 $259,303 $0 $29,328 $288,631 $4,113,197 $32,301 $7,207 $149,713 $25,430 $214,651 $73,980 $583,361
18 $264,489 $0 $29,328 $293,817 $4,407,015 $32,947 $7,351 $155,701 $19,442 $215,441 $78,376 $661,737
19 $269,778 $0 $29,328 $299,107 $4,706,122 $33,606 $7,498 $161,930 $13,213 $216,247 $82,860 $744,597
20 $275,174 $0 $29,328 $304,503 $5,010,624 $34,278 $7,648 $168,407 $6,736 $217,069 $87,433 $1,427,093
Scenario 3 Debt Financing, No Grant

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Net Present Value $836,455 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 $ 225,258
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 $ 89,705 $106,850 $203,118 ($203,118) ($203,118)

2 $208,783 $17,482 $34,443 $260,709 $260,709 $30,000 $6,694 $93,293 $103,262 $233,249 $27,460 ($175,658)
3 $212,959 $17,832 $34,443 $265,234 $525,943 $30,600 $6,828 $97,025 $99,530 $233,983 $31,251 ($144,407)
4 $217,218 $18,188 $34,443 $269,850 $795,793 $31,212 $6,964 $100,906 $95,649 $234,731 $35,119 ($109,288)
5 $221,563 $18,552 $34,443 $274,558 $1,070,351 $31,836 $7,103 $104,942 $91,613 $235,495 $39,063 ($70,225)
6 $225,994 $18,923 $34,443 $279,360 $1,349,712 $32,473 $7,246 $109,140 $87,415 $236,274 $43,087 ($27,138)
7 $230,514 $19,302 $34,443 $284,259 $1,633,970 $33,122 $7,390 $113,506 $83,049 $237,068 $47,191 $20,052
8 $235,124 $19,688 $34,443 $289,255 $1,923,225 $33,785 $7,538 $118,046 $78,509 $237,878 $51,377 $71,429
9 $239,827 $20,082 $34,443 $294,351 $2,217,577 $34,461 $7,689 $122,768 $73,787 $238,705 $55,646 $127,076
10 $244,623 $20,483 $34,443 $299,549 $2,517,126 $35,150 $7,843 $127,679 $68,877 $239,548 $60,002 $187,077
11 $249,516 $20,893 $27,555 $297,963 $2,815,089 $35,853 $8,000 $132,786 $63,770 $240,408 $57,555 $244,633
12 $254,506 $21,311 $27,555 $303,371 $3,118,460 $36,570 $8,160 $138,097 $58,458 $241,285 $62,086 $306,719
13 $259,596 $21,737 $27,555 $308,887 $3,427,348 $37,301 $8,323 $143,621 $52,934 $242,179 $66,708 $373,427
14 $264,788 $22,172 $27,555 $314,514 $3,741,862 $38,047 $8,489 $149,366 $47,189 $243,092 $71,422 $444,849
15 $270,084 $22,615 $27,555 $320,253 $4,062,115 $38,808 $8,659 $155,340 $41,215 $244,023 $76,231 $521,080
16 $275,485 $23,067 $27,555 $326,107 $4,388,223 $39,584 $8,832 $161,554 $35,001 $244,972 $81,135 $602,216
17 $280,995 $23,529 $27,555 $332,078 $4,720,301 $40,376 $9,009 $168,016 $28,539 $245,940 $86,138 $688,354
18 $286,615 $23,999 $27,555 $338,169 $5,058,470 $41,184 $9,189 $174,737 $21,818 $246,928 $91,241 $779,595
19 $292,347 $24,479 $27,555 $344,381 $5,402,851 $42,007 $9,373 $181,726 $14,829 $247,935 $96,446 $876,040
20 $298,194 $24,969 $27,555 $350,718 $5,753,568 $42,847 $9,560 $188,995 $7,560 $248,963 $101,755 $1,645,608

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Net Present Value $1,634,609 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 $ 225,258
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $ 89,336 $106,410 $204,496 ($204,496) ($204,496)

2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $92,909 $102,837 $244,671 $83,546 ($120,950)
3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $96,626 $99,120 $245,649 $88,265 ($32,685)
4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $100,491 $95,255 $246,647 $93,078 $60,393
5 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $104,510 $91,236 $247,665 $97,987 $158,380
6 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $108,691 $87,055 $248,704 $102,995 $261,375
7 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $113,038 $82,707 $249,763 $108,102 $369,477
8 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $117,560 $78,186 $250,843 $113,312 $482,789
9 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $122,262 $73,484 $251,945 $118,626 $601,415
10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $127,153 $68,593 $253,069 $124,046 $725,461
11 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $132,239 $63,507 $254,216 $120,902 $846,363
12 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $137,528 $58,217 $255,385 $126,541 $972,904
13 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $143,030 $52,716 $256,578 $132,293 $1,105,197
14 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $148,751 $46,995 $257,795 $138,160 $1,243,358
15 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $154,701 $41,045 $259,036 $144,145 $1,387,502
16 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $160,889 $34,857 $260,301 $150,249 $1,537,751
17 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $167,324 $28,421 $261,592 $156,475 $1,694,225
18 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $174,017 $21,729 $262,909 $162,825 $1,857,051
19 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $180,978 $14,768 $264,253 $169,303 $2,026,354
20 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $188,217 $7,529 $265,623 $175,910 $2,867,326

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $ 157,507 $187,610 $358,242 ($358,242) ($358,242)

2 $208,783 $292,303 $76,278 $577,364 $577,364 $60,000 $13,388 $163,807 $181,310 $418,504 $158,860 ($199,382)
3 $212,959 $298,149 $76,278 $587,386 $1,164,749 $61,200 $13,655 $170,359 $174,757 $419,972 $167,414 ($31,969)
4 $217,218 $304,112 $76,278 $597,608 $1,762,357 $62,424 $13,928 $177,174 $167,943 $421,469 $176,139 $144,170
5 $221,563 $310,194 $76,278 $608,034 $2,370,391 $63,672 $14,207 $184,261 $160,856 $422,996 $185,038 $329,208
6 $225,994 $316,398 $76,278 $618,669 $2,989,061 $64,946 $14,491 $191,631 $153,486 $424,554 $194,116 $523,324
7 $230,514 $322,726 $76,278 $629,517 $3,618,578 $66,245 $14,781 $199,296 $145,820 $426,143 $203,375 $726,698
8 $235,124 $329,180 $76,278 $640,582 $4,259,160 $67,570 $15,076 $207,268 $137,849 $427,763 $212,819 $939,517
9 $239,827 $335,764 $76,278 $651,868 $4,911,028 $68,921 $15,378 $215,559 $129,558 $429,416 $222,452 $1,161,969
10 $244,623 $342,479 $76,278 $663,380 $5,574,408 $70,300 $15,686 $224,181 $120,936 $431,102 $232,278 $1,394,248
11 $249,516 $349,329 $61,022 $659,866 $6,234,275 $71,706 $15,999 $233,149 $111,968 $432,822 $227,045 $1,621,292
12 $254,506 $356,315 $61,022 $671,843 $6,906,118 $73,140 $16,319 $242,474 $102,642 $434,576 $237,268 $1,858,560
13 $259,596 $363,442 $61,022 $684,060 $7,590,178 $74,602 $16,646 $252,173 $92,943 $436,365 $247,695 $2,106,255
14 $264,788 $370,711 $61,022 $696,521 $8,286,699 $76,095 $16,979 $262,260 $82,856 $438,190 $258,331 $2,364,585
15 $270,084 $378,125 $61,022 $709,231 $8,995,929 $77,616 $17,318 $272,751 $72,366 $440,051 $269,179 $2,633,765
16 $275,485 $385,687 $61,022 $722,195 $9,718,124 $79,169 $17,665 $283,661 $61,456 $441,950 $280,245 $2,914,009
17 $280,995 $393,401 $61,022 $735,418 $10,453,542 $80,752 $18,018 $295,007 $50,110 $443,887 $291,531 $3,205,541
18 $286,615 $401,269 $61,022 $748,906 $11,202,448 $82,367 $18,378 $306,808 $38,309 $445,862 $303,044 $3,508,585
19 $292,347 $409,294 $61,022 $762,664 $11,965,112 $84,014 $18,746 $319,080 $26,037 $447,877 $314,787 $3,823,371
20 $298,194 $417,480 $61,022 $776,697 $12,741,808 $85,695 $19,121 $331,843 $13,274 $449,932 $326,764 $5,322,698

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $ 157,507 $187,610 $358,242 ($358,242) ($358,242)

2 $208,783 $245,690 $69,182 $523,656 $523,656 $60,000 $13,388 $163,807 $181,310 $418,504 $105,151 ($253,091)
3 $212,959 $250,604 $69,182 $532,745 $1,056,401 $61,200 $13,655 $170,359 $174,757 $419,972 $112,773 ($140,318)
4 $217,218 $255,616 $69,182 $542,016 $1,598,417 $62,424 $13,928 $177,174 $167,943 $421,469 $120,547 ($19,770)
5 $221,563 $260,728 $69,182 $551,473 $2,149,890 $63,672 $14,207 $184,261 $160,856 $422,996 $128,477 $108,706
6 $225,994 $265,943 $69,182 $561,119 $2,711,009 $64,946 $14,491 $191,631 $153,486 $424,554 $136,565 $245,271
7 $230,514 $271,262 $69,182 $570,958 $3,281,966 $66,245 $14,781 $199,296 $145,820 $426,143 $144,815 $390,086
8 $235,124 $276,687 $69,182 $580,993 $3,862,959 $67,570 $15,076 $207,268 $137,849 $427,763 $153,230 $543,316
9 $239,827 $282,221 $69,182 $591,229 $4,454,189 $68,921 $15,378 $215,559 $129,558 $429,416 $161,813 $705,130
10 $244,623 $287,865 $69,182 $601,670 $5,055,859 $70,300 $15,686 $224,181 $120,936 $431,102 $170,568 $875,698
11 $249,516 $293,622 $55,346 $598,484 $5,654,342 $71,706 $15,999 $233,149 $111,968 $432,822 $165,662 $1,041,360
12 $254,506 $299,495 $55,346 $609,346 $6,263,689 $73,140 $16,319 $242,474 $102,642 $434,576 $174,771 $1,216,130
13 $259,596 $305,485 $55,346 $620,426 $6,884,115 $74,602 $16,646 $252,173 $92,943 $436,365 $184,061 $1,400,192
14 $264,788 $311,594 $55,346 $631,728 $7,515,843 $76,095 $16,979 $262,260 $82,856 $438,190 $193,538 $1,593,730
15 $270,084 $317,826 $55,346 $643,256 $8,159,098 $77,616 $17,318 $272,751 $72,366 $440,051 $203,204 $1,796,934
16 $275,485 $324,183 $55,346 $655,014 $8,814,112 $79,169 $17,665 $283,661 $61,456 $441,950 $213,064 $2,009,998
17 $280,995 $330,666 $55,346 $667,007 $9,481,119 $80,752 $18,018 $295,007 $50,110 $443,887 $223,120 $2,233,118
18 $286,615 $337,280 $55,346 $679,240 $10,160,360 $82,367 $18,378 $306,808 $38,309 $445,862 $233,378 $2,466,496
19 $292,347 $344,025 $55,346 $691,718 $10,852,078 $84,014 $18,746 $319,080 $26,037 $447,877 $243,841 $2,710,338
20 $298,194 $350,906 $55,346 $704,446 $11,556,524 $85,695 $19,121 $331,843 $13,274 $449,932 $254,513 $4,137,414

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 $60,791 $72,410 $138,451 ($138,451) ($138,451)

2 $192,666 $0 $35,194 $227,860 $227,860 $24,000 $5,355 $63,223 $69,978 $162,556 $65,303 ($73,148)
3 $196,519 $0 $35,194 $231,713 $459,573 $24,480 $5,462 $65,752 $67,449 $163,143 $68,570 ($4,578)
4 $200,449 $0 $35,194 $235,644 $695,217 $24,970 $5,571 $68,382 $64,819 $163,742 $71,901 $67,323
5 $204,458 $0 $35,194 $239,653 $934,869 $25,469 $5,683 $71,117 $62,084 $164,353 $75,299 $142,622
6 $208,548 $0 $35,194 $243,742 $1,178,611 $25,978 $5,796 $73,962 $59,239 $164,976 $78,766 $221,388
7 $212,718 $0 $35,194 $247,913 $1,426,523 $26,498 $5,912 $76,920 $56,281 $165,612 $82,301 $303,689
8 $216,973 $0 $35,194 $252,167 $1,678,690 $27,028 $6,031 $79,997 $53,204 $166,260 $85,907 $389,596
9 $221,312 $0 $35,194 $256,506 $1,935,197 $27,568 $6,151 $83,197 $50,004 $166,921 $89,585 $479,182
10 $225,739 $0 $35,194 $260,933 $2,196,130 $28,120 $6,274 $86,525 $46,676 $167,595 $93,337 $572,519
11 $230,253 $0 $29,328 $259,582 $2,455,711 $28,682 $6,400 $89,986 $43,215 $168,283 $91,298 $663,817
12 $234,858 $0 $29,328 $264,187 $2,719,898 $29,256 $6,528 $93,586 $39,616 $168,985 $95,202 $759,019
13 $239,556 $0 $29,328 $268,884 $2,988,782 $29,841 $6,658 $97,329 $35,872 $169,701 $99,183 $858,203
14 $244,347 $0 $29,328 $273,675 $3,262,458 $30,438 $6,791 $101,222 $31,979 $170,431 $103,245 $961,447
15 $249,234 $0 $29,328 $278,562 $3,541,020 $31,047 $6,927 $105,271 $27,930 $171,175 $107,387 $1,068,834
16 $254,218 $0 $29,328 $283,547 $3,824,566 $31,667 $7,066 $109,482 $23,720 $171,935 $111,612 $1,180,446
17 $259,303 $0 $29,328 $288,631 $4,113,197 $32,301 $7,207 $113,861 $19,340 $172,709 $115,922 $1,296,368
18 $264,489 $0 $29,328 $293,817 $4,407,015 $32,947 $7,351 $118,416 $14,786 $173,499 $120,318 $1,416,686
19 $269,778 $0 $29,328 $299,107 $4,706,122 $33,606 $7,498 $123,152 $10,049 $174,305 $124,801 $1,541,487
20 $275,174 $0 $29,328 $304,503 $5,010,624 $34,278 $7,648 $128,078 $5,123 $175,128 $129,375 $2,265,925
Scenario 1 Debt Financing, With Grant

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 $70,564 $84,050 $161,176 ($161,176) ($161,176)

2 $208,783 $17,482 $34,443 $260,709 $260,709 $30,000 $6,694 $73,386 $81,227 $191,307 $69,401 ($91,775)
3 $212,959 $17,832 $34,443 $265,234 $525,943 $30,600 $6,828 $76,322 $78,292 $192,041 $73,193 ($18,582)
4 $217,218 $18,188 $34,443 $269,850 $795,793 $31,212 $6,964 $79,375 $75,239 $192,790 $77,060 $58,478
5 $221,563 $18,552 $34,443 $274,558 $1,070,351 $31,836 $7,103 $82,549 $72,064 $193,553 $81,005 $139,483
6 $225,994 $18,923 $34,443 $279,360 $1,349,712 $32,473 $7,246 $85,851 $68,762 $194,332 $85,028 $224,511
7 $230,514 $19,302 $34,443 $284,259 $1,633,970 $33,122 $7,390 $89,286 $65,328 $195,127 $89,132 $313,644
8 $235,124 $19,688 $34,443 $289,255 $1,923,225 $33,785 $7,538 $92,857 $61,757 $195,937 $93,318 $406,962
9 $239,827 $20,082 $34,443 $294,351 $2,217,577 $34,461 $7,689 $96,571 $58,042 $196,763 $97,588 $504,550
10 $244,623 $20,483 $34,443 $299,549 $2,517,126 $35,150 $7,843 $100,434 $54,180 $197,606 $101,943 $606,493
11 $249,516 $20,893 $27,555 $297,963 $2,815,089 $35,853 $8,000 $104,451 $50,162 $198,466 $99,497 $705,990
12 $254,506 $21,311 $27,555 $303,371 $3,118,460 $36,570 $8,160 $108,630 $45,984 $199,343 $104,028 $810,018
13 $259,596 $21,737 $27,555 $308,887 $3,427,348 $37,301 $8,323 $112,975 $41,639 $200,238 $108,650 $918,668
14 $264,788 $22,172 $27,555 $314,514 $3,741,862 $38,047 $8,489 $117,494 $37,120 $201,150 $113,364 $1,032,032
15 $270,084 $22,615 $27,555 $320,253 $4,062,115 $38,808 $8,659 $122,193 $32,420 $202,081 $118,172 $1,150,204
16 $275,485 $23,067 $27,555 $326,107 $4,388,223 $39,584 $8,832 $127,081 $27,533 $203,030 $123,077 $1,273,281
17 $280,995 $23,529 $27,555 $332,078 $4,720,301 $40,376 $9,009 $132,164 $22,449 $203,999 $128,080 $1,401,361
18 $286,615 $23,999 $27,555 $338,169 $5,058,470 $41,184 $9,189 $137,451 $17,163 $204,986 $133,183 $1,534,543
19 $292,347 $24,479 $27,555 $344,381 $5,402,851 $42,007 $9,373 $142,949 $11,665 $205,994 $138,387 $1,672,931
20 $298,194 $24,969 $27,555 $350,718 $5,753,568 $42,847 $9,560 $148,667 $5,947 $207,021 $143,696 $2,484,440

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $70,194 $83,610 $162,554 ($162,554) ($162,554)

2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $73,002 $80,802 $202,729 $125,488 ($37,066)
3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $75,922 $77,882 $203,708 $130,207 $93,140
4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $78,959 $74,845 $204,706 $135,019 $228,160
5 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $82,117 $71,687 $205,724 $139,929 $368,088
6 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $85,402 $68,402 $206,762 $144,936 $513,025
7 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $88,818 $64,986 $207,821 $150,044 $663,068
8 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $92,371 $61,433 $208,902 $155,253 $818,322
9 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $96,066 $57,739 $210,004 $160,567 $978,889
10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $99,908 $53,896 $211,128 $165,988 $1,144,877
11 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $103,905 $49,900 $212,274 $162,844 $1,307,720
12 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $108,061 $45,743 $213,444 $168,483 $1,476,203
13 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $112,383 $41,421 $214,636 $174,235 $1,650,438
14 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $116,879 $36,926 $215,853 $180,102 $1,830,540
15 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $121,554 $32,251 $217,094 $186,086 $2,016,626
16 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $126,416 $27,388 $218,360 $192,190 $2,208,816
17 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $131,473 $22,332 $219,651 $198,416 $2,407,233
18 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $136,731 $17,073 $220,968 $204,767 $2,611,999
19 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $142,201 $11,604 $222,311 $211,245 $2,823,244
20 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $147,889 $5,916 $223,681 $217,852 $3,706,158

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $138,365 $164,810 $316,300 ($316,300) ($316,300)

2 $208,783 $292,303 $76,278 $577,364 $577,364 $60,000 $13,388 $143,900 $159,275 $376,563 $200,801 ($115,499)
3 $212,959 $298,149 $76,278 $587,386 $1,164,749 $61,200 $13,655 $149,656 $153,519 $378,030 $209,355 $93,856
4 $217,218 $304,112 $76,278 $597,608 $1,762,357 $62,424 $13,928 $155,642 $147,533 $379,528 $218,080 $311,936
5 $221,563 $310,194 $76,278 $608,034 $2,370,391 $63,672 $14,207 $161,868 $141,307 $381,055 $226,980 $538,916
6 $225,994 $316,398 $76,278 $618,669 $2,989,061 $64,946 $14,491 $168,342 $134,833 $382,612 $236,057 $774,973
7 $230,514 $322,726 $76,278 $629,517 $3,618,578 $66,245 $14,781 $175,076 $128,099 $384,201 $245,316 $1,020,289
8 $235,124 $329,180 $76,278 $640,582 $4,259,160 $67,570 $15,076 $182,079 $121,096 $385,821 $254,761 $1,275,050
9 $239,827 $335,764 $76,278 $651,868 $4,911,028 $68,921 $15,378 $189,362 $113,813 $387,474 $264,394 $1,539,444
10 $244,623 $342,479 $76,278 $663,380 $5,574,408 $70,300 $15,686 $196,937 $106,238 $389,160 $274,220 $1,813,663
11 $249,516 $349,329 $61,022 $659,866 $6,234,275 $71,706 $15,999 $204,814 $98,361 $390,880 $268,986 $2,082,650
12 $254,506 $356,315 $61,022 $671,843 $6,906,118 $73,140 $16,319 $213,007 $90,168 $392,634 $279,209 $2,361,859
13 $259,596 $363,442 $61,022 $684,060 $7,590,178 $74,602 $16,646 $221,527 $81,648 $394,423 $289,636 $2,651,496
14 $264,788 $370,711 $61,022 $696,521 $8,286,699 $76,095 $16,979 $230,388 $72,787 $396,248 $300,272 $2,951,768
15 $270,084 $378,125 $61,022 $709,231 $8,995,929 $77,616 $17,318 $239,604 $63,571 $398,110 $311,121 $3,262,889
16 $275,485 $385,687 $61,022 $722,195 $9,718,124 $79,169 $17,665 $249,188 $53,987 $400,008 $322,186 $3,585,075
17 $280,995 $393,401 $61,022 $735,418 $10,453,542 $80,752 $18,018 $259,155 $44,020 $401,945 $333,473 $3,918,548
18 $286,615 $401,269 $61,022 $748,906 $11,202,448 $82,367 $18,378 $269,522 $33,654 $403,921 $344,986 $4,263,533
19 $292,347 $409,294 $61,022 $762,664 $11,965,112 $84,014 $18,746 $280,303 $22,873 $405,935 $356,728 $4,620,262
20 $298,194 $417,480 $61,022 $776,697 $12,741,808 $85,695 $19,121 $291,515 $11,661 $407,991 $368,706 $6,161,530

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $138,365 $164,810 $316,300 ($316,300) ($316,300)

2 $208,783 $245,690 $69,182 $523,656 $523,656 $60,000 $13,388 $143,900 $159,275 $376,563 $147,093 ($169,207)
3 $212,959 $250,604 $69,182 $532,745 $1,056,401 $61,200 $13,655 $149,656 $153,519 $378,030 $154,715 ($14,493)
4 $217,218 $255,616 $69,182 $542,016 $1,598,417 $62,424 $13,928 $155,642 $147,533 $379,528 $162,489 $147,996
5 $221,563 $260,728 $69,182 $551,473 $2,149,890 $63,672 $14,207 $161,868 $141,307 $381,055 $170,418 $318,414
6 $225,994 $265,943 $69,182 $561,119 $2,711,009 $64,946 $14,491 $168,342 $134,833 $382,612 $178,507 $496,921
7 $230,514 $271,262 $69,182 $570,958 $3,281,966 $66,245 $14,781 $175,076 $128,099 $384,201 $186,757 $683,678
8 $235,124 $276,687 $69,182 $580,993 $3,862,959 $67,570 $15,076 $182,079 $121,096 $385,821 $195,172 $878,849
9 $239,827 $282,221 $69,182 $591,229 $4,454,189 $68,921 $15,378 $189,362 $113,813 $387,474 $203,755 $1,082,604
10 $244,623 $287,865 $69,182 $601,670 $5,055,859 $70,300 $15,686 $196,937 $106,238 $389,160 $212,510 $1,295,114
11 $249,516 $293,622 $55,346 $598,484 $5,654,342 $71,706 $15,999 $204,814 $98,361 $390,880 $207,603 $1,502,717
12 $254,506 $299,495 $55,346 $609,346 $6,263,689 $73,140 $16,319 $213,007 $90,168 $392,634 $216,712 $1,719,429
13 $259,596 $305,485 $55,346 $620,426 $6,884,115 $74,602 $16,646 $221,527 $81,648 $394,423 $226,003 $1,945,432
14 $264,788 $311,594 $55,346 $631,728 $7,515,843 $76,095 $16,979 $230,388 $72,787 $396,248 $235,480 $2,180,912
15 $270,084 $317,826 $55,346 $643,256 $8,159,098 $77,616 $17,318 $239,604 $63,571 $398,110 $245,146 $2,426,058
16 $275,485 $324,183 $55,346 $655,014 $8,814,112 $79,169 $17,665 $249,188 $53,987 $400,008 $255,005 $2,681,063
17 $280,995 $330,666 $55,346 $667,007 $9,481,119 $80,752 $18,018 $259,155 $44,020 $401,945 $265,062 $2,946,125
18 $286,615 $337,280 $55,346 $679,240 $10,160,360 $82,367 $18,378 $269,522 $33,654 $403,921 $275,320 $3,221,445
19 $292,347 $344,025 $55,346 $691,718 $10,852,078 $84,014 $18,746 $280,303 $22,873 $405,935 $285,783 $3,507,228
20 $298,194 $350,906 $55,346 $704,446 $11,556,524 $85,695 $19,121 $291,515 $11,661 $407,991 $296,455 $4,976,246

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Net Capacity Factor 15.84% S = -20% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 $ 12,661
Net Present Value ($380,398) Simple Payback 21.95 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 $ 225,258
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $ 4,120,250 $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)

2 $208,783 $19,101 $34,690 $262,574 $262,574 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $213,649 ($3,915,351)
3 $212,959 $19,483 $34,690 $267,131 $529,705 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $217,228 ($3,698,123)
4 $217,218 $19,872 $34,690 $271,780 $801,485 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $220,879 ($3,477,245)
5 $221,563 $20,270 $34,690 $276,522 $1,078,007 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $224,602 ($3,252,642)
6 $225,994 $20,675 $34,690 $281,359 $1,359,366 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $228,401 ($3,024,241)
7 $230,514 $21,089 $34,690 $286,292 $1,645,658 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $232,275 ($2,791,967)
8 $235,124 $21,510 $34,690 $291,324 $1,936,982 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $236,227 ($2,555,740)
9 $239,827 $21,941 $34,690 $296,457 $2,233,439 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $240,257 ($2,315,482)
10 $244,623 $22,380 $34,690 $301,692 $2,535,131 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $244,369 ($2,071,114)
11 $249,516 $22,827 $27,752 $300,094 $2,835,226 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $241,624 ($1,829,489)
12 $254,506 $23,284 $27,752 $305,541 $3,140,767 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $245,902 ($1,583,587)
13 $259,596 $23,749 $27,752 $311,097 $3,451,864 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $250,265 ($1,333,323)
14 $264,788 $24,224 $27,752 $316,764 $3,768,628 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $254,715 ($1,078,607)
15 $270,084 $24,709 $27,752 $322,544 $4,091,172 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $259,254 ($819,353)
16 $275,485 $25,203 $27,752 $328,440 $4,419,612 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $263,884 ($555,469)
17 $280,995 $25,707 $27,752 $334,454 $4,754,066 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $268,607 ($286,862)
18 $286,615 $26,221 $27,752 $340,588 $5,094,653 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $273,424 ($13,437)
19 $292,347 $26,746 $27,752 $346,844 $5,441,498 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $278,338 $264,900
20 $298,194 $27,281 $27,752 $353,226 $5,794,724 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $283,349 $1,720,812
Scenario S-1 Equity Financing, No Grant

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Net Capacity Factor 17.82% S = -10% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 $ 12,661
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $ 4,120,250 $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)

2 $208,783 $47,586 $39,026 $295,395 $295,395 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $246,470 ($3,882,530)
3 $212,959 $48,538 $39,026 $300,523 $595,918 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $250,619 ($3,631,910)
4 $217,218 $49,509 $39,026 $305,753 $901,671 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $254,851 ($3,377,059)
5 $221,563 $50,499 $39,026 $311,087 $1,212,758 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $259,168 ($3,117,891)
6 $225,994 $51,509 $39,026 $316,529 $1,529,287 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $263,571 ($2,854,321)
7 $230,514 $52,539 $39,026 $322,079 $1,851,366 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $268,061 ($2,586,259)
8 $235,124 $53,590 $39,026 $327,740 $2,179,105 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $272,642 ($2,313,617)
9 $239,827 $54,662 $39,026 $333,514 $2,512,619 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $277,314 ($2,036,303)
10 $244,623 $55,755 $39,026 $339,404 $2,852,023 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $282,080 ($1,754,222)
11 $249,516 $56,870 $31,221 $337,606 $3,189,629 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $279,136 ($1,475,086)
12 $254,506 $58,007 $31,221 $343,734 $3,533,363 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $284,095 ($1,190,992)
13 $259,596 $59,167 $31,221 $349,984 $3,883,347 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $289,152 ($901,840)
14 $264,788 $60,351 $31,221 $356,359 $4,239,706 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $294,311 ($607,529)
15 $270,084 $61,558 $31,221 $362,862 $4,602,568 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $299,572 ($307,957)
16 $275,485 $62,789 $31,221 $369,495 $4,972,063 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $304,939 ($3,017)
17 $280,995 $64,045 $31,221 $376,260 $5,348,324 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $310,414 $307,397
18 $286,615 $65,326 $31,221 $383,161 $5,731,485 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $315,998 $623,394
19 $292,347 $66,632 $31,221 $390,200 $6,121,685 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $321,693 $945,088
20 $298,194 $67,965 $31,221 $397,380 $6,519,065 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $327,503 $2,445,153

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,734,480 Base Case Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 $ 19,792
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $ 4,120,250 $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)

2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $279,292 ($3,849,708)
3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $284,011 ($3,565,697)
4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $288,824 ($3,276,873)
5 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $293,733 ($2,983,140)
6 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $298,740 ($2,684,400)
7 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $303,848 ($2,380,552)
8 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $309,058 ($2,071,494)
9 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $314,372 ($1,757,123)
10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $319,792 ($1,437,331)
11 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $316,648 ($1,120,683)
12 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $322,287 ($798,396)
13 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $328,039 ($470,357)
14 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $333,906 ($136,451)
15 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $339,890 $203,440
16 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $345,994 $549,434
17 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $352,221 $901,655
18 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $358,571 $1,260,226
19 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $365,049 $1,625,275
20 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $371,656 $3,169,493

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Net Capacity Factor 21.78% S = +10% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 $ 12,661
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $ 4,120,250 $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)

2 $208,783 $104,557 $47,698 $361,039 $361,039 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $312,114 ($3,816,886)
3 $212,959 $106,648 $47,698 $367,306 $728,345 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $317,402 ($3,499,484)
4 $217,218 $108,781 $47,698 $373,698 $1,102,042 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $322,796 ($3,176,688)
5 $221,563 $110,957 $47,698 $380,218 $1,482,260 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $328,298 ($2,848,389)
6 $225,994 $113,176 $47,698 $386,868 $1,869,128 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $333,910 ($2,514,479)
7 $230,514 $115,440 $47,698 $393,652 $2,262,780 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $339,634 ($2,174,845)
8 $235,124 $117,748 $47,698 $400,571 $2,663,351 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $345,473 ($1,829,371)
9 $239,827 $120,103 $47,698 $407,628 $3,070,979 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $351,429 ($1,477,943)
10 $244,623 $122,505 $47,698 $414,827 $3,485,806 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $357,503 ($1,120,439)
11 $249,516 $124,956 $38,159 $412,630 $3,898,435 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $354,160 ($766,280)
12 $254,506 $127,455 $38,159 $420,119 $4,318,555 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $360,480 ($405,800)
13 $259,596 $130,004 $38,159 $427,758 $4,746,313 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $366,926 ($38,874)
14 $264,788 $132,604 $38,159 $435,550 $5,181,863 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $373,502 $334,628
15 $270,084 $135,256 $38,159 $443,498 $5,625,361 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $380,208 $714,836
16 $275,485 $137,961 $38,159 $451,605 $6,076,966 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $387,049 $1,101,886
17 $280,995 $140,720 $38,159 $459,874 $6,536,840 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $394,027 $1,495,913
18 $286,615 $143,535 $38,159 $468,308 $7,005,148 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $401,145 $1,897,058
19 $292,347 $146,405 $38,159 $476,911 $7,482,059 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $408,404 $2,305,462
20 $298,194 $149,334 $38,159 $485,686 $7,967,746 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $415,809 $3,893,834

Mashpee High School
Mashpee, MA

Net Capacity Factor 23.76% S = +20% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 $ 12,661
1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $ 4,120,250 $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)

2 $208,783 $133,043 $52,034 $393,861 $393,861 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $344,936 ($3,784,064)
3 $212,959 $135,704 $52,034 $400,697 $794,558 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $350,794 ($3,433,271)
4 $217,218 $138,418 $52,034 $407,670 $1,202,228 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $356,769 ($3,076,502)
5 $221,563 $141,186 $52,034 $414,783 $1,617,011 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $362,863 ($2,713,638)
6 $225,994 $144,010 $52,034 $422,038 $2,039,049 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $369,080 ($2,344,558)
7 $230,514 $146,890 $52,034 $429,438 $2,468,487 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $375,421 ($1,969,137)
8 $235,124 $149,828 $52,034 $436,986 $2,905,474 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $381,889 ($1,587,249)
9 $239,827 $152,824 $52,034 $444,685 $3,350,159 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $388,486 ($1,198,763)
10 $244,623 $155,881 $52,034 $452,538 $3,802,697 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $395,215 ($803,548)
11 $249,516 $158,998 $41,628 $450,141 $4,252,839 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $391,672 ($411,876)
12 $254,506 $162,178 $41,628 $458,312 $4,711,150 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $398,672 ($13,204)
13 $259,596 $165,422 $41,628 $466,645 $5,177,796 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $405,813 $392,609
14 $264,788 $168,730 $41,628 $475,146 $5,652,942 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $413,097 $805,706
15 $270,084 $172,105 $41,628 $483,816 $6,136,758 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $420,526 $1,226,233
16 $275,485 $175,547 $41,628 $492,660 $6,629,418 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $428,104 $1,654,337
17 $280,995 $179,058 $41,628 $501,681 $7,131,098 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $435,834 $2,090,171
18 $286,615 $182,639 $41,628 $510,882 $7,641,980 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $443,718 $2,533,889
19 $292,347 $186,292 $41,628 $520,267 $8,162,247 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $451,760 $2,985,649
20 $298,194 $190,018 $41,628 $529,840 $8,692,086 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $459,963 $4,618,174

Feasibility Study Report - FINAL

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Feasibility Study Report - FINAL

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

D

tel: 978-532-1900 fax: 978-977-0100

Feasibility Study Final Report

50m: 5.7596 m/s

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. IV

Figure 1 ......................................................................................................USGS Topographic Map

ABC American Bird Conservancy

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Figure 1- USGS Site Location Map

Figure 2 - Site Vicinity Map

2.0 WIND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

2.1 Methodology and Data Sources

Municipal Transfer South Heritage Mashpee John’s Garner/Farley Coombs

2.2 Obstructions and Their Impact on Wind Resources

2.3 Correlation to Long Term Data

Figure 3 – AWS Truewind Speeds

3.0 INSTALLATION SITE AND VICINITY

3.1 Evaluation of Site Vicinity

Site 1 Municipal Complex

Site 2 Transfer Station

Site 3 South Cape Beach

Site 4 Heritage Park

Site 5 Mashpee High School

Site 6 John’s Pond Bog

Site 7 Garner/Farley Bog

Site 8 Coombs Elementary School

Height Restrictions and Proximity to Airports

Table 2-3 Obstruction Evaluation and Maximum Heights

Fire/Police Complex 2008-WTE-4339-OE FAA 234

70° 30’ 23.00” West

3.2 Site Physical Characteristics

3.3 Wind Turbine Location

70° 30’ 20.95” West

3.4 Site Access

3.5 Site Geology and Soil Conditions

Figure 4 Geologic Map

Figure 5 Soils Map

3.6 Mashpee Electricity Use

3.7 Existing Electrical Infrastructure at Mashpee High School

3.8 Electrical Interconnection Plan

3.9 Electrical Interconnection Details

NStar Electric Interconnection Requirements

Electrical Interconnection Equipment Details

Generator Step-up and Step-down Transformers

Interconnection Circuit 25kV Class Cables

Utility Disconnect Switch

Protective Relay Scheme

3.10 Revenue Metering Modifications

3.11 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimate

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY REVIEW AND PERMITTING PLAN

4.1 Environmental Review

Avian and Wildlife Impact Analysis

Landscape Evaluation and Analysis

The landscape evaluation focused on examining aerial photography of existing conditions to

Table 4-1 Mass GIS Screening Data Layers

Data Layers Authority Date of Update

Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife NHESP September 2008

Figure 6 Area Receptors Map

Species Listing and Habitat Considerations

Table 4-2 List of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife in Mashpee

Dragonfly/Damselfly Anax longipes Comet Darner SC 1996

Table 4-3 Birds of Conservation Concern

Figure 7 North American Flyways with Principal Routes

4.2 Reduction in Air Pollution