mt wachusett community college wind feasibility final...

MOUNT WACHUSETT

COMMUNITY COLLEGE WIND TURBINE

FEASIBILITY STUDY

JEG PROJECT Nº. E2X30501

DCAM PROJECT Nº. MWC0801 ES1

August 18, 2008

Prepared For: MT. WACHUSETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Prepared By: JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP 343 CONGRESS STREET BOSTON, MA 02210

MOUNT WACHUSETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE WIND TURBINE FEASIBILITY STUDY

JEG PROJECT N° E2X30501

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 1 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WIND ENERGY PROJECT 3 2 - FEASIBILITY STUDY TEAM 4 3 - REPORT METHODOLOGY 5 4 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 6 5 - SITE DESCRIPTION: 15 6 - WIND RESOURCE ANALYSIS 17 7 - WIND POWER ASSESSMENT & TURBINE REVIEW 28 8 - WIND TURBINE SELECTION 34 9 - CAMPUS ELECTRICAL LOAD 37 10 - ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION 39 11 - PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 41 12 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST PROJECTIONS 43 13 - OVERVIEW OF WIND PROJECT ECONOMICS 46 14 - ELECTRICTY, REC MARKET & FCM MARKET FORCASTS 51 15 - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 55 16 - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 70 17 - FAA PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS 78 18 - PRELIMINARY SOUND ANALYSIS 80 19 - PUBLIC OPINION CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPACTS 82 20 - NEW LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IMPACTING THE PROJECT 84 21 - PROJECT UNCERTAINTIES 85 22 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89 APPENDIX A: WIND DATA 90 APPENDIX B: NEW NET METERING LEGISLATION 99 APPENDIX C: PROJECT PERMITTING SUBMISSIONS 106 APPENDIX D: PROJECT PERMITTING REGULATORY RESPONSES 117 APPENDIX E: RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM DCAM 123 APPENDIX F: STUDY TEAM BIOS (Listed Alphabetically) 125



2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) provided funding for this study. On behalf of DCAM, John Crisley, Energy Planner and Jenna Ide, AICP, Manager of the DCAM Energy Efficiency & Sustainable Buildings Group provided project oversight. Mr. Ed Terceiro, P.E., Executive Vice President of Mount Wachusett Community College and Mr. Robert Rizzo, Director of Facilities Administration for the college provided overall guidance on the project. They performed project reviews as the project owner and provided critical project direction and key information regarding siting, system sizing, campus energy use and supply, financing and other factors critical to a project of this nature. Bill Swift and Jim Larrabee, also members of the college facilities department, were instrumental in providing us with information on the existing electrical systems at the college and aided in our review of potential sites for the project on the campus. Keith Bennett, Laura Margason and Tim Ramsey at the U.S. Department of Energy have been very helpful in advising us regarding the environmental reviews DOE will require to comply with their funding allocation for the project and on other matters. Some graphics in this report are from a DOE sponsored study: “Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006” by Ryan Wiser and Mark Bolinger of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. We want to acknowledge the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Renewable Energy Trust, which provided funding to DCAM for this study. Warren Leon, Jon Abe and others at the Trust provided important insights and suggestions relative to the proposed project. Ian Finlayson at the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs has been a supportive advocate for this project and helped with valuable advice. Special acknowledgement is given to Michael Tennis, a recently deceased associate who was a core member of the first Edwards and Kelcey – Heartwood Group team for a DCAM wind project feasibility study and whose decades of work has helped lead to the current success of the renewable energy industry. His work, in edited form, appears in the sections on Project Uncertainties and the Overview of Wind Project Economics. Everyone on the project team appreciates the opportunity to be part of this study and we look forward to working with the DCAM and the Mount Wachusett Community College on permitting and design services in moving to the next stage of this project.



3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WIND ENERGY PROJECT

1 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WIND ENERGY PROJECT Mount Wachusett Community College (MWCC) is located on a 300 acre state owned site in Gardner, Massachusetts. The college plans to install one or two wind turbines on campus. The project would be funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. Mount Wachusett Community College is a recognized pioneer in clean energy technology. On a campus once entirely electrically heated, the college has installed a biomass fired heating system, a biomass gasification and cogeneration system and numerous energy conservation measures. The college has begun two new renewable energy initiatives by procuring substantial grants and low interest bond funding to subsidize the cost of installing significant solar and wind energy projects. In keeping with its history of sound financial and environmental planning, the college is proposing to erect one or two grid connected megawatt scale wind turbine electric generators (WTGs) on the campus to offset power purchases. The Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) has made a substantial commitment to utilizing clean energy technologies and energy conservation on state owned facilities. DCAM hired Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey and a team of renewable energy consultants to provide feasibility and engineering services on proposed energy projects on state owned facilities throughout the Commonwealth. In this project, the JEK team has been tasked with accessing whether or not it is feasible and prudent to install wind turbines to meet some of the electricity supply needs of the college and hedge some of the uncertainties inherent in future pricing of electricity. The feasibility study team has demonstrable expertise in wind energy project assessment and development; energy project engineering; environmental and aviation permitting; and energy cost and market assessment. The project team consists of:

• Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey served as the prime consultant and provided electrical,

civil, environmental and aviation engineering and permitting services. • Heartwood Group, Inc. served as study coordinator and principal report author.

• E. F. McCarthy & Associates provided wind resource assessment.

• Endless Energy Corporation provided wind project development modeling and

economic assessment.

• Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC provided forecasting of markets for electrical energy, renewable energy credits and other potential revenue sources for the project.



4 FEASIBILITY STUDY TEAM

2 - FEASIBILITY STUDY TEAM Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey 343 Congress Street, 2nd Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02210 617-242-9222 W. Thompson Greer, PE Electrical Engineering [email protected] Maryann Magner Environmental Permitting [email protected] William Richardson Aviation Engineering [email protected] Heath Marsden Aviation Engineering [email protected] Roy Tiano Site & Civil Engineering [email protected] Heartwood Group, Inc. 165 Evergreen Street Providence, RI 02906 401-861-1650 Fred Unger Feasibility Study Manager [email protected] Endless Energy Corporation 57 Ryder Road Yarmouth, Maine 04096 207-847-9323 Harley Lee Project Economics [email protected] E. F. McCarthy & Associates 511 Frumenti Ct. Martinez, CA 94553 925-229-0648 Ed McCarthy Wind Resource Analysis [email protected] Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC 10 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701 508-665-5856 Jason S. Gifford Energy Market Projections [email protected]



5 REPORT METHODOLOGY

3 - REPORT METHODOLOGY In order to provide Mount Wachusett Community College with a comprehensive analysis of the proposed project the following activities were undertaken:

• Analysis of the available wind resource at the selected site • Recommendations of suitable wind turbine generators (WTGs) • Predictions of wind power based on wind resource analysis and WTG recommendations • Analysis of site conditions that impact project cost • Projection of project costs • Projection of operation and maintenance costs • Projection of electricity prices • Projection of renewable energy certificate values • Projection of other revenue streams • Projection of debt financing costs • Analysis of economic feasibility • Evaluation of environmental and permitting considerations • Evaluation of FAA permitting considerations • Analysis of current and likely legislative and regulatory impacts on the project • Analysis of project uncertainties • Public opinion considerations and impacts • Conclusions and recommendations

Mr. Terceiro and Mr. Rizzo requested that in addition to the feasibility analysis, the project team initiate permitting processes with the Federal Aviation Administration and several agencies with regulatory authority on environmental issues impacting the project. As presentation of our interim findings clarified potential options, Mr. Terceiro and Mr. Rizzo decided that:

• The project should include planning for construction of two large scale wind turbines. • The turbines would ideally be owned publicly, presumably by DCAM or the college. • If feasible, the turbines should both be located in the field identified by the study team as

the best location for the project development. • The study team should design the project to maximize the potential energy and financial

return from the wind turbines to the degree possible. Permitting submissions are attached in the appendix to this report.



6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following is the summary of our findings. We trust the information presented will help DCAM and the College make sound decisions as they further consider potential investment in wind energy solutions for the campus. Technical Issues

• Three areas of the campus were considered for siting the proposed project: 1) The site where the meteorological tower is now located. 2) In area adjacent to the “salt shed” behind the main campus. 3) An area of higher elevation at the far end of the campus.

• It was determined that the field in which the existing meteorological tower is located

would be the most favorable and cost effective for development due to its open exposure to prevailing winds, its easy access and lack of obstructions for construction, its proximity to the primary electric load center for the college and its maximum distance from any neighboring residences.

• It is technically feasible to deliver and erect one or two wind turbine generators on the

proposed site in the field where the meteorological tower now stands. The MWCC site involves simple construction with relatively minor civil and electrical elements. As a clear open site with only modest slope, the designated site has plenty of room in the field and adjacent parking areas for easy project staging and crane access. Only a very short simple access way will be needed. Underground cabling between the turbines and the proposed interconnection to the campus electrical system should be very straight forward The power line run will be at a modest voltage and over a relatively short distance with trenching through open field and lawn areas requiring no tree removal, and only one crossing of the two lane campus access road. We assumed current market prices for construction costs for this project. The relative ease of construction at this site reduces the risks of bid prices rising substantially and reduces the risks of cost overruns during construction.

• We evaluated the potential of using each WTG with a 60-m or 80-m hub height. There is

an economic trade-off with respect to hub height. The higher hub heights produce more annual energy due to the stronger winds found at higher heights, but the WTG tower, foundation and installation costs are greater and maintenance costs are slightly greater. Height considerations are also impacted by FAA permitting. Though our analysis of air traffic impacts indicate it would likely be easier to permit a project with a total height no greater than 315 feet above ground level, our finding that the added 15% energy output from a higher hub height would add very significant economic value, persuaded Mr. Terceiro to instruct us to apply for permitting for higher machines.




• The site has a modest wind resource. Based on wind studies conducted, the proposed site is considered a low-end IEC Class 2 wind site having an annual average wind speed of 5.5 m/s at 80 meters.

• Both the consulting team and the client feel it is important to be conservative in

minimizing the risks of the project by working with proven machines from strong manufacturers with a proven track record in many installations. Wind turbines analyzed for in depth analysis in this study were the Vestas V82/1650 and the GE 1.5 sle. Although other wind turbines may be economically attractive and could certainly work at the MWCC site, these turbines were used because they represent well proven turbines from leading manufacturers appropriate for the site’s wind regime and matching the on-site electrical load.

• Either of these two wind turbines will be producing at least some power about 80% of the

time and more during the day than at night. They will be turning an even higher percentage of the time, as they will be spinning in winds just below cut in speed. Since wind energy is still relatively uncommon in New England, having a wind turbine spinning a lot of the time is important from a public acceptance standpoint.

• At this site, the capacity factors for the turbines analyzed (GE 1.5 sle and Vestas V82)

would be about 18% using 80 meter hub height.

• Although the wind resource at MWCC is not adequate for large scale commercial wind farm development (in which typical capacity factors would be 30+ %), it is adequate for generating a significant amount of electricity and adequate economic returns for a behind-the-meter project.

• A Vestas V82 average output at this site is approximately 300 kw. About 30% of the time

it would produce more than 300kW. Depending on time of year and time of day, typical loads for the college are a low of 250kw to 300kw, highs of 600kW to 800kW and peaks of just over 1 MW. We estimate that all of the power produced by one turbine would be consumed by the college’s electrical load more than 90% of the time and that the power produced by two turbines would be consumed by the college’s load about 70% of the time.

• It would be advisable to do an Electromagnetic Interference study early in the design

phase of the project to determine whether the proposed project would have any impact on the nearby radio station WGAW 1340 AM.




Regulatory Issues

• Project submittals have been made to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and the Federal Aviation Administration.

• We received back the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s determination that “it

has been determined that this project is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources.”

• We received back the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program

determination that “at this time the site is not mapped as Priority or Estimated Habitat and the NHESP data base does not contain any state-listed rare species records in the immediate vicinity of this site. However, we recommend that potential impacts to birds be considered during the design and permitting process for all wind turbines”.

• We received back the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determination that “no federally-

listed or proposed, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are known to occur in the project area(s). Preparation of a Biological Assessment or further consultation with us under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required.” The letter goes on to recommend that three years of in-depth biological studies be performed.

• We are currently in ongoing discussions with FAA regarding the maximum allowable

height for the wind turbines. We expect a determination within the next two months.

• We do not anticipate any concern regarding the wind turbines impacting the operation of the private Life Flight medical helicopter landing area on the campus. Early in the permitting phase of the project, discussions should be held with Life Flight.

• Net metering legislation recently passed by the Massachusetts Legislature should assure

that any power generated by a single turbine project is valued at retail power values. It is still unclear from the definitions in the final language whether publicly owned facilities like the college will have Class 3 Net Metering Facilities treated differently than those of privately owned facilities and if a two turbine project as modeled would be treated as a net metered project, with power produced in excess of the on site demand valued at retail power values. Final regulations related to this bill have yet to be promulgated. Favorable net metering treatment in the final regulations will be important for the economics of the MWCC wind project. Legal interpretation of the final regulations is essential prior to proceeding with a project over 2 megawatts of total nameplate capacity.




• A wind turbine at MWCC of the scale studied (and especially two wind turbines) would produce more energy in some hours than are being consumed. Absent net metering treatment under pending legislation, power produced during those hours would be significantly less valuable than offsetting retail power. A careful review of the new legislation and regulations will be in order. An hour by hour modeling of the turbines output relative to the college’s loads would be appropriate if the legislation does not allow net metering treatment of the project.

• A real, but hard to economically quantify benefit of on-site wind power generation, is

significant mitigation of the environmental impacts of the college’s use of electricity. Economic Issues

• We estimate the total capital cost of a single turbine project could range from $3.8 million to $4.3 million depending on the manufacturer and model selected and other variables such as foundation costs. These capital costs include design and permitting; equipment purchase, delivery and erection, ancillary construction and improvements and manufacturer’s warranty.

• We estimate the total capital cost of a two turbine project would range from $7.5 to $8.3

million.

• We conservatively estimate that the O&M and other variable costs on the proposed wind turbines will start at approximately $28 per MWh for a single turbine and about $22/MWh plus escalation for a two turbine project. We escalated these amounts at 5 percent per year.

• Assuming a behind-the–meter project with most electricity generated offsetting

purchasing power at retail rates, our analyses show that the site will produce sufficient wind generated energy to make the project economically feasible with one turbine, especially in light of the grant from the US DOE committed to the project.

• A two turbine project will also be viable if pending net metering legislation and

regulations are passed allowing all exported power from the project to be valued at retail.

• A two turbine project would not be as economically favorable if power generated in excess of the behind-the-meter consumption were valued at wholesale or merchant power rates and should receive further scrutiny as details regarding implementation of the pending legislation become more clear.

• Mr. Terceiro is in ongoing discussions with the neighboring hospital in order to take

advantage of economies of scale in permitting, purchasing and building two turbines as shown in the proposed site plan, potentially sharing the costs of the project development and offsetting the electrical loads of both the college and the hospital.




• Regulations developed from the new net-metering legislation could significantly impact decisions regarding whether to interconnect both machines to the college’s electrical system or develop separate transmission and interconnections with one machine tied to the college’s load center and the other machine interconnected to the hospital. It will also be important to consider existing utility regulations potentially impacting such a “shared” project and design accordingly.

• The time and costs of biological studies of the type suggested by U.S Fish and Wildlife

were not anticipated or budgeted in our economic models and would have significant negative impacts on the economic viability of the project. Such levels of biological studies are not likely to be economically feasible on any small projects of this nature.

• The availability of the $1 million USDOE grant helps the economics of the project

significantly by reducing the capital costs by almost 25% on a single turbine project and reducing payback by two years.

• The likely availability of a 5% debt financing dramatically improves the Net Present

Value of the project. A twenty year amortization improves the NPV even more and has the added benefit of making the project provide positive cash flow throughout the entire 20 year period.

• In most of our models, our economic analysis assumes the power produced will be used

to offset retail purchased power and avoidable transmission and distribution charges whenever possible and that excess production is valued at retail as per pending net metering legislation. The analysis assumes a significant revenue stream from the sale of Renewable Energy Credits and, to a lesser extent, revenues from the ISO New England Forward Capacity Market. The electric power revenues/savings is valued roughly 50% higher than current wholesale spot market prices—about 13 cents per kWh vs. 8 cents per kWh for spot market power. These combined factors makes power generated on-site very valuable.

• With no fuel costs, the most significant components of pricing power from a wind

generation project are the capital costs and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital costs are relatively easy to project. O&M costs for the machines considered are also significantly easier to project with confidence than attempting to project electricity prices or fossil fuel costs twenty years into the future.

• In addition to providing the likely positive return on investment, the wind project would

hedge against future fuel price volatility allowing the College to more accurately predict and stabilize its future electric and overall operating costs. With a predictable cost structure hedging against volatility in future energy pricing is a key benefit of any well planned wind energy project.




• Our economic models show that that in order to maintain positive cash flow throughout the project life, the college should pursue a loan or bond with a twenty year amortization if possible.

• We recommend that the college pursue additional grants if possible in addition to the US

DOE grant. These grants increase the Net Present Value on almost a dollar for dollar basis, i.e., an additional $500k grant increases the NPV by almost $500k.

• Sales of renewable energy certificates (“RECs”) account for approximately a quarter of

savings/revenues. Of all the savings/revenue items, this one is the most unpredictable. REC prices are dependent on the political process in addition to market forces. Changes in project eligibility rules can cause huge swings in REC prices. Connecticut REC prices, for example, collapsed when its rules changed. A recommended way to manage REC price risk is to enter into a long term contract for REC sales with a credit worthy purchaser. The benefit of such long term contracts is to lock in predictable revenues. With the buyer assuming market risks, the prices for long term REC contracts are understandably lower than current market prices.

• In our modeling we discounted the value of ISO New England Forward Capacity Market

payments relative to their full projected values, both because the markets are just emerging and thus subject to some changes and also because at the present time the transaction costs of participating in the market is quite high for small generators.

• Private developer ownership and financing of the project does not appear feasible in that

projected returns are below the range needed for private project financing and the relatively small project size would have disproportionately high transaction costs.

• A very real potential constraint and potential cost impact on this project is the availability

of wind turbines. Most vendors prefer to only deal only with large orders over long periods of time. Because of the robust demand for wind turbines, vendors are backlogged and filling orders now for 2010. The college will need to be opportunistic in sourcing machines. For example, a cancelled project or the expiration of the Federal Production Tax Credit may free up some turbines. Intermediaries purchasing small numbers of turbines may be able to supply the college. Some consideration should be given to some newer suppliers in the US market.

• We recommend that the college pursue an O&M contract with the vendor for as long as

can be economically feasible.

• Because all estimates are preliminary, it is important that bid packages be prepared in such a way to encourage the most competitive bids possible from all reputable turbine manufacturers and contractors. We recommend that the college work closely with all potential and credible suppliers prior to the bid package being released in order to reduce the number of major issues that would induce a bidder not to bid.




• Potential 0% Community Renewable Energy Bond (CREB) financing available to public entities would enhance the project net cash flow and return on investment. However it may not be appropriate to wait for the next round of CREB financing and there is no assurance at this time that the college would win such bonding awards from historically limited allocations.

• Participating in the federal Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) would also

make the project economics more favorable. However the study team does not feel that REPI represents a stable enough potential source of income to include in financial projections.

• New initiatives like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) potentially will

provide financial benefits to renewable energy power projects, but the level of such returns are unclear at this time. No such revenues were presumed in our financial models.

• It is likely that a significant level of financial assistance for the project would be available

from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Renewable Energy Trust.

• With the exception of one model showing additional grants beyond the DOE funding, no revenues or financing benefits from REPI, CREBs, RGGI or MTC were presumed in any of the models. With significant financial benefits potentially available revenue through these programs, prior to proceeding with financing and construction, it would be advisable that the college determine the degree that such resources would be available to the project.

• The following table shows projected net 20 year project cash flows under various

scenarios.

• After reviewing our initial report, DCAM requested that for each scenario we analyzed we add a "cost per kilowatt hour" of electricity produced by the proposed system. We have provided an estimate of the levelized cost of energy averaged over the system life and have added that value to our report. In determining the approximate cost per kWh equivalent, we added all capital, operating and financing costs, then subtracted direct project subsidies and payments for REC revenues and FCM revenues and show the results as requested on a per-kWH basis. It should be noted that this figure does not completely account for the time value of capital invested, but rather just averages total economic inputs over the twenty year expected life of the project. It should also be noted that this calculation does not account for the value of the power generated, (wholesale or retail). In comparing the results of the different models, we strongly recommend that more weight be given to the NPV figure as a basis for comparison.

• The following table summarizes our economic analysis under various scenarios.




Uncertainties

• Like any long term capital investment, the project is not without some risk and uncertainties. Our objective in this analysis has been to prepare a reasonable assessment of the cost, performance, value, and economic viability of a wind turbine installation. It is important to realize that there are inherent uncertainties in making such projections.

• Uncertainty around several of critical variables can be reduced significantly over time as

the project is further developed. The cost of permitting becomes clearer as the process is begun. Cost of construction will become known after the permitting and engineering processes are completed and construction bids are available. There is uncertainty in the projection of Operation and Maintenance costs that will become more certain once the college defines its approach to O&M. Overall financing and capital costs for the project will also become more certain as the project develops and bids are received.

• Projecting the financial performance of any investment out over a twenty year time

horizon has inherent continuing uncertainties. The future pricing of electricity and inflation rates are by their nature unknowable with certainty. Similarly the long-term value of Renewable Energy Certificates, Forward Capacity Payments and other potential future revenues are not possible to project with certainty. Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC projected all of these variables for this study using the best available data available.

• A primary economic benefit of a wind power project at Mount Wachusett Community

College would be in stabilizing future energy pricing for the college and hedging against future energy price volatility. A wind project is inherently a hedge against inflation and unexpected increases in future energy costs. The price stability and independence from fossil-fuel price volatility make the proposed project itself protection against future price uncertainties.

For purposes of financial modeling we were generally conservative in our estimates. As a technology still considered innovative, it is important that wind projects not be sold to a public entity with expectations that are not conservative. We believe it would be far better for a wind project to exceed expectations and forecasts than to under perform in meeting public expectations. This report reflects the results of the feasibility study. Along with likely positive net cash flows from the project, ancillary benefits, such as environmental benefits of providing non-polluting wind energy production are very real hard to quantify economically. Assuming that the benefits outlined in the report are deemed to be favorable based on the risk reward analysis by the College, and that financing is available for the project, then we can recommend that further pre-development work would be conducted including assessing and gathering local support for the project, securing the necessary permits and approvals, arranging for financing of the project and proceeding to the actual project design and engineering.



15 SITE DESCRIPTION

5 - SITE DESCRIPTION: MWCC proposes to erect up to two wind turbines at the site of the current meteorological test tower, as shown on Figure 1, Project Locus. The existing met tower is approximately 164 feet high and has been operating since March of 2006. A view of the tower is provided in the following photo.

The proposed turbines would be installed on monopole towers with a total height to the top of the blade arc between approximately 250 and 415 feet above ground level (AGL). Final height and blade diameter determination will be made through an evaluation of both optimized turbine power output and compliance with FAA airspace requirements. The types of wind turbines being considered turn at a maximum rate of approximately 32 revolutions per minute.

Turbine Site The site for the wind towers is an open field sloping to the west. Power transmission from the turbine site to the interconnection at the main meter room for the campus will be through underground cable. A transformer will be installed near the base of the wind turbine. Figure 5-1 View Of Existing Meteorological Tower At Proposed Site For Wind Turbines, Looking Easterly.



16 SITE DESCRIPTION

Figure 5-2. Locus Map of proposed wind project site showing proposed wind turbine locations.



17 WIND RESOURCE ANALYSIS

6 - WIND RESOURCE ANALYSIS Meteorological Monitoring Program Mount Wachusett Community College (MWCC) is conducting a meteorological monitoring program on the campus of the college. The meteorological monitoring tower, 50-meters in height, is located on the south side of the community college campus. The tower location is shown in Figure 1. There are three levels of wind speed and three levels of wind direction on the tower. Two wind speed sensors are installed at 48-meters above ground level, two wind speed sensors are installed at 30-meters above ground level, and one wind speed sensor is installed at 20-meters above ground level. Wind direction sensors are installed at 48-meters, 30-meters, and 20-meters above ground level. The tower is installed and the meteorological monitoring program initiated in March 2006. Data Analysis Meteorological data for the MWCC are obtained routinely via pulling the data card from the NOMAD logger, reading the card, and e-mailing the data files. Once received, the data are error-checked and loaded into the data archive. The period of record is March 7, 2006 to August 28, 2007. Mean Wind Speed The mean wind speed at the 20-meter level for the entire period of record period is 8.9 mph (4.2 mps); the mean wind speed for the 30-meter level for the entire period of record is 9.2 mph (4.3 mps); the mean wind speed for the 157-foot level for the 1-year period of record is 11.0 mph (5.1 mps). The data are summarized in the form of mean hourly values and are presented in the table in the attachment. These tables include the monthly average values for wind speed in meters per second (mps) and wind direction, as well as the data recovery for each month and the entire period of record.




Figure 6-1 – Location of the Proposed Wind Project Site. The 50-Meter Meteorological Monitoring Tower at Mount Wachusett Community College is currently located at the project site at the South Side of the College Campus.




Table 6-1 – Configuration of the Meteorological Tower at Mount Wachusett Community College

Wind Resource Assessment

Site Information Form

Site Name MWCC Installation Date 3/6/06 Site Number Removal Date N/A State MA Tower Height 50-Meters Latitude N 42 35 25.635 Quad Map Longitude W 71 59 01.579 Sec/Town/Range Elevation 1163 Ft Datum UTM

Data Logger & Sensors

Height (agl)

Serial # Slope Offset Terminal Location

Comment

NOMAD Max #40 48M 0.765 0.35 NE Max #40 48M 0.765 0.35 SE Max #40 30M 0.765 0.35 NE Max #40 30M 0.765 0.35 SW Max #40 20M 0.765 0.35 NE

#200P 48M S #200P 30M SW #200P 20M S

Phone Make/Model ISP Phone Number E-Mail Address ESN# E-Mail Address Serial Number Cell Company Activation Date

Land Owner MWCC Site Rep Rob Rizzo Address Address Phone # Phone # 978-630-9137 E-Mail [email protected] E-Mail

Direction in “Comments” Section denotes orientation of mounting boom




Wind Speed Data - Long-Term Reference The long-term wind speed reference location is chosen as Logan International Airport. The monthly average wind speeds for Logan and the 48-meter level at the MWCC Site are presented in Figure 2. The data in this figure indicate that the trends and peaks at the MWCC Site match those at Logan. The annual average wind speed at Logan is 11.2 mph.

Figure 6-2 - Comparison of Monthly Average Wind Speed at MWCC and Logan International Airport for March 2006 – August 2007

Monthly Average Wind Speeds (mph)

Logan Airport and MWCC

March 2006 - Aug 2007

0

5

10

15

Mar Ap

rMay Ju

n JulAugSepOct

NovDec Ja

nFebMar Ap

rMay Ju

n JulAug

Month

Av

g.

Win

d S

pe

ed

(m

ph

)

Logan MWCC

Data from Logan can then be used to adjust the project annual average wind speed and the energy output to a long-term value based on the period of record selected as the baseline. For example, if the 12-month period from July 2006 – June 2007 is selected as the baseline for energy projections, the annual average wind speed at Logan can then be compared with the long-term average and an appropriate adjustment applied to the wind speed at hub height and the energy output. The following formula can be applied to adjust the data for the period of record to a long-term value:

Percentage Adjustment = (Obs. Wind – LT Wind)/(LT Wind) Where Obs. Wind is the 12-month average wind speed for Logan International Airport and LT Wind is the long term average wind speed for Logan Airport which is 11.2 mph.




For example, if the 12-month period from July 2006 – June 2007 is chosen as the base period and the annual average wind speed at Logan is 11.0 mph. By substituting the values of 11.0 mph and 11.2 mph, a wind speed adjustment of 2% is recommended at MWCC for this 12 month period. Wind Speed Variation with Height – Wind Shear The variation of the horizontal component of wind speed with height above the ground is defined as vertical wind shear or wind shear. Wind shear is described by the following equation:

V2/V1 = (H2/H1)alpha Where:

• V2 and V1 are the wind speeds at reference heights 2 and 1 • H2 and H1 are the reference heights 2 and 1 in consistent units (i.e. meters or feet) • Alpha is the power-law wind shear exponent

Wind shear is a function of the frictional effects of the ground surface cover. The wind power law attempts to emulate this change in wind speed with height through use of the power law exponent, or alpha value. One of the major sources of error in wind turbine project theoretical energy estimates is the extrapolation of wind speeds from the measurement level to the wind turbine hub height. We have taken a slightly conservative approach in this extrapolation and believe that it is wise choice in making wind turbine theoretical energy projections. The power law exponent can range in value from slightly negative (decreasing wind speeds with increasing height, found at some places in California) to values as high as 0.40 in forecast areas. The speedup of the wind as it passes over topographic obstacles such as hills and ridges will also greatly affect the expected change in wind speeds with height above ground level (agl). The typical alpha value that most engineers are familiar with is the 1/7th power law (alpha = 0.14) which was derived over short grass covered surfaces in the Midwest. Typical alpha values are 0.05 - 0.10 over open hills and ridges; 0.08 - 0.12 over water surfaces; 0.14 - 0.20 over flat terrain with grasses and small bushes; 0.18 - 0.25 over flat or gently rolling terrain with brush and small trees; and 0.25 to 0.45 over heavily wooded area with tall trees. In addition, the wind shear, power-law exponent is not a constant value with height above ground level. The shear value and resulting power law exponent may be very large in lowest 10's of meters above ground level (above ground level), decreasing for higher heights above ground level.




Site Wind Shear The tower data are used to examine the relationship in wind speeds between the 20-meter level and the 48-meter level and the 30-meter level as well as the 48-meter. To determine the change in wind speed between the lower level (either 20-meters or 30-meters) and the higher level (48-meters), only those hour pairs are considered when the wind speed at the lower level was 10 mph (3.5 mps) or greater. This removes any bias due to calm wind conditions. The site exhibits very high wind shear with a 23 percent increase between 20-m and 48-m and a 9 percent increase between 30-m and 48-m. This increase is equivalent to a power law (shear) exponent (alpha) value of 0.24. Hub Height Wind Speeds Hub height wind speeds at 65-meters and 80-meters are presented in Table 10. The wind speeds at 65-meters and 80-meters are based on the 48-meter (157-foot) wind speed adjusted to a higher level using a wind speed power law exponent of 0.24.

Table 6-2 – Mean Annual Wind Speeds at the Mount Wachusett Community College for 48-meters, 65-meters, and 80-meters

Average

Site Height Shear Wind Speed (Meters) (mps)

Tower 48 N/A 5.1 Tower 65 0.24 5.3 Tower 80 0.24 5.5

Wind Speed Distributions The observed wind shear data from the MWCC Site are used to calculate wind speeds for 65-meters and 80-meters above ground level. These distributions are plotted in Figure 3 which show a peak number of hours in the 5 mps wind speed bin and very few hours with average wind speeds greater than 15 mps.




Mean Wind Speed The mean wind speed at the 20-meter level for the entire period of record period is 8.9 mph; the mean wind speed for the 30-meter level for the entire period of record is 9.2 mph; the mean wind speed for the 157-foot level for the 1-year period of record is 11.0 mph. The data are summarized in the form of mean hourly values and are presented in Tables A-1 through A-8. These tables include the monthly average values for wind speed and wind direction, as well as the data recovery for each month and the entire period of record.

Figure 6-3 - Wind Speed Frequency Distributions for the MWCC Site at 65-Meter and 80-Meter agl

Wind Speed Frequency Distribution

MWCC - 65M and 80M Levels

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Wind Speed Bin (mps)

Nu

mb

er

of

Ho

urs

65-Meter 80-Meter

Wind Direction Distribution The percent of time that different wind speeds occur from different directions is portrayed as a plot called a wind rose. This chart displays both the fraction of the total annual wind energy that occurs in winds from the specific direction as well as the faction of time each year when the wind blows from that sector. The wind speed and wind direction data are plotted in the form of a wind rose (i.e., a polar plot of the wind directional data) in Figure 4 for a 48-m height above ground level. The frequency of occurrence from each of the sixteen cardinal wind directions is plotted at the end of each telescoping bar. The wind rose indicates that the primary direction for the strong winds, that can produce useable power, come from the southwest, west, and northwest. This information was used in siting two potential turbines in such a way as to interfere with each other as little as possible.




Figure 6-4 – Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Wind Direction for the Mount Wachusett

Community College Site.

Joint Frequency Distribution

Mount Wachusett Community College

48-Meter Level March 2006 - August 2007

N

S

W E

333 observations were missing.

Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.

Rings drawn at 5% intervals.

Calms excluded.

4.45 2.77

4.11

5.25

4.51

2.69

1.50

1.41 3.02

7.59 11.29

8.73

12.10

14.03

10.39

6.16

Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)

0.1 3.5 6.9 11.5 18.4 24.2

PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)

LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY

DIR 0.1 3.5 6.9 11.5 18.4 24.2

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

0.20

0.18

0.09

0.16

0.17

0.13

0.15

0.06

0.96

0.46

0.50

0.76

0.68

0.53

0.35

0.28

2.27

1.27

1.42

1.78

2.08

1.54

0.82

0.79

0.95

0.80

1.74

1.97

1.30

0.43

0.18

0.28

0.08

0.06

0.27

0.45

0.24

0.05

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.09

0.13

0.04

0.02

0.00

0.00

PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)

LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY

DIR 0.1 3.5 6.9 11.5 18.4 24.2

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

0.07

0.12

0.17

0.18

0.28

0.39

0.31

0.21

0.35

0.68

1.45

1.95

1.91

2.57

2.09

1.09

1.64

3.67

5.17

4.28

4.16

5.12

3.78

2.44

0.84

2.95

3.95

2.19

3.99

4.24

3.23

1.93

0.10

0.17

0.53

0.10

1.24

1.35

0.91

0.44

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.51

0.37

0.08

0.05

TOTAL OBS = 12699 MISSING OBS = 333 CALM OBS = 0




Turbulence The turbulence intensity (TI) for the site, as calculated from the wind speed data collected at 157-feet above ground level, is presented in Table 3 and plotted in Figure 5. The TI data indicate the turbulence at this site is below 20% in the key wind speed bin of 15 mps.

Figure 6-5 – Mean Turbulence Intensity (TI) at the MWCC Site

Mean Turbulence Intensity

MWCC Tower 48-Meter Level

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Wind Speed Bin (mps)

Me

an

TI

(Pe

rce

nt)

Peak Wind Speed Peak wind speed data for sites in Massachusetts are found in the National Climatic Data Center’s (NCDC) Climatic Wind Data for the United States. The data in this report generally cover the period from1930 through 1996. The peak gusts recorded at Logan (Boston), Fort Devans, and Worcester are 81 mph, 60 mph, and 71 mph, respectively. The 50-year return periods for the 5-sec gust at the MWCC site are estimated from the work of H.C.S. Thom Distributions of Extreme Winds in the United States. The extreme fastest mile statistic at 30 feet above ground level is 67 mph (from Thom) which is equivalent to a peak 5-second gust of 82 mph at 30 feet above ground level. Most wind turbines are designed with cut-out wind speed around 25 m/s (about 55 mph) and survival speeds well over 100 mph so the MWCC site is benign in this regard.




Table 6-3 – Turbulence Intensity (TI) Summary for the 48-Meter Wind Speed at MWCC MWCC 50M TOWER MWCC TOWER 48M WIND SPEED 03/07/06 to 08/28/07 Wind Speed Frequency and Concurrent TI Wind Frequency of Mean Speed Occurrence Turbulence (mps) Hrs % Intensity ----- ---- --- ----- 0-2 1286 10.1 0.490 3 2186 17.2 0.254 4 2779 21.8 0.226 5 2355 18.5 0.224 6 1598 12.5 0.232 7 1073 8.4 0.235 8 680 5.3 0.231 9 373 2.9 0.228 10 199 1.6 0.227 11 105 .8 0.231 12 53 .4 0.225 13 34 .3 0.225 14 12 .1 0.218 15 6 .0 0.199 16 3 .0 0.177 17 0 0.0 ***** 18 0 0.0 ***** 19 0 0.0 ***** 20 0 0.0 ***** 21 0 0.0 ***** 22 0 0.0 ***** 23 0 0.0 ***** 24 0 0.0 ***** 25 0 0.0 ***** 26 0 0.0 ***** 27 0 0.0 ***** 28 0 0.0 ***** 29 0 0.0 ***** 30 0 0.0 ***** Total Hrs 12742 12742




Wake Impact Wake impacts are the impacts that wind turbines have on the capture of the wind’s energy by neighboring wind turbines. We ran a wake impact model to determine the percentage annual energy lost for the two turbines. Our assumptions are as follows: V-82 turbines on 80-meter towers, an orientation between the two turbines as NNW to SSE, and a distance between the turbines of 910 feet. We designated Turbine #1 as the unit to the NNW; Turbine #2 as the unit to the SSE. Our model employs a wind speed factor table to discount the hourly average wind speed as a function of wind direction. One factor table is used for Turbine #1 and a second factor table is used for Turbine #2. For the hourly wind speed and wind direction at MWCC, Turbine #1, which is impacted when the wind directions are from the SSE, has an annual energy loss due to wake impacts of 2.3% of the gross energy. Turbine #2, which is impacted when the wind directions are from the NNW, has an annual energy loss due to wake impacts of 8.7%.



28 WIND POWER ASSESSMENT AND TURBINE REVIEW

7 - WIND POWER ASSESSMENT & TURBINE REVIEW Wind Turbine Energy Capture A wind turbine captures energy from the wind over a range of wind speeds. The wind machine's electricity production at any time is a function of the wind speed at that time. The wind turbine’s power curve characterizes its electricity production in kilowatts as a function of the wind speed at the hub height. A wind turbine does not begin producing electricity until the wind speed reaches its cut-in wind velocity. In order to protect the equipment from damage caused by high winds, at the turbine cutout speed, automated controls cause the blades to “feather” into the wind so they produce zero torque to the rotor. Our analysis of anticipated wind power production at the college is based on our wind resource assessment described earlier. We have employed the WTG manufacturer’s power curves and provided estimates of the average annual wind energy. The charts below show the expected wind power assessment along with the preliminary analysis used in order to evaluate the likely relative performance of several reputable wind turbine generators relative to the wind regime and power values at the Mount Wachusett Community College Site. These charts were presented at the mid project review meeting with the college to give Mr. Terceiro and Mr. Rizzo adequate information to make next step decisions regarding this study. In order they show:

• Wind Speed Frequency distribution: This table shows the number of hours that the winds will blow at various speeds—based on height—in an average year.

• Power curves: These data show how much output in kW, each turbine produces at various hub-height wind speeds.

• kWh output at 65 meters: This table is the mathematical product of the first two tables. Hours times kilowatts equals kilo-watt hours.

• Summary of value of wind power. These data were provided by Sustainable Energy Advantage later in the project and were used in the final analyses

• Payback analysis: This first cut analysis looked at the comparative economics of various wind turbines using a fixed value for power.




Figure 7-1

Wind Speed Frequency Distributions

Mount Wachusetts Community College

(Distributions in Meters per Second)

Wind 65-Meter 65-Meter 80-Meter 80-Meter 100-Meter 100-Meter

Speed Frequency Number Frequency Number Frequency Number

Bin of of of of of of

(mps) Occurrence Hours Occurrence Hours Occurrence Hours

(%) (%) (%)

0 0.3 26.3 0.3 26.3 0.3 26.3

1 1.9 166.4 1.6 140.2 1.5 131.4

2 6.0 525.6 5.3 464.3 4.5 394.2

3 14.6 1279.0 12.3 1077.5 10.4 911.0

4 19.0 1664.4 17.4 1524.2 16.5 1445.4

5 19.3 1690.7 20.2 1769.5 18.6 1629.4

6 14.0 1226.4 14.0 1226.4 14.4 1261.4

7 9.2 805.9 10.5 919.8 11.7 1024.9

8 7.0 613.2 7.2 630.7 8.0 700.8

9 3.7 324.1 4.7 411.7 5.8 508.1

10 2.4 210.2 2.8 245.3 3.4 297.8

11 1.2 105.1 1.7 148.9 2.2 192.7

12 0.7 61.3 0.9 78.8 1.2 105.1

13 0.4 35.0 0.5 43.8 0.7 61.3

14 0.2 17.5 0.4 35.0 0.3 26.3

15 0.1 8.8 0.2 17.5 0.3 26.3

16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 17.5

17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 8,760 100.0 8,760 100.0 8,760




Figure 7-2

Turbine Power Curves

Fuhrlander

Mfc: AWE 54 FL1000B Suzlon General Electric Vestas

Rotor: 54m/900kw 62m S 64/950 S 64/1250 S 66/1250 GE 1.5sle GE 1.5 XLE V82

Density: 1.1225 kg/m**3 1.1225 kg/m**3 77 82.5 82

Wind

Speed

Bin

(mps) kW kW kW kW kW kW kW kW

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 9 0 16 0 5 0 3 0

4 33 0 37 35 35 43 60 28

5 73 33 100 89 93 131 158 144

6 133 122 181 148 151 250 294 309

7 213 244 287 275 285 416 486 511

8 318 394 452 446 454 640 739 758

9 447 561 645 621 639 924 1,033 1,017

10 587 728 861 811 832 1,181 1,290 1,285

11 767 880 950 990 1,008 1,359 1,442 1,504

12 829 1,012 950 1,127 1,152 1,436 1,491 1,637

13 883 1,121 950 1,198 1,241 1,481 1,500 1,650

14 900 1,204 950 1,250 1,250 1,494 1,500 1,650

15 900 1,260 950 1,250 1,250 1,500 1,500 1,650

16 900 1,290 950 1,250 1,250 1,500 1,500 1,650

17 900 1,300 950 1,250 1,250 1,500 1,500 1,650

18 900 1,294 950 1,250 1,250 1,500 1,500 1,650

19 900 1,281 950 1,250 1,250 1,500 1,500 1,650

20 900 1,263 950 1,250 1,250 1,500 1,500 1,650

21 900 1,246 950 1,250 1,250 1,500 0

22 900 1,232 950 1,250 1,250 1,500 0

23 900 1,221 950 1,250 1,500 0

24 900 1,213 950 1,250 1,500 0

25 900 1,208 950 1,250 1,500 0

stall regulated




Figure 7-3

kWh Output at 65 Meters

Fuhrlander

Mfc: AWE 54 FL1000B Suzlon General Electric Vestas

Rotor: 54m/900kw 62m S 64/950 S 64/1250 S 66/1250 GE 1.5sle GE 1.5 XLE V82

Wind

Speed

Bin

(mps)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 11,511 0 20,463 0 6,395 0 3,837 0

4 54,925 0 61,866 58,254 58,254 71,569 99,864 46,603

5 123,420 55,792 168,983 150,471 157,233 221,479 267,127 243,458

6 163,111 149,621 221,954 181,507 185,186 306,600 360,562 378,958

7 171,661 196,644 231,372 221,628 229,687 335,263 391,677 411,825

8 194,998 241,601 276,933 273,487 278,393 392,448 453,155 464,806

9 144,882 181,831 209,216 201,279 207,113 299,487 334,816 329,630

10 123,411 153,055 181,120 170,505 174,920 248,293 271,210 270,158

11 80,627 92,506 99,864 104,069 105,961 142,858 151,583 158,100

12 50,834 62,056 58,254 69,108 70,641 88,056 91,428 100,381

13 30,940 39,280 33,288 41,978 43,485 51,894 52,560 57,816

14 15,768 21,094 16,644 21,900 21,900 26,175 26,280 28,908

15 7,884 11,038 8,322 10,950 10,950 13,140 13,140 14,454

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Figure 7-4

Year

FCM Price

Forecast

($/MWh)

FCM x 0.5

Avoided Retail

Generation Rate

Forecast

($/MWh)

REC Price

Forecast

($/MWh)

Avoided

Transmission &

Distribution

Charges

Total

2007 $2.09 $1.04 $100.74 $54.26 $12.30 $168.35

2008 $2.37 $1.18 $118.96 $55.17 $12.43 $187.75

2009 $2.71 $1.35 $126.44 $50.11 $12.55 $190.45

2010 $3.97 $1.98 $135.04 $50.88 $12.68 $200.58

2011 $6.85 $3.42 $132.12 $45.64 $12.82 $194.00

2012 $6.85 $3.42 $128.74 $22.77 $12.97 $167.90

2013 $6.85 $3.42 $117.64 $26.76 $13.12 $160.95

2014 $6.85 $3.42 $119.54 $25.87 $13.27 $162.11

2015 $6.85 $3.42 $120.73 $32.25 $13.43 $169.83

2016 $6.85 $3.42 $123.81 $30.37 $13.61 $171.21

2017 $6.85 $3.42 $129.19 $36.57 $13.79 $182.98

2018 $6.85 $3.42 $129.80 $36.51 $13.98 $183.72

2019 $6.85 $3.42 $130.90 $36.05 $14.18 $184.55

2020 $6.85 $3.42 $134.13 $34.36 $14.38 $186.29

2021 $6.85 $3.42 $136.14 $33.50 $14.59 $187.65

2022 $6.85 $3.42 $140.36 $31.25 $14.81 $189.84

2023 $6.85 $3.42 $144.55 $29.00 $15.03 $192.01

2024 $6.85 $3.42 $149.65 $29.00 $15.26 $197.34

2025 $6.85 $3.42 $151.90 $29.00 $15.50 $199.83

2026 $6.85 $3.42 $154.65 $29.00 $15.73 $202.80

2027 $6.85 $3.42 $158.61 $29.00 $15.97 $207.01

2028 $6.85 $3.42 $163.54 $29.00 $16.23 $212.19

Note: FCM values discounted by 50% for a variety of reasons

Summary of Value of Wind PowerPower per MWh




Figure 7-5

Payback Analysis Based On First Year Revenue Assumptions Assumes all in revenue at $168.35/MWh

Manufacturer AWE Furlander Suzlon General Electric VestasAWE 54 FL 1000B S 64/950 S 64/1250 S 66/1250 GE 1.5sle GE 1.5XLE Vestas 82

kWh / year 1,173,971 1,204,518 1,588,279 1,505,134 1,550,117 2,197,262 2,517,239 2,505,097Rotor diameter 54 62 64 64 66 77 82.5 82Nameplate 900 1250 950 1250 1250 1500 1500 1650CF: 14.9% 11.0% 19.1% 13.7% 14.2% 16.7% 19.2% 17.3%Cap costs @ 2,500/kw: $2,250,000 $3,125,000 $2,375,000 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $4,125,000Revenue / yr. $197,697 $202,841 $267,466 $253,465 $261,040 $370,019 $423,903 $421,858Oprtng csts @ 2.5 cents: $29,349 $30,113 $39,707 $37,628 $38,753 $54,932 $62,931 $62,627Savings per year… $168,347 $172,728 $227,759 $215,836 $222,287 $315,087 $360,972 $359,231Simple payback: 13.4 18.1 10.4 14.5 14.1 11.9 10.4 11.5Cap cost - $1mm $1,250,000 $2,125,000 $1,375,000 $2,125,000 $2,125,000 $2,750,000 $2,750,000 $3,125,000Simple payback w/ grant: 7.4 12.3 6.0 9.8 9.6 8.7 7.6 8.7

Tower height 40,50,75 50, 70, 85 56,65,74 56,65,74 56,65,74 61.4 to 100 58.7 to 100 70, 80Total height in meters 67, 77, 102 81, 101, 116 88,97,106 88,97,106 89,98, 107 95+ 100+ 111, 121

Total height in feet 220 252 334 265, 331, 380 287, 318, 348 287, 318, 348 292, 321, 351 312+ 328+ 364, 397

Special Considerations Not yet No singleofferred unit sales

Note: Payback numbers will improve based on increased power value over the life of the project See revenue forecast.



34 WIND TURBINE SELECTION

8 - WIND TURBINE SELECTION Our preliminary analysis of wind resources, load. and available turbines from reputable manufacturers included General Electric, Suzulon, Furlander, AWE and Vestas. Based on discussions with manufacturers regarding turbine availability for small projects and instruction from the college to endeavor to maximize the economic impact of the project it was decided to focus the more in depth project cost estimating and economic modeling on the larger scale reviewed in the preliminary analysis. The cost estimates and economic analysis that follows in this report used two wind turbine models: The Vestas V82/1650 and the GE 1.5 sle. Although other wind turbines may be economically attractive and could certainly work at the MWCC site, these turbines were used because they represent well proven turbines from leading manufacturers: Vestas is the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer and has a good reputation. GE is one of the larger wind turbine manufacturers and its turbines also have a good reputation. Both manufacturers have supplied wind turbines to sites in Massachusetts. The Vestas V82 is the former NEG Micon 82 machine and was kept in production after the merger of these two companies. It has a larger swept area and smaller generator than the Vestas V80 1.8 MW turbine which makes it suitable for lower wind sites like MWCC. (The V80 is also a proven machine so should be considered if available at a good price and other terms.) According to the Vestas web site, over 1,200 V82s are in operation. The GE 1.5sle is an enlarged version of its workhorse 1.5 MW turbine. According to the GE web site, it has over 5,000 of the 1.5 MW units in operation. Like the V82, it should perform relatively better in low winds than its predecessor turbines with smaller rotors. MWCC should consider other manufacturers as well. Siemens, formerly Bonus, has an excellent reputation and makes a broad range of turbines. Other leading manufacturers active in the US include Mitsubishi, Suzlon, and Gamesa as shown in the following chart from “Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006” by Ryan Wiser and Mark Bolinger of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:




Figure 8-1

11

GE Wind Is Dominant Turbine Manufacturer, with Siemens Gaining Market Share

• GE captured nearly half the market in 2006 with its 1.5 MW “workhorse, ” but Siemens wins “rookie of the year ”

• GE and Vestas lost market share from 2005 to 2006• Domestic manufacturing of turbines and components remains limite d,

but localization of manufacturing in the U.S. is on the rise

Obtaining turbines Several wind turbine vendors contacted for this project politely mentioned that they were now filling orders for 2010 and were generally only dealing with larger orders. Vestas, Suzlon, and Gamesa said they were no longer selling single turbines. GE said it preferred not to but might sell an individual turbine—especially if the transaction costs and difficulty were not too great. The GE contact mentioned the possibility of selling small numbers of turbines to an intermediary company which would then install them at end customer locations. (A construction company based in Massachusetts, for example ordered three GE turbines ahead of finding homes for them.) MWCC is likely going to have to be opportunistic in searching for a good turbine in a much overheated market. Its best chance of success will be to minimize the difficulty of the supplier and be ready to move quickly—i.e., with funding ready. If the Production Tax Credit is not soon extended, or if a significant wind project gets cancelled, some turbines may become available. Joining in with other turbine purchasers in Massachusetts may also create some opportunities. The following charts show how wind turbine and project prices have been rising in recent years.




Figure 8-2

Figure 8-3

29

Project Cost Increases Are a Function of Wind Turbine Prices

Since turbines are often ordered 12 or more months in advance, further project cost increases are expectedNote: Figure depicts reported transaction price data for 32 U.S . wind turbine orders totaling 8,986 MW and placed from 1997 -2006

~$400/kW rise since 2001

28

Installed Project Costs Are On the Rise, After a Long Period of Decline

Projects proposed (but not yet built) in 2006 (not shown in grap hic) are $200/kW higher still (avg. ~$1,680/kW)Note: Sample of projects includes 191 online wind projects, tot aling 8,825 MW (~76% of all wind capacity installed in the U.S. at the end o f 2006)

Increase of ~$220/kW



37 CAMPUS ELECTRICAL LOAD

9 - CAMPUS ELECTRICAL LOAD Electrical Demand. We reviewed the National Grid electrical utility bills and also a summary of hourly electrical demand readings recorded by Enernoc to determine the electrical demand profile for the facility. National Grid Peak Demand and kWH Data. We obtained the monthly electric bills from the College for the period July 2006 through August 2007. Each monthly bill includes a meter reading of the actual peak kW and kVA demand, as well as the monthly kWH energy usage. The data is summarized below: Month Peak kVA Demand Peak kW Demand kWH Usage August 07 1,120 1,008 408,800 July 07 1,288 1,176 425,600 June 07 1,120 1,008 386,400 May 07 1,120 1,064 431,200 April 07 1,120 1,064 397,600 March 07 1,344 1,400 560,000 February 07 1,456 1,512 436,800 January 07 1,456 1,568 722,400 December 06 1,344 1,456 655,200 November 06 1,288 1,344 520,800 October 06 1,120 1,120 498,400 September 06 1,176 1,176 408,800 August 06 1,232 1,176 459,200 July 06 1,232 1,176 453,600 Total annual kWH usage from July 2006 through August 2007 from National Grid is 6,764,807. Enernoc Data. Access to the Enernoc website provided obtain hourly demand data. This data begins in July 2007. Representative daily high and low demand readings were available for August 2007 through early March 2008. Interpretation of the Data. The Enernoc site provides an excellent record of electrical demand data by time of day. The peaks correlate closely with the National Grid data, but not exactly.



38 CAMPUS ELECTRICAL LOAD

The electrical demand profiles recorded by both National Grid and Enernoc show a consistent pattern of energy use. Per the National Grid demand records, the peak demand of 1568kW in January 2007 represents a significant electric heating load. The peak demands of 1,176 kW recorded in the summer months represent cooling load. More recently, Enernoc indicates a peak demand of 1,068 kW on January 23, 2008 and 1,072 kW on February 20, 2008. The hourly demand recorded by Enernoc shows a consistent pattern with the lowest demand and energy consumption occurring during the very early morning hours and the peak demand in hot weather in early afternoon. Peak demand in November often occurs in late morning. Peak demands drop off on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays.



39 ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION

10 - ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION The Mt. Wachusett Community College campus is served by a 13.8kV electric service from National Grid. This service comes into a main switchboard, via the National Grid metering in the College’s Main Building’s main electrical room. The main 15kV Class switchboard has subfeeds to Transformers 1, 2, 3, the Physical Education facility and the Fine Arts facility. All of the electrical loads described above are concentrated on the bus of this main switchboard. This main switchboard is the best point of connection for the power feed from the wind turbine because it is at the center of all the campus loads and because it is near the point of demarcation with the National Grid service. It is the largest (in terms of kW capacity) bus in the campus power distribution system and is accessible to the most available loads, including back-feed to National Grid. The wind turbine would operate in parallel with the utility power source. There is space in the main electric room at the end of the main switchboard to locate the paralleling gear which will be connected to the main bus. The power generated by the wind turbine can be stepped up to 13.8kV at the site of the turbine and transmitted underground to the main electric room.



40 ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION



41 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

11 - PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Endless Energy Corporation utilized twenty plus years of wind project consulting and development experience to develop reliable project cost estimating models for development costs, capital costs and long term operations and maintenance costs.. Some factors such as unknowns associated with foundations cannot be predicted with precision until after geotechnical analysis and engineering have been completed. However it is the opinion of the study team that cost estimates projected in the following base case analysis are very reasonable for feasibility level planning. The following cost estimates were used for the Vestas single turbine cases: Table 11-1

CAPITAL COSTS: Site ($000) Permits, Legal: $30 Civil Design: $15 Geotech: $10 Facilities during construction: $10 Construction and COD fee: $0 Land, road improvements: $50 Met tower: $0 TOTAL SITE COSTS ........................... $115

CAPITAL COSTS: Electric ($000) Engineering/design: $50 Substation, Interconnect equipment: $50 Collection system: 1 $12 $12 Power line and transformer: 0.2 $187 $37 Wind farm control & monitoring 1 $10 $10 Scada System and network: 1 $41 $41 Utility Interconnect Facilities: $109 TOTAL ELECTRICAL COSTS....................... $310



42 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

CAPITAL COSTS: Wind Turbines ($000) number per unit total Turbine & tower on site: $2,850 $2,850 Sales Tax: 0.00% $0 $0 Foundation and site work: $500 $500 Turbine installation: $480 $480 FAA lights: 1 $5 $5 Spare parts: 1 $0 $0 Technical Advisory Fee $15 Commissioning: $0 $0 TOTAL WIND TURBINE COSTS..................... $3,850

CAPITAL COSTS: Total ($000) TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS ........................... $4,275 Less Grant(s)… $1,000 Net Capital Costs……….. $3,275



43 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST PROJECTIONS

12 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST PROJECTIONS Long-Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs To estimate long-term O&M costs, we used several sources as well as experience from recent vendor negotiations. One source was “Operation and maintenance costs compared and revealed” from the summer, 2006 issue of Wind Stats Newsletter of Denmark. This reviewed studies conducted in the UK, Germany, and the USA. The US costs quoted in that article—including land rents and some transmission and balancing costs—was 15.1 Euros per MWH. (About $22 / MWH at today’s exchange rate.) Comparable costs for Great Britain were 17.9 Euros/MWH ($27 / MWH) and for Germany 15 to 26 Euros per MWH ($22.50 to $39/MWH). A second source of information was the report “Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006” by Ryan Wiser and Mark Bolinger of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory May, 2007 for the US DOE. One conclusion is that O&M costs have been dropping with newer technology: Figure 12-1

A second conclusion from this report is that smaller projects have higher O&M costs. This would be expected as larger projects can take advantage of economies of scale.

34

Average Wind Project O&M Costs from 2000-06 Are Affected By Year of Installation

Capacity -weighted average 2000 -06 O&M costs for projects built in 1980s equal $30/MWh , dropping to $20/MWh for projects built in 1990s, and to $8/MWh for projects built in 2000sNote: Sample is limited, and consists of 89 wind projects total ing 3,937 MW; few projects in sample have complete records of O&M costs from 2 000-06




Figure 12-2

Finally, the report shows O&M increasing with age. Figure 12-3

35

Smaller Projects Appear to Experience Higher O&M Costs, on a $/MWh Basis

Note: Sample is extremely limited; figure only includes project s built from 1998 -2005

36

O&M Appears to Increase with Project Age, Decrease with Recently Constructed Projects

Note: Sample is extremely limited; figure only includes project s over 5 MW in size and built from 1998 -2005




In recent years, wind turbine vendors have not only raised turbine prices significantly but O&M contract prices as well. To be conservative, Endless Energy Corporation used total variable costs of approximately $28 per MWH (2.8 cents per kWh) for the Vestas V82 and $30 per MWH for the GE turbine. While MWCC may very well be able to do better than this on O & M costs, we thought it best to be conservative. With one or two turbines, events that would be minor on a large wind farm will add substantially to the per MWH cost of a small project with a modest wind resource. The college may want to create an O&M fund into which it pays savings in the early years to help cover increasing costs as the equipment ages.



46 OVERVIEW OF WIND PROJECT ECONOMICS

13 - OVERVIEW OF WIND PROJECT ECONOMICS Over the last two decades, fossil fuel prices have generally risen while the cost of generating power from wind energy has generally fallen. In New England the majority of electrical generation is from fossil fuels—especially natural gas—so electricity prices have followed those of gas and oil. Today, wind generated power is competitive in many circumstances, ranging from large wind farms selling to the wholesale market to small installations providing power on site. Wind generators have relatively high capital costs but low operating costs as there are no “fuel” costs. What this means is that if one can get over the initial “hump” of paying the relatively high capital costs per kW of installed capacity (some New England gas plants were installed for $500+- per kW) then the wind turbine owner can enjoy low cost power for the life of the turbine. In an environment in which electricity prices are volatile and generally rising, wind generated power offers a good hedge with potential savings as well as long-term predictability. For wind power to be economic, a number of positive factors must coincide. While strong wind is clearly a necessity, other factors can significantly improve the economics of a wind project. The legal structure under which the wind project is conceived, financed, and owned has a significant impact in the project's ability to reap economic benefits from a variety of Federal and State Tax incentives, Federal and State programs available to public projects such as Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) and Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs), as well as the Renewable Energy Certificate markets and the emerging ISO New England Forward Capacity Market. In summary these factors are: 1) Capital Mix and Cost of Capital

With no fuel cost and very low operating and maintenance costs, the economics of wind power rests primarily on the capital cost of the technology and its installation and the underlying terms of the project financing. Wind projects are generally funded with a combination of debt and equity. To the extent a given project has access to a low cost funding source, such as public bonding, the better the project's financial return.

2) Tax Benefit - Production Tax Credit (PTC)

Private developers of wind projects benefit considerably from a production tax credit (PTC) that is available to wind projects through the Federal Tax Code. The PTC is a straight tax credit for private, commercial entities that have a tax liability that can be offset by the tax credit. For a project to benefit from the PTC, the wind project needs to be owned by an entity that has sufficient tax burden liability to fully utilize the credits and the power must be sold to an unrelated entity. Government-owned projects cannot capture this benefit. The PTC is currently set to expire at the end of 2008 but there is a significant effort afoot to extend it once again.




3) Tax Benefit - Accelerated Depreciation Private developers of wind projects also benefit from the ability to depreciate the capital investments of wind projects on an accelerated schedule compared to other investments. Again, for a project to benefit from the depreciation offsets the wind project needs to be owned by an entity that has sufficient tax liability that can be reduced by the depreciation.

4) Renewable Energy Certificates (REC’s)

Owners of renewable generation assets can benefit considerably from selling Renewable Energy Certificates (REC’s), a tradable commodity based on measurable energy generation, but representing the “environmental attributes” of that generation rather than the electricity. The market is driven by the Commonwealth’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which mandates that each retail power supplier obtain a certain percentage of its total annual energy sales from renewable sources, as represented by the Renewable Energy Certificates. With RPS standards established in many states for several years now, REC markets are becoming established. If a credit worthy REC buyer is a counterparty to a contract, developers lenders and investors now factor REC revenues into pro-formas for the duration of such contracts. REC contracts are currently being written both on a very short term basis and in some cases with future purchase and delivery commitments going out as far as ten years or more. Generally the markets have offered higher prices for shorter term contracts and lower prices for long-term contracts as the REC buyers are assuming future price risks relative to both market and regulatory uncertainty. Some counterparties are willing to provide a single large lump sum payment up front in exchange for the long-term supply of RECs. This type of transaction may be worth exploration by MWCC.

5) ISO New England Forward Capacity Market

The ISO New England Forward Capacity Market (FCM) is a recently established mechanism designed to procure power supply capacity to meet New England’s forecasted electrical demand and reserve requirements three years into the future. It is a market based “descending-clock auction” system designed to allow new capacity resources to compete in setting prices for power.

Conventional generators, as well as demand response and conservation resources and intermittent generators like wind projects, all have rules under which they can bid their future production into the auction. In the auctions electrical generators and qualifying conservation resources bid the number of kilowatt-hours they can supply and the price they will commit to for supplying that capacity. Every bidder clearing the market will receive the same market clearing price ($/kW-month) for each kilowatt of capacity it provides. Financial surety from participating bidders helps to assure a high level of performance to meet electrical grid demand when needed.




Auctions are held three years in advance of commitment periods in order to allow time for new development. Project owners have the option to bid in one to five year commitments allowing flexibility to balance the need to stabilize revenue projections and attracting investment with the option of potentially higher returns in the future.

6) Grants and direct subsidies Many states and the US Department of Energy have programs which can offer direct subsidy to the capital costs on wind projects. The College has already been awarded a significant grant from DOE. It is likely that additional subsidies may be available through the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Renewable Energy Trust.

7) Renewable Energy Production Incentive

The Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) is a program administered by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). It was specifically created to assist non-taxpaying entities that include municipalities, Native American tribes, rural co-operatives and others. REPI was created to offer comparable benefits to publicly owned projects that are available to private wind projects through the federal Production Tax Credits. According to the program information page on the DOE web site REPI ” provides financial incentive payments for electricity generated and sold by new qualifying renewable energy generation facilities. Qualifying facilities are eligible for annual incentive payments of 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (1993 dollars and indexed for inflation) for the first 10-year period of their operation, subject to the availability of annual appropriations in each Federal fiscal year of operation.” It then goes on to state that “Annual REPI incentive payments are subject to availability of appropriated funds. DOE can make no commitment for payment of REPI incentives beyond the funds obligated in each fiscal year.”

REPI is subject to annual appropriations by Congress, with no long-term certainty

regarding available funds. Over the past several years the program has been significantly under-funded relative to qualifying projects, with an average funding level of only $4-5 million/year. This has resulted in a program that cannot be counted on in the creation of project financial pro-formas.

8) Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs)

In response to the ineffectiveness of REPI, public power advocates have sought other incentives. As a result, the recent energy act included Section 1303, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs). This section of the bill establishes a new category of tax credit bonds that provide financing for capital expenditures for certain renewable resource facilities. Such bonds may be issued by units of government, municipal utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and Native American Tribal governments.




Administered by the Internal Revenue Service, this program is also subject to congressional authorizations and recent CREB authorizations were limited, with more qualified projects applying for CREB bonding authorization than was available. The program has made zero interest funding available for qualifying projects.

Project Ownership and Financing Structure Options Given these various financial impacts and considerations, it makes sense to view the ownership structure for wind energy projects along a traditional public / private ownership structure continuum with associated benefits, costs, and details as follows:

Public Structure Jointly Structured Private Structure (Benefits = low capital cost) (Benefits = tax offsets)

Public Structure – Description In the public structure scenario, the college would finance the entire project at what is assumed to be a cost of capital lower than that available to private developers. Since the project is designed to provide power to be consumed on campus with a small portion delivered to the grid on a net metered basis, there are no substantial costs above and beyond the cost of the capital and operating and maintenance costs of the turbine. It is assumed that transaction costs and activities for such an ownership structure would be centered on vendor selection for the capital equipment and the associated operating and maintenance contracts. Private Structure – Description From the perspective of the college, a wind project developed by a private entity would take the form of a long-term contract to purchase the power production from the project (Power Purchase Agreement or PPA) and a long-term land lease agreement under which the private developer secures the right to construct and operate the wind turbine(s) at the site for the long-term (likely 20 years with an option to extend). Since private developers need a secure stream of income to obtain debt financing, the PPA would need to be based on a known, reliable price over the entire term. Creative price structures might be negotiable. Of course, with such a long-term PPA it is desirable that the college lock in energy costs that are likely to be below market over this time thus saving money. It would thus be critical to negotiate long term power pricing reflecting the likely future pricing of power on the commercial market assessed later in this report.




In the private structure scenario, the entire project would be financed, owned, and operated by a private entity. The project would be burdened with a higher cost of debt as well as the need for commercial rates of return on the equity. However, it would benefit from the PTC and depreciation tax offsets. Transaction costs and activities for a private structure ownership structure would be centered on selecting the private developer, negotiating the PPA with the developer, and providing the developer with a long-term lease for the land upon which the wind turbine could be installed. Public/Private Partnership Structure – Description In a Public/Private Partnership the college and DCAM would team up with a private developer in order to take optimal advantage of the public entities lower cost of debt and the private developer's ability to utilize federal tax credits and offsets. It is possible that through such a hybrid structure that the total cost of the project, and thus the resulting cost of electricity to the college, would be minimized. As a hybrid, this structure would most likely require the highest level of legal costs and related transaction costs and activities. In particular, the tax code covering the PTC includes several provisions intended to constrain a private wind project developers ability to “double dip” Federal and state or local incentives (i.e. claim the full PTC and below market financing terms). Likewise, this structure would have to adhere to public procurement regulations adding another layer of complexity to the transaction. Consequently, any public-private partnerships would need to be carefully constructed. A careful analysis of Private/Public Partnership structures would be required to determine if the benefits derived from a hybrid structure outweigh the higher transaction "costs" and activities. Project Ownership and Financing Structure Recommendations The Mount Wachusett Community College has indicated that public ownership and financing of the project is clearly their preference. We ran several models of a private ownership model and found that none of them offered returns likely to attract a private developer even disregarding transaction costs. The returns on a Private-Public Partnership are likely even less favorable due to the complexity of the structure and the transaction costs of such a structure relative to the small project size. Thus public ownership of the project by the college or DCAM is likely the best solution for an ownership structure.



51 ELECTRICITY , REC MARKET AND FCM MARKET FORCAST

14 - ELECTRICTY, REC MARKET & FCM MARKET FORCASTS The proposed project has two major sources of market value: (1) avoided retail electricity charges, and (2) Renewable Energy Credit (REC) revenue. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that effectively all of the wind turbine’s electricity production will be consumed on-site. To the extent that a small amount of power is generated in excess of the college’s consumption in a given hour, the proposed project is assumed to be a net metering generator based on proposed energy legislation HB 4373 currently before the Massachusetts legislature. To the extent that Mount Wachusett Community College registers for and participates in the ISO-NE Forward Capacity Market (FCM), the project will benefit from this additional source of revenue. Forecast of wholesale electricity prices underlying retail rates: A significant portion of the future change in retail generation rates will be explained by future change in wholesale electricity prices. An estimate of the Mass Hub clearing price was developed, and adjusted to the WCMass Zone, where the college is located. Mass Hub prices were derived by applying the forecast of delivered natural gas prices to the region to an average NEPOOL “market heat rate” – which is the ratio that translates delivered market natural gas prices into market electric energy prices. While a number of factors influence the wholesale market electricity prices in Massachusetts, the predominant driver of price trends has been (and is expected to continue to be) the price of natural gas, which is the fuel for the marginal (price-setting) generator in ISO New England in the majority of hours. Through 2012, the natural gas price was projected using NYMEX Henry Hub1 gas futures. From 2013 onward, the Henry Hub natural gas price forecast from the EIA’s2 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2007 reference case was used, adjusted upward to reflect the historical relationship between the AEO forecast and the NYMEX as derived by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Notably, this gas-based forecast shows a decline in expected wholesale electricity prices beginning in 2009, and a resume to indefinite price escalation beginning in 2014. While there are a range of views on this subject, the shape of this forecast is consistent with many heavily researched fundamental electricity price forecasts for Massachusetts and the rest of New England. Starting in 2009, the projected cost of a carbon allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) regime was added to energy prices. RGGI allowances will be required by most fossil fuel generators in the region, and the cost of such allowances will increase market electricity prices because this cost will be added to bid prices in the energy market. In the table below, WCMass Zone prices are provided in nominal dollars – which is to say they include the impact of inflation in future years. Where an inflation index was required to generate the forecast, the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Customers was used. 1 NYMEX is the New York Mercantile Exchange. Henry Hub is a highly liquid trading location in Louisiana. Most natural gas forecasts use the Henry Hub location as the basis for their analysis. 2 EIA = Energy Information Administration, which is housed within the Department of Energy.




Avoided retail electric generation charges: The relationship between long-term wholesale energy trends and market-based retail delivered electric generation service prices is fairly constant. The differentials between wholesale and retail generally reflect the cost of shaping, ancillary services, reserves, RPS compliance, FCM obligations and profit margin. In this analysis, the value of avoided retail electric generation charges was derived by forecasting each of these factors, adjusting the sum of these components upward for transmission and distribution losses, and adding them to the underlying wholesale electricity price for the WCMass Zone. Where a direct relationship to the wholesale market existed, the retail rate components were inflated at the same rate as the wholesale electricity forecast; where retail rate components are not directly tied to wholesale market performance, the retail rate components were inflated using the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Customers. The result is an estimate of the competitive market generation service price for each year of the proposed wind project. By generating electricity on-site, the college will also be able to avoid some, but not all, of their transmission- and distribution-related charges. An example of a non-bypassable charge (e.g. those charges the customer will always pay regardless of their source of electricity) is the “Customer Charge.” Therefore, the customer should not expect to avoid their total electricity bill, even in a month in which 100% of electricity consumption is met by the on-site generator. When considering the market value of production from the wind turbine, the coincidence of the turbine’s production and the college’s consumption is particularly important. This is especially true during times of the day in which regional electricity demand is at its peak. Electric generation rates, and certain components of distribution rates, are at their highest during these peak periods, and the college stands to gain the most when the wind turbine supplies its electricity needs at this time. The following table demonstrates the historic relationship between peak and off-peak wholesale electricity prices compared to the all-hours average price: Table 14-1

January February March April May June July August September October November December

All-Hours Average $72.52 $68.40 $61.94 $61.67 $56.52 $56.41 $61.10 $69.36 $45.84 $54.26 $63.28 $56.54

On-Peak Average $80.72 $73.31 $67.97 $69.51 $65.64 $66.45 $75.34 $84.21 $52.17 $61.85 $72.28 $64.93

Off-Peak Average $65.15 $63.94 $55.87 $55.39 $48.33 $46.80 $50.35 $54.82 $40.79 $47.43 $55.58 $50.21

On-Peak Ratio 1.113 1.072 1.097 1.127 1.161 1.178 1.233 1.214 1.138 1.140 1.142 1.148Off-Peak Ratio 0.898 0.935 0.902 0.898 0.855 0.830 0.824 0.790 0.890 0.874 0.878 0.888

On-Peak hours are defined as hours ending 8:00-23:00 Mon-Fri

Off peak hours are defined as hours ending 1:00-7:00, 24:00 Mon-Fri and 1:00-24:00 Sat, and Sun

Ratio of Historic Peak and Off-Peak Prices to All-Hours Average Price for WCMASS Zone in 2006, by Month

For the purpose of considering any production in excess of the college’s monthly on-site load, the wind turbine is assumed to be a net metering generator. In the table below, the forecast of avoided retail generation prices is provided in nominal dollars (they include the impact of inflation in future years).




REC Revenues: A wind generator in Massachusetts is eligible to create and sell Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) which can be used for compliance with the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard. (Production on both sides of the meter is also eligible for Class 1 RECs in Connecticut). The Massachusetts RPS requirement started in 2003, with RECs trading at or near the Alternative Compliance Payment for the majority of the 2003 through 2007 period. The REC revenue forecast was derived by applying conservative assumptions to a Sustainable Energy Advantage proprietary model of New England REC supply and demand. In the table below, the forecast of REC prices is provided in nominal dollars. Forward Capacity Market Revenues: The objective of the Forward Capacity Market (FCM) is to purchase sufficient capacity for reliable system operation for a future year at competitive prices where all resources, both new and existing, can participate. While not all market rules on the subject are well tested, it is assumed that a wind turbine generator located behind the meter at the college may elect to participate in this market. To the extent that Mount Wachusett Community College registers for and participates in the ISO-NE Forward Capacity Market (FCM), the project will benefit from this additional source of revenue. In the table below, the forecast of FCM prices is provided in nominal dollars. The table below summarizes the retail generation, REC, FCM and WCMass Zone prices which are described above and used in this analysis:




Table 14-2



55 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

15 - ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS This section focuses on the economic feasibility of the proposed wind project given the cost variables and scenarios previously detailed in this report. Economic analyses of the proposed project using a variety of input assumptions were run using a proprietary wind project development model developed by Endless Energy Corporation over more than twenty years in the wind energy business. A printout a full sample analysis is shown in the Appendix. Results from the modeling are described below. The installation of at least one wind turbine of a megawatt scale at MWCC appears economically feasible. The economical viability of a two turbine project is more dependent on passage of the proposed net metering legislation, clarity regarding whether the project would qualify for net-metering treatment, results of negotiations with the neighboring hospital on partnering on the project, and other regulatory factors. The primary drivers of these conclusions are outlined in the Summary of Findings above.

Results of economic modeling

We ran our economic model for ten different cases. The intent was to determine the basic economics of the project and then see what the sensitivities of the economics were to various changes. We used several different measures of economic success: payback, profitability, net present value, cash flow, total savings, and a modified cost of energy. Of these measures, we recommend that the NPV be given the most weight. The various cases, and the results that we obtained, are described below. More detailed results of the analysis of each case follow the summary overviews. Case 1.) Base Case Assumptions

• Turbine: one Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm • Loan: none – all equity up front equity investment, no debt.

Results:

• Up front investment: $3.3 mm ($4.3 mm minus $1mm grant) • Cash Flow Positive?: After initial $3.3 mm outflow upon construction, cash flow is

positive • Returns: Payback is 10 years. Internal Rate of Return (“IRR”) is 10.5%—quite

attractive compared to commercial projects. The Net Present Value (“NPV”) is $90,000

• Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $4,245,000




Case 2.) Ten Year Loan Assumptions

• Turbine: one Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm • Loan: 10 year, 5% interest, 100% ($3.3mm)

Results:

• Up front investment: $0 • Cash Flow Positive?: No. Negative cash flow in years 4 – 10 with negative cash flows

of $35k to $80k per year. After year 10, cash flows are over $380k through year 20. • Returns: Cumulative cash flow turns positive in year 12, NPV is $638,000 • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $3,278,000

Case 3.) Twenty Year Loan Assumptions

• Turbine: one Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm • Loan: 20 year, 5% interest, 100% ($3.3mm)

Results:

• Up front investment: $0 • Cash Flow Positive?: Yes. Annual cash flows of $40 to $150k. • Returns: Cumulative cash flows always positive. NPV is $1,008,000 • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $2,461,000

Case 4.) Additional Grant Assumptions

• Turbine: one Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1.65 mm • Loan: 10 year, 5% interest, ($2.55 mm)

Results:

• Up front investment: $0 • Cash Flow Positive?: Yes, $0 to $100k per year in years 1-11; then cash flows of

$380k+ for years 11-20. • Returns: Cumulative cash flows always positive. NPV is $1,120,000 • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $4.120,000

Note: Model shows minimum level grants needed for positive cash flow with 10 year debt.




Case 5.) GE 1.5 MW 77 meter turbine (Compare to Case 2.) Assumptions

• Turbine: one GE 77 meter 1,500 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm • Loan: 10 year, 5% interest, 100% ($2.75mm)

Results:

• Up front investment: $0 • Cash Flow Positive?: Negative cash flow of $20k to $60k in yrs 4-10. After year 10,

cash flows are $653 to $360k through year 20. • Returns: Cumulative cash flow turns positive in year 12, NPV is $602,000 • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $2,905,000

Case 6.) Two turbines: all retail rates avoided Assumptions

• Turbine: two Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm • Loan: 10 year, 5% interest, 100% ($7.15mm)

Results:

• Up front investment: $0 • Cash Flow Positive?: Negative…up to $240,000 through year 10; then $70,000 to

$830,000 positive cash flow. • Returns: Payback NA; NPV= $758,000 • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $5,663,000

Notes: A $1mm grant helps smaller machines/projects more than larger ones. It will have a greater impact on a smaller overall package. For the Suzlon 64m/950 kW turbine we first looked at, the $1mm would have been 32% of capital costs. For a V82, it’s 25% of the capital costs; for two V82s it’s 12.3%. For the two-turbine project, the $1mm grant represents a smaller percentage of total capital costs so the economics are less attractive. This run makes the assumption that all power will be valued at retail rates. Case 7.) Two turbines: all retail rates avoided, longer loan term Assumptions

• Turbine: two Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm • Loan: 20 year, 5% interest, 100% ($7.15mm)




Results:

• Up front investment: $0 • Cash Flow Positive?: Yes • Returns: Payback NA; NPV= $1,567,000 • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $3,877,000

This case is identical to the previous case except that the loan term is 20 years. The primary changes are 1) cash flow is always positive, 2) NPV is much higher, and 3) cumulative cash flow/savings are lower. Case 8.) Two turbines: wholesale rates obtained for exported power, 10 year debt Assumptions

• Turbine: two Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm • Loan: 10 year, 5% interest, 100% ($7.15mm) • Exported Power: 30% of production at wholesale values

Results:

• Up front investment: $0 • Cash Flow Positive?: No - $25k to $330k negative in years 1-11.. • Returns: NPV= $12,000 • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $3,764,000

Notes: As above, the $1mm grant represents a smaller percentage of total capital costs so the economics suffer. This case assumes 70% of the power generated avoids retail purchases and 30% is sold at wholesale. It is much less attractive financially than a project with full retail values for power presumed under the net metering models. The actual correlation between wind turbine output and MWCC consumption is hard to predict without hour by hour data of both wind speed and power consumption. However some generalities can be made:

• Weekly distribution: Power consumption drops off during weekends but the wind turbines will be working seven days a week.

• Seasonal: Both the consumption as well as production will be higher during the

winter months.




• Diurnal distribution: Based on limited data, power consumption appears to reach a minimum of about 250 kW at night and a maximum of about 850 kW during the middle of the day. Monthly peak demands run over 1 MW. The wind turbines will have a favorable diurnal production pattern with output about 50% higher in the early afternoon vs. the middle of the night. Average consumption by MWCC is about 680 kW (at 6,000 MWH per year consumption) Two Vestas V82 turbines will have an average output of about 570 kW.)

The estimate of 70% retail, 30% wholesale was chosen as a reasonable figure based on the consumption and production patterns. Depending on how the final net metering legislation and regulations are written, a more detailed hour by hour analysis may or may not be needed. If the regulations are flexible in terms of carrying excess production credits forward or selling them to others, as the legislation currently pending seems to suggest, then such analysis would not be needed. 9.) Two turbines: wholesale rates obtained for exported power, 20 year debt Assumptions

• Turbine: two Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm • Loan: 20 year, 5% interest, 100% ($7.15mm) • Exported Power: 30% of production at wholesale values

Results:

• Up front investment: $0 • Cash Flow Positive?: yes • Returns: NPV= $820,000 • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $1,978,000

This option is similar to Case 8 except 20 year financing allows the project to remain cash flow positive throughout the full project life. 10.) Third Party ownership Assumptions

• Turbine: one Vestas V82 1,650 kW turbine • Grant(s): $1 mm paid to developer upon Commercial Operations Date. • Loan: none • Power Purchase Agreement: 10% discount from projections in base case…1.5 to 1.9

cents per kWh




Results: • Up front investment: $1mm of DOE grant funds paid to developer • Cash Flow Positive?: Savings of about $50k per year. • Returns: NA, developer takes risk. • Cumulative cash flow 20 years: $2 mm.

To run this case, we assumed that the $1mm DOE grant was paid to the developer to reduce its capital costs. We then took a 10% discount of the total revenue stream—about 1.5 to 1.9 cents per kWh reduction in order to have MWCC realize about $50k per year in savings. The resulting return to the developer was below market rates required to attract investment. Some other variations were tried—including a 100% prepaid PPA—but none resulted in a sufficiently profitable project. These models are not included in the following detailed section. The following pages show more detailed printouts of the models run.




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJE

CT

EC

ON

OM

IC A

NA

LY

SIS

SU

MM

AR

YC

AS

E 1

: O

NE

TU

RB

INE

AL

L E

QU

ITY

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in

th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Ca

se

1:

ba

se

ca

se

Up

fro

nt

inve

stm

en

t:

$3

,27

5T

urb

ine:

0n

e V

esta

s V

82

1,6

50

kW

tu

rbin

eC

ash

Flo

w P

ositiv

e?:

no

, n

eg

ative

ye

ars

4 t

hro

ug

h 1

1G

ran

t(s):

$1

,00

0P

ayb

ack in

ye

ars

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($0

00

)L

oa

n:

$0

20

ye

ar

Cu

mu

lative

ca

sh

flo

w:

$4

,24

5

N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue:

$8

9O

& M

co

sts

:$

30

No

tes

: S

om

e n

eg

ative

ca

sh

flo

w.

Hig

he

r N

PV

A

pp

roxim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

qu

iva

len

t$

0.0

60

6R

ep

air,

de

du

ctib

les:

$0

Lia

bili

ty in

su

ran

ce

:$

10

A

va

ilab

ility

in

su

ran

ce

:$

0W

IND

FA

RM

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NC

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

: ($

00

0)

Ta

xa

ble

pro

pe

rty:

$3

,45

9P

rop

ert

y t

ax:

$0

Assu

mp

tio

n:

Ca

se

1:

ba

se

ca

se

SIT

EM

an

ag

em

en

t fe

e$

0A

ccu

racy:

bu

dg

eta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its,

Le

ga

l:$

30

Site

up

ke

ep

:$

6M

ach

ine

:V

esta

s V

82

Civ

il D

esig

n:

$1

5C

on

tin

ge

ncy:

$1

0T

urb

ine

Ra

tin

g:

16

50

KW

na

me

pla

teG

eo

tech

:$

10

Ad

min

fe

e:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

1 t

urb

ine

sF

acili

tie

s d

urin

g c

on

str

uctio

n:

$1

0S

ub

sta

tio

n m

ain

t.$

10

Win

d F

arm

Ra

tin

g:

16

50

KW

na

me

pla

teC

on

str

uctio

n a

nd

CO

D f

ee

:$

0A

ud

itin

g f

ee

s:

$2

In S

erv

ice

Da

te2

00

9L

an

d,

roa

d im

pro

ve

me

nts

:$

50

Mo

s.

of

1st

yr

op

era

tio

n:

3M

on

ths

Me

t to

we

r:

$0

2n

d y

r o

p c

osts

$7

3T

OT

AL

SIT

E C

OS

TS

$

11

5O

p C

osts

/ R

eve

nu

es

13

.84

%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($0

00

)E

LE

CT

RIC

AL

En

gin

ee

rin

g/d

esig

n:

$5

0A

FT

ER

TA

X N

ET

CA

SH

FL

OW

: ($

00

0)

Ba

nk D

eb

tS

ub

sta

tio

n,

Inte

rco

nn

ect

eq

uip

me

nt:

$5

00

%o

f$

0to

tal p

rin

cip

al

Co

llectio

n s

yste

m:

$1

2Y

ea

rA

nn

ua

lC

um

ula

tive

5

%fo

r1

0ye

ars

Po

we

r lin

e a

nd

tra

nsfo

rme

r:$

37

Ge

ne

ral P

art

ne

r D

eb

tW

ind

fa

rm c

on

tro

l &

mo

nito

rin

g$

10

12

00

9($

3,1

67

)($

3,1

67

)0

%o

f$

0to

tal a

mt.

Sca

da

Syste

m a

nd

ne

two

rk:

$4

12

20

10

$4

57

($2

,71

0)

0%

for

20

ye

ars

Utilit

y I

nte

rco

nn

ect

Fa

cili

tie

s:

$1

09

32

01

1$

43

8($

2,2

71

)E

qu

ity in

ve

stm

en

t:$

3,2

75

TO

TA

L E

LE

CT

RIC

AL

CO

ST

S$

31

04

20

12

$3

67

($1

,90

5)

52

01

3$

34

5($

1,5

59

)IN

FL

AT

ION

WIN

D T

UR

BIN

ES

62

01

4$

34

5($

1,2

14

)T

urb

ine

& t

ow

er

on

site

:$

2,8

50

72

01

5$

36

2($

85

2)

infla

tio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

3%

Sa

les T

ax:

$0

82

01

6$

36

2($

49

0)

O&

M e

sca

latio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

5%

Fo

un

da

tio

n a

nd

site

wo

rk:

$5

00

92

01

7$

39

0($

10

0)

Tu

rbin

e in

sta

llatio

n:

$4

80

10

20

18

$3

88

$2

88

FA

A lig

hts

:$

51

12

01

9$

38

6$

67

4P

RO

FIT

AB

ILIT

Y (

$0

00

)N

et

Inco

me

Ca

sh

Flo

wS

pa

re p

art

s:

$0

12

20

20

$3

87

$1

,06

1T

ech

nic

al A

dvis

ory

Fe

e$

15

13

20

21

$3

86

$1

,44

7In

tern

al R

ate

of

Re

turn

NA

NA

Co

mm

issio

nin

g:

$0

14

20

22

$3

87

$1

,83

43

0 y

r. N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$4

37

$4

37

TO

TA

L W

IND

TU

RB

INE

CO

ST

S$

3,8

50

15

20

23

$3

88

$2

,22

32

0 y

r. N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$8

9$

89

16

20

24

$3

98

$2

,62

05

yr

Ne

t P

rese

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

-$1

,51

2-$

1,5

12

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$

4,2

75

17

20

25

$3

99

$3

,01

9S

imp

le P

ayb

ack (

ye

ars

)N

AN

AL

ess G

ran

t(s)

$1

,00

01

82

02

6$

40

2$

3,4

21

Ave

rag

e y

ea

rly r

etu

rn$

37

6$

37

6N

ET

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S$

3,2

75

19

20

27

$4

08

$3

,82

9A

ve

rag

e R

etu

rn o

n E

qu

ity

NA

NA

20

20

28

$4

16

$4

,24

5




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJE

CT

EC

ON

OM

IC A

NA

LY

SIS

SU

MM

AR

Y

CA

SE

2:

ON

E T

UR

BIN

E 1

0 Y

R D

EB

T F

INA

NC

ING

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in thousands)

Case 2

: te

n y

ear

loan

Up fro

nt in

vestm

ent:

$0

Turb

ine: 0ne V

esta

s V

82 1

,650 k

W turb

ine

Cash F

low

Positiv

e?: no, negative y

ears

4 thro

ugh 1

0G

rant(

s):

$1,0

00

Payback in y

ears

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($000)

Loan

:$3,2

75

20 y

ear

Cum

ula

tive c

ash flo

w:

$3,2

78

N

et P

resent V

alu

e:$638

O &

M c

osts

:$30

No

tes:

Som

e n

egative c

ash flo

w. H

igher

NP

V A

ppro

xim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

quiv

ale

nt

$0.0

789

Repair, deductible

s:

$0

Lia

bili

ty insura

nce:

$10

A

vaila

bili

ty insura

nce:

$0

WIN

D F

AR

M D

ES

CR

IPT

ION

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S:

($000)

Taxable

pro

pert

y:

$3,4

59

Pro

pert

y tax:

$0

Assum

ption:

Case 2

: te

n y

ear

loan

SIT

EM

anagem

ent fe

e$0

Accura

cy:

budgeta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its, Legal:

$30

Site u

pkeep:

$6

Machin

e:

Vesta

s V

82

Civ

il D

esig

n:

$15

Contingency:

$10

Turb

ine R

ating:

1650

KW

nam

epla

teG

eote

ch:

$10

Adm

in fee:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

1 turb

ines

Facili

ties d

uring c

onstr

uction:

$10

Substa

tion m

ain

t.$10

Win

d F

arm

Rating:

1650

KW

nam

epla

teC

onstr

uction a

nd C

OD

fee:

$0

Auditin

g fees:

$2

In S

erv

ice D

ate

2009

Land, ro

ad im

pro

vem

ents

:$50

Mos. of 1st yr

opera

tion:

3M

onth

sM

et to

wer:

$0

2nd y

r op c

osts

$73

TO

TA

L S

ITE

CO

ST

S

$115

Op C

osts

/ R

evenues

13.8

4%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($000)

ELE

CT

RIC

AL

Engin

eering/d

esig

n:

$50

AF

TE

R T

AX

NE

T C

AS

H F

LO

W:

($000)

Bank D

ebt

Substa

tion, In

terc

onnect equip

ment:

$50

100%

of

$3,2

75

tota

l princip

al

Colle

ction s

yste

m:

$12

Year

Annual

Cum

ula

tive

5%

for

10

years

Pow

er

line a

nd tra

nsfo

rmer:

$37

Genera

l P

art

ner

Debt

Win

d farm

contr

ol &

monitoring

$10

12009

$2

$2

0%

of

$0

tota

l am

t.S

cada S

yste

m a

nd n

etw

ork

:$41

22010

$33

$35

0%

for

20

years

Utilit

y Inte

rconnect F

acili

ties:

$109

32011

$14

$49

Equity investm

ent:

$0

TO

TA

L E

LE

CT

RIC

AL C

OS

TS

$310

42012

($57)

($8)

52013

($79)

($87)

INF

LA

TIO

NW

IND

TU

RB

INE

S6

2014

($79)

($166)

Turb

ine &

tow

er

on s

ite:

$2,8

50

72015

($62)

($228)

inflation r

ate

: p

er

year

3%

Sale

s T

ax:

$0

82016

($62)

($289)

O&

M e

scala

tion r

ate

: p

er

year

5%

Foundation a

nd s

ite w

ork

:$500

92017

($34)

($324)

Turb

ine insta

llation:

$480

10

2018

($36)

($360)

FA

A lig

hts

:$5

11

2019

$68

($292)

PR

OF

ITA

BIL

ITY

($000)

Net In

com

eC

ash F

low

Spare

part

s:

$0

12

2020

$387

$95

Technic

al A

dvis

ory

Fee

$15

13

2021

$386

$481

Inte

rnal R

ate

of R

etu

rnN

AN

AC

om

mis

sio

nin

g:

$0

14

2022

$387

$868

30 y

r. N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$2,7

91

$986

TO

TA

L W

IND

TU

RB

INE

CO

ST

S$3,8

50

15

2023

$388

$1,2

56

20 y

r. N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$2,4

43

$638

16

2024

$398

$1,6

54

5 y

r N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$961

-$93

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$4,2

75

17

2025

$399

$2,0

53

Sim

ple

Payback (

years

)N

AN

ALess G

rant(

s)

$1,0

00

18

2026

$402

$2,4

55

Avera

ge y

early r

etu

rn$328

$164

NE

T C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$3,2

75

19

2027

$408

$2,8

63

Avera

ge R

etu

rn o

n E

quity

NA

NA

20

2028

$416

$3,2

78




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJ

EC

T E

CO

NO

MIC

AN

AL

YS

IS S

UM

MA

RY

CA

SE

3:

ON

E T

UR

BIN

E,

20

YR

DE

BT

FIN

AN

CIN

G

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in t

housands)

Case 3

: 20 y

ear

loan

Up fro

nt in

vestm

ent:

$0

Turb

ine: 0ne V

esta

s V

82 1

,650 k

W turb

ine

Cash F

low

Positiv

e?: yes

Gra

nt(

s):

$1,0

00

Payback in y

ears

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($000)

Loan

:$3,2

75

20 y

ear

Cum

ula

tive c

ash flo

w:

$2,4

61

N

et P

resent V

alu

e:$1,0

08

O &

M c

osts

:$30

No

tes:

Postitive c

ash flo

w. H

igher

NP

V A

ppro

xim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

quiv

ale

nt

$0.0

980

Repair,

deductible

s:

$0

Lia

bili

ty insura

nce:

$10

A

vaila

bili

ty insura

nce:

$0

WIN

D F

AR

M D

ES

CR

IPT

ION

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S:

($000)

Taxable

pro

pert

y:

$3,4

59

Pro

pert

y t

ax:

$0

Assum

ption:

Case 3

: 20 y

ear

loan

SIT

EM

anagem

ent

fee

$0

Accura

cy:

budgeta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its, Legal:

$30

Site u

pkeep:

$6

Machin

e:

Vesta

s V

82

Civ

il D

esig

n:

$15

Contingency:

$10

Turb

ine R

ating:

1650

KW

nam

epla

teG

eote

ch:

$10

Adm

in f

ee:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

1 turb

ines

Facili

ties d

uring c

onstr

uction:

$10

Substa

tion m

ain

t.$10

Win

d F

arm

Rating:

1650

KW

nam

epla

teC

onstr

uction a

nd C

OD

fee:

$0

Auditin

g f

ees:

$2

In S

erv

ice D

ate

2009

Land, ro

ad im

pro

vem

ents

:$50

Mos. of 1st yr

opera

tion:

3M

onth

sM

et to

wer:

$0

2nd y

r op c

osts

$73

TO

TA

L S

ITE

CO

ST

S

$115

Op C

osts

/ R

evenues

13.8

4%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($000)

ELE

CT

RIC

AL

Engin

eering/d

esig

n:

$50

AF

TE

R T

AX

NE

T C

AS

H F

LO

W:

($000)

Bank D

ebt

Substa

tion, In

terc

onnect equip

ment:

$50

100%

of

$3,2

75

tota

l princip

al

Colle

ction s

yste

m:

$12

Year

Annual

Cum

ula

tive

5%

for

20

years

Pow

er

line a

nd tra

nsfo

rmer:

$37

Genera

l P

art

ner

Debt

Win

d farm

contr

ol &

monitoring

$10

12009

$42

$42

0%

of

$0

tota

l am

t.S

cada S

yste

m a

nd n

etw

ork

:$41

22010

$194

$236

0%

for

20

years

Utilit

y Inte

rconnect F

acili

ties:

$109

32011

$176

$412

Equity investm

ent:

$0

TO

TA

L E

LE

CT

RIC

AL C

OS

TS

$310

42012

$104

$516

52013

$83

$598

INF

LA

TIO

NW

IND

TU

RB

INE

S6

2014

$82

$681

Turb

ine &

tow

er

on s

ite:

$2,8

50

72015

$100

$780

inflation r

ate

: p

er

year

3%

Sale

s T

ax:

$0

82016

$100

$880

O&

M e

scala

tion r

ate

: p

er

year

5%

Foundation a

nd s

ite w

ork

:$500

92017

$127

$1,0

07

Turb

ine insta

llation:

$480

10

2018

$125

$1,1

33

FA

A lig

hts

:$5

11

2019

$123

$1,2

56

PR

OF

ITA

BIL

ITY

($000)

Net In

com

eC

ash F

low

Spare

part

s:

$0

12

2020

$124

$1,3

80

Technic

al A

dvis

ory

Fee

$15

13

2021

$123

$1,5

03

Inte

rnal R

ate

of R

etu

rnN

AN

AC

om

mis

sio

nin

g:

$0

14

2022

$125

$1,6

27

30 y

r. N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$2,4

47

$1,3

29

TO

TA

L W

IND

TU

RB

INE

CO

ST

S$3,8

50

15

2023

$126

$1,7

53

20 y

r. N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$2,1

01

$1,0

08

16

2024

$135

$1,8

88

5 y

r N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$900

$499

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$4,2

75

17

2025

$136

$2,0

24

Sim

ple

Payback (

years

)N

AN

ALess G

rant(

s)

$1,0

00

18

2026

$139

$2,1

63

Avera

ge y

early r

etu

rn$277

$123

NE

T C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$3,2

75

19

2027

$145

$2,3

08

Avera

ge R

etu

rn o

n E

quity

NA

NA

20

2028

$153

$2,4

61




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJE

CT

EC

ON

OM

IC A

NA

LY

SIS

SU

MM

AR

Y

CA

SE

4:

ON

E T

UR

BIN

E, L

AR

GE

R G

RA

NT

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in thousands)

Case 4

: la

rger

gra

nt

Up fro

nt in

vestm

ent:

$0

Turb

ine: 0ne V

esta

s V

82 1

,650 k

W turb

ine

Cash F

low

Positiv

e?: yes

Gra

nt(

s):

$1,6

50

Payback in y

ears

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($000)

Loan

:$2,6

25

20 y

ear

Cum

ula

tive c

ash flo

w:

$4,1

20

N

et P

resent V

alu

e:$1,1

20

O &

M c

osts

:$30

No

tes:

Postitive c

ash flo

w. H

igher

NP

V A

ppro

xim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

quiv

ale

nt

$0.0

629

Repair, deductible

s:

$0

Lia

bili

ty insura

nce:

$10

A

vaila

bili

ty insura

nce:

$0

WIN

D F

AR

M D

ES

CR

IPT

ION

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S:

($000)

Taxable

pro

pert

y:

$3,4

59

Pro

pert

y tax:

$0

Assum

ption:

Case 4

: la

rger

gra

nt

SIT

EM

anagem

ent fe

e$0

Accura

cy:

budgeta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its, Legal:

$30

Site u

pkeep:

$6

Machin

e:

Vesta

s V

82

Civ

il D

esig

n:

$15

Contingency:

$10

Turb

ine R

ating:

1650

KW

nam

epla

teG

eote

ch:

$10

Adm

in fee:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

1 turb

ines

Facili

ties d

uring c

onstr

uction:

$10

Substa

tion m

ain

t.$10

Win

d F

arm

Rating:

1650

KW

nam

epla

teC

onstr

uction a

nd C

OD

fee:

$0

Auditin

g fees:

$2

In S

erv

ice D

ate

2009

Land, ro

ad im

pro

vem

ents

:$50

Mos. of 1st yr

opera

tion:

3M

onth

sM

et to

wer:

$0

2nd y

r op c

osts

$73

TO

TA

L S

ITE

CO

ST

S

$115

Op C

osts

/ R

evenues

13.8

4%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($000)

ELE

CT

RIC

AL

Engin

eering/d

esig

n:

$50

AF

TE

R T

AX

NE

T C

AS

H F

LO

W:

($000)

Bank D

ebt

Substa

tion, In

terc

onnect equip

ment:

$50

100%

of

$2,6

25

tota

l princip

al

Colle

ction s

yste

m:

$12

Year

Annual

Cum

ula

tive

5%

for

10

years

Pow

er

line a

nd tra

nsfo

rmer:

$37

Genera

l P

art

ner

Debt

Win

d farm

contr

ol &

monitoring

$10

12009

$23

$23

0%

of

$0

tota

l am

t.S

cada S

yste

m a

nd n

etw

ork

:$41

22010

$117

$140

0%

for

20

years

Utilit

y Inte

rconnect F

acili

ties:

$109

32011

$98

$238

Equity investm

ent:

$0

TO

TA

L E

LE

CT

RIC

AL C

OS

TS

$310

42012

$27

$265

52013

$5

$271

INF

LA

TIO

NW

IND

TU

RB

INE

S6

2014

$5

$276

Turb

ine &

tow

er

on s

ite:

$2,8

50

72015

$22

$298

inflation r

ate

: p

er

year

3%

Sale

s T

ax:

$0

82016

$23

$321

O&

M e

scala

tion r

ate

: p

er

year

5%

Foundation a

nd s

ite w

ork

:$500

92017

$50

$371

Turb

ine insta

llation:

$480

10

2018

$48

$419

FA

A lig

hts

:$5

11

2019

$131

$550

PR

OF

ITA

BIL

ITY

($000)

Net In

com

eC

ash F

low

Spare

part

s:

$0

12

2020

$387

$937

Technic

al A

dvis

ory

Fee

$15

13

2021

$386

$1,3

23

Inte

rnal R

ate

of R

etu

rnN

AN

AC

om

mis

sio

nin

g:

$0

14

2022

$387

$1,7

10

30 y

r. N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$2,9

14

$1,4

68

TO

TA

L W

IND

TU

RB

INE

CO

ST

S$3,8

50

15

2023

$388

$2,0

98

20 y

r. N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$2,5

67

$1,1

20

16

2024

$398

$2,4

96

5 y

r N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$1,0

61

$216

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$4,2

75

17

2025

$399

$2,8

95

Sim

ple

Payback (

years

)N

AN

ALess G

rant(

s)

$1,6

50

18

2026

$402

$3,2

97

Avera

ge y

early r

etu

rn$337

$206

NE

T C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$2,6

25

19

2027

$408

$3,7

05

Avera

ge R

etu

rn o

n E

quity

NA

NA

20

2028

$416

$4,1

20




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJ

EC

T E

CO

NO

MIC

AN

AL

YS

IS S

UM

MA

RY

CA

SE

5:

GE

1.5

MW

TU

RB

INE

, 1

0 Y

R L

OA

N

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in

th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Ca

se

5:

ge

1.5

mw

tu

rbin

eU

p f

ron

t in

ve

stm

en

t:

$0

Tu

rbin

e:

0n

e G

E 1

.5 M

W t

urb

ine

Ca

sh

Flo

w P

ositiv

e?:

no

Gra

nt(

s):

$1

,00

0P

ayb

ack in

ye

ars

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($0

00

)L

oa

n:

$2

,75

02

0 y

ea

r C

um

ula

tive

ca

sh

flo

w:

$2

,90

5

N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue:

$6

02

O &

M c

osts

:$

27

No

tes

: S

om

e n

eg

ative

ca

sh

flo

w

Ap

pro

xim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

qu

iva

len

t$

0.0

78

3R

ep

air,

de

du

ctib

les:

$0

Lia

bili

ty in

su

ran

ce

:$

10

A

va

ilab

ility

in

su

ran

ce

:$

0W

IND

FA

RM

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NC

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

: ($

00

0)

Ta

xa

ble

pro

pe

rty:

$2

,93

4P

rop

ert

y t

ax:

$0

Assu

mp

tio

n:

Ca

se

5:

ge

1.5

mw

tu

rbin

eS

ITE

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

fee

$0

Accu

racy:

bu

dg

eta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its,

Le

ga

l:$

30

Site

up

ke

ep

:$

6M

ach

ine

:G

E s

le 1

.5C

ivil

De

sig

n:

$1

5C

on

tin

ge

ncy:

$1

0T

urb

ine

Ra

tin

g:

15

00

KW

na

me

pla

teG

eo

tech

:$

10

Ad

min

fe

e:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

1 t

urb

ine

sF

acili

tie

s d

urin

g c

on

str

uctio

n:

$1

0S

ub

sta

tio

n m

ain

t.$

10

Win

d F

arm

Ra

tin

g:

15

00

KW

na

me

pla

teC

on

str

uctio

n a

nd

CO

D f

ee

:$

0A

ud

itin

g f

ee

s:

$2

In S

erv

ice

Da

te2

00

9L

an

d,

roa

d im

pro

ve

me

nts

:$

50

Mo

s.

of

1st

yr

op

era

tio

n:

3M

on

ths

Me

t to

we

r:

$0

2n

d y

r o

p c

osts

$7

0T

OT

AL

SIT

E C

OS

TS

$

11

5O

p C

osts

/ R

eve

nu

es

14

.97

%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($0

00

)E

LE

CT

RIC

AL

En

gin

ee

rin

g/d

esig

n:

$5

0A

FT

ER

TA

X N

ET

CA

SH

FL

OW

: ($

00

0)

Ba

nk D

eb

tS

ub

sta

tio

n,

Inte

rco

nn

ect

eq

uip

me

nt:

$5

01

00

%o

f$

2,7

50

tota

l p

rin

cip

al

Co

llectio

n s

yste

m:

$1

2Y

ea

rA

nn

ua

lC

um

ula

tive

5

%fo

r1

0ye

ars

Po

we

r lin

e a

nd

tra

nsfo

rme

r:$

37

Ge

ne

ral P

art

ne

r D

eb

tW

ind

fa

rm c

on

tro

l &

mo

nito

rin

g$

10

12

00

9$

4$

40

%o

f$

0to

tal a

mt.

Sca

da

Syste

m a

nd

ne

two

rk:

$4

12

20

10

$4

0$

44

0%

for

20

ye

ars

Utilit

y I

nte

rco

nn

ect

Fa

cili

tie

s:

$1

09

32

01

1$

23

$6

7E

qu

ity in

ve

stm

en

t:$

0T

OT

AL

EL

EC

TR

ICA

L C

OS

TS

$3

10

42

01

2($

40

)$

27

52

01

3($

59

)($

31

)IN

FL

AT

ION

WIN

D T

UR

BIN

ES

62

01

4($

59

)($

90

)T

urb

ine

& t

ow

er

on

site

:$

2,3

25

72

01

5($

44

)($

13

5)

infla

tio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

3%

Sa

les T

ax:

$0

82

01

6($

44

)($

17

9)

O&

M e

sca

latio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

5%

Fo

un

da

tio

n a

nd

site

wo

rk:

$5

00

92

01

7($

20

)($

19

9)

Tu

rbin

e in

sta

llatio

n:

$4

80

10

20

18

($2

2)

($2

21

)F

AA

lig

hts

:$

51

12

01

9$

65

($1

56

)P

RO

FIT

AB

ILIT

Y (

$0

00

)N

et

Inco

me

Ca

sh

Flo

wS

pa

re p

art

s:

$0

12

20

20

$3

32

$1

76

Te

ch

nic

al A

dvis

ory

Fe

e$

15

13

20

21

$3

31

$5

07

Inte

rna

l R

ate

of

Re

turn

NA

NA

Co

mm

issio

nin

g:

$0

14

20

22

$3

32

$8

39

30

yr.

Ne

t P

rese

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$2

,41

4$

89

8T

OT

AL

WIN

D T

UR

BIN

E C

OS

TS

$3

,32

51

52

02

3$

33

3$

1,1

73

20

yr.

Ne

t P

rese

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$2

,11

8$

60

21

62

02

4$

34

1$

1,5

14

5 y

r N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$8

42

-$4

3T

OT

AL

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S

$3

,75

01

72

02

5$

34

2$

1,8

56

Sim

ple

Pa

yb

ack (

ye

ars

)N

AN

AL

ess G

ran

t(s)

$1

,00

01

82

02

6$

34

4$

2,2

00

Ave

rag

e y

ea

rly r

etu

rn$

28

3$

14

5N

ET

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S$

2,7

50

19

20

27

$3

49

$2

,54

9A

ve

rag

e R

etu

rn o

n E

qu

ity

NA

NA

20

20

28

$3

56

$2

,90

5




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJE

CT

EC

ON

OM

IC A

NA

LY

SIS

SU

MM

AR

Y

CA

SE

6:

TW

O T

UR

BIN

ES

, P

OW

ER

AT

RE

TA

IL,

10 Y

R D

EB

T

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in thousands)

Case 6

: tw

o V

esta

s turb

ines

Up fro

nt in

vestm

ent:

$0

Turb

ine: T

wo V

esta

s V

82 1

,650 k

W turb

ine

Cash F

low

Positiv

e?: no, negative thro

ugh y

ear

10

Gra

nt(

s):

$1,0

00

Payback in y

ears

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($000)

Loan:

$7,1

54

20 y

ear

Cum

ula

tive c

ash flo

w:

$5,6

63

N

et P

resent V

alu

e:$758

O &

M c

osts

:$57

No

tes:

Som

e n

egative c

ash flo

w. H

igher

NP

V A

ppro

xim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

quiv

ale

nt

$0.0

843

Repair, deductible

s:

$0

Lia

bili

ty insura

nce:

$20

A

vaila

bili

ty insura

nce:

$0

WIN

D F

AR

M D

ES

CR

IPT

ION

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S:

($000)

Taxable

pro

pert

y:

$6,7

94

Pro

pert

y tax:

$0

Assum

ption:

Case 6

: tw

o V

esta

s turb

ines

SIT

EM

anagem

ent fe

e$0

Accura

cy:

budgeta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its, Legal:

$30

Site u

pkeep:

$6

Machin

e:

Vesta

s V

82

Civ

il D

esig

n:

$25

Contingency:

$10

Turb

ine R

ating:

1650

KW

nam

epla

teG

eote

ch:

$19

Adm

in fee:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

2 turb

ines

Facili

ties d

uring c

onstr

uction:

$10

Substa

tion m

ain

t.$10

Win

d F

arm

Rating:

3300

KW

nam

epla

teC

onstr

uction a

nd C

OD

fee:

$0

Auditin

g fees:

$2

In S

erv

ice D

ate

2009

Land, ro

ad im

pro

vem

ents

:$100

Mos. of 1st yr

opera

tion:

3M

onth

sM

et to

wer:

$0

2nd y

r op c

osts

$110

TO

TA

L S

ITE

CO

ST

S

$184

Op C

osts

/ R

evenues

11.0

2%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($000)

ELE

CT

RIC

AL

Engin

eering/d

esig

n:

$60

AF

TE

R T

AX

NE

T C

AS

H F

LO

W:

($000)

Bank D

ebt

Substa

tion, In

terc

onnect equip

ment:

$75

100%

of

$7,1

54

tota

l princip

al

Colle

ction s

yste

m:

$24

Year

Annual

Cum

ula

tive

5%

for

10

years

Pow

er

line a

nd tra

nsfo

rmer:

$75

Genera

l P

art

ner

Debt

Win

d farm

contr

ol &

monitoring

$20

12009

($21)

($21)

0%

of

$0

tota

l am

t.S

cada S

yste

m a

nd n

etw

ork

:$82

22010

($35)

($55)

0%

for

20

years

Utilit

y Inte

rconnect F

acili

ties:

$109

32011

($69)

($124)

Equity investm

ent:

$0

TO

TA

L E

LE

CT

RIC

AL C

OS

TS

$445

42012

($203)

($328)

52013

($243)

($571)

INF

LA

TIO

NW

IND

TU

RB

INE

S6

2014

($242)

($813)

Turb

ine &

tow

er

on s

ite:

$5,7

00

72015

($209)

($1,0

22)

inflation r

ate

: p

er

year

3%

Sale

s T

ax:

$0

82016

($208)

($1,2

30)

O&

M e

scala

tion r

ate

: p

er

year

5%

Foundation a

nd s

ite w

ork

:$900

92017

($155)

($1,3

85)

Turb

ine insta

llation:

$900

10

2018

($157)

($1,5

42)

FA

A lig

hts

:$10

11

2019

$72

($1,4

70)

PR

OF

ITA

BIL

ITY

($000)

Net In

com

eC

ash F

low

Spare

part

s:

$0

12

2020

$769

($702)

Technic

al A

dvis

ory

Fee

$15

13

2021

$768

$67

Inte

rnal R

ate

of R

etu

rnN

AN

AC

om

mis

sio

nin

g:

$0

14

2022

$772

$839

30 y

r. N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$5,4

10

$1,4

66

TO

TA

L W

IND

TU

RB

INE

CO

ST

S$7,5

25

15

2023

$776

$1,6

15

20 y

r. N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$4,7

02

$758

16

2024

$794

$2,4

09

5 y

r N

et P

resent V

alu

e a

t10.0

%$1,7

76

-$526

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$8,1

54

17

2025

$799

$3,2

07

Sim

ple

Payback (

years

)N

AN

ALess G

rant(

s)

$1,0

00

18

2026

$805

$4,0

12

Avera

ge y

early r

etu

rn$641

$283

NE

T C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$7,1

54

19

2027

$817

$4,8

29

Avera

ge R

etu

rn o

n E

quity

NA

NA

20

2028

$834

$5,6

63




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJE

CT

EC

ON

OM

IC A

NA

LY

SIS

SU

MM

AR

Y

CA

SE

7:

TW

O T

UR

BIN

ES

, P

OW

ER

AT

RE

TA

IL, 20 Y

R D

EB

T

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in

th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Ca

se

7:

2 t

urb

ine

s,

reta

il, 2

0 y

r d

eb

tU

p f

ron

t in

ve

stm

en

t:

$0

Tu

rbin

e:

Tw

o V

esta

s V

82

1,6

50

kW

tu

rbin

eC

ash

Flo

w P

ositiv

e?:

ye

sG

ran

t(s):

$1

,00

0P

ayb

ack in

ye

ars

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($0

00

)L

oa

n:

$7

,15

42

0 y

ea

r C

um

ula

tive

ca

sh

flo

w:

$3

,87

7

N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue:

$1

,56

7O

& M

co

sts

:$

57

No

tes

: p

ositiv

e c

ash

flo

w.

Hig

he

r N

PV

A

pp

roxim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

qu

iva

len

t$

0.1

06

3R

ep

air,

de

du

ctib

les:

$0

Lia

bili

ty in

su

ran

ce

:$

20

A

va

ilab

ility

in

su

ran

ce

:$

0W

IND

FA

RM

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NC

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

: ($

00

0)

Ta

xa

ble

pro

pe

rty:

$6

,79

4P

rop

ert

y t

ax:

$0

Assu

mp

tio

n:

Ca

se

7:

2 t

urb

ine

s,

reta

il, 2

0 y

r d

eb

tS

ITE

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

fee

$0

Accu

racy:

bu

dg

eta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its,

Le

ga

l:$

30

Site

up

ke

ep

:$

6M

ach

ine

:V

esta

s V

82

Civ

il D

esig

n:

$2

5C

on

tin

ge

ncy:

$1

0T

urb

ine

Ra

tin

g:

16

50

KW

na

me

pla

teG

eo

tech

:$

19

Ad

min

fe

e:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

2 t

urb

ine

sF

acili

tie

s d

urin

g c

on

str

uctio

n:

$1

0S

ub

sta

tio

n m

ain

t.$

10

Win

d F

arm

Ra

tin

g:

33

00

KW

na

me

pla

teC

on

str

uctio

n a

nd

CO

D f

ee

:$

0A

ud

itin

g f

ee

s:

$2

In S

erv

ice

Da

te2

00

9L

an

d,

roa

d im

pro

ve

me

nts

:$

10

0M

os.

of

1st

yr

op

era

tio

n:

3M

on

ths

Me

t to

we

r:

$0

2n

d y

r o

p c

osts

$1

10

TO

TA

L S

ITE

CO

ST

S

$1

84

Op

Co

sts

/ R

eve

nu

es

11

.02

%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($0

00

)E

LE

CT

RIC

AL

En

gin

ee

rin

g/d

esig

n:

$6

0A

FT

ER

TA

X N

ET

CA

SH

FL

OW

: ($

00

0)

Ba

nk D

eb

tS

ub

sta

tio

n,

Inte

rco

nn

ect

eq

uip

me

nt:

$7

51

00

%o

f$

7,1

54

tota

l p

rin

cip

al

Co

llectio

n s

yste

m:

$2

4Y

ea

rA

nn

ua

lC

um

ula

tive

5

%fo

r2

0ye

ars

Po

we

r lin

e a

nd

tra

nsfo

rme

r:$

75

Ge

ne

ral P

art

ne

r D

eb

tW

ind

fa

rm c

on

tro

l &

mo

nito

rin

g$

20

12

00

9$

67

$6

70

%o

f$

0to

tal a

mt.

Sca

da

Syste

m a

nd

ne

two

rk:

$8

22

20

10

$3

18

$3

85

0%

for

20

ye

ars

Utilit

y I

nte

rco

nn

ect

Fa

cili

tie

s:

$1

09

32

01

1$

28

4$

66

9E

qu

ity in

ve

stm

en

t:$

0T

OT

AL

EL

EC

TR

ICA

L C

OS

TS

$4

45

42

01

2$

14

9$

81

85

20

13

$1

10

$9

27

INF

LA

TIO

NW

IND

TU

RB

INE

S6

20

14

$1

10

$1

,03

7T

urb

ine

& t

ow

er

on

site

:$

5,7

00

72

01

5$

14

3$

1,1

81

infla

tio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

3%

Sa

les T

ax:

$0

82

01

6$

14

5$

1,3

25

O&

M e

sca

latio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

5%

Fo

un

da

tio

n a

nd

site

wo

rk:

$9

00

92

01

7$

19

8$

1,5

23

Tu

rbin

e in

sta

llatio

n:

$9

00

10

20

18

$1

95

$1

,71

8F

AA

lig

hts

:$

10

11

20

19

$1

92

$1

,91

1P

RO

FIT

AB

ILIT

Y (

$0

00

)N

et

Inco

me

Ca

sh

Flo

wS

pa

re p

art

s:

$0

12

20

20

$1

94

$2

,10

5T

ech

nic

al A

dvis

ory

Fe

e$

15

13

20

21

$1

94

$2

,29

9In

tern

al R

ate

of

Re

turn

NA

NA

Co

mm

issio

nin

g:

$0

14

20

22

$1

98

$2

,49

83

0 y

r. N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$4

,65

9$

2,2

17

TO

TA

L W

IND

TU

RB

INE

CO

ST

S$

7,5

25

15

20

23

$2

01

$2

,69

92

0 y

r. N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$3

,95

4$

1,5

67

16

20

24

$2

20

$2

,91

95

yr

Ne

t P

rese

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$1

,64

5$

76

9T

OT

AL

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S

$8

,15

41

72

02

5$

22

4$

3,1

44

Sim

ple

Pa

yb

ack (

ye

ars

)N

AN

AL

ess G

ran

t(s)

$1

,00

01

82

02

6$

23

1$

3,3

75

Ave

rag

e y

ea

rly r

etu

rn$

53

1$

19

4N

ET

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S$

7,1

54

19

20

27

$2

43

$3

,61

7A

ve

rag

e R

etu

rn o

n E

qu

ity

NA

NA

20

20

28

$2

59

$3

,87

7




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJ

EC

T E

CO

NO

MIC

AN

AL

YS

IS S

UM

MA

RY

CA

SE

8:

TW

O T

UR

BIN

ES

, T

EN

YE

AR

DE

BT

, E

XP

OR

TE

D P

OW

ER

AT

WH

OL

ES

AL

E

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in

th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Ca

se

8:

2 t

urb

ine

s,

exp

ort

@ w

ho

lesa

leU

p f

ron

t in

ve

stm

en

t:

$0

Tu

rbin

e:

Tw

o V

esta

s V

82

1,6

50

kW

tu

rbin

eC

ash

Flo

w P

ositiv

e?:

on

ly a

fte

r 1

1 y

ea

rsG

ran

t(s):

$1

,00

0P

ayb

ack in

ye

ars

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($0

00

)L

oa

n:

$7

,15

42

0 y

ea

r C

um

ula

tive

ca

sh

flo

w:

$3

,76

4

N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue:

$1

2O

& M

co

sts

:$

57

No

tes

: n

eg

ative

ca

sh

flo

w.

Lo

w N

PV

A

pp

roxim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

qu

iva

len

t$

0.0

84

3R

ep

air,

de

du

ctib

les:

$0

Lia

bili

ty in

su

ran

ce

:$

20

A

va

ilab

ility

in

su

ran

ce

:$

0W

IND

FA

RM

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NC

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

: ($

00

0)

Ta

xa

ble

pro

pe

rty:

$6

,79

4P

rop

ert

y t

ax:

$0

Assu

mp

tio

n:

Ca

se

8:

2 t

urb

ine

s,

exp

ort

@ w

ho

lesa

leS

ITE

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

fee

$0

Accu

racy:

bu

dg

eta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its,

Le

ga

l:$

30

Site

up

ke

ep

:$

6M

ach

ine

:V

esta

s V

82

Civ

il D

esig

n:

$2

5C

on

tin

ge

ncy:

$1

0T

urb

ine

Ra

tin

g:

16

50

KW

na

me

pla

teG

eo

tech

:$

19

Ad

min

fe

e:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

2 t

urb

ine

sF

acili

tie

s d

urin

g c

on

str

uctio

n:

$1

0S

ub

sta

tio

n m

ain

t.$

10

Win

d F

arm

Ra

tin

g:

33

00

KW

na

me

pla

teC

on

str

uctio

n a

nd

CO

D f

ee

:$

0A

ud

itin

g f

ee

s:

$2

In S

erv

ice

Da

te2

00

9L

an

d,

roa

d im

pro

ve

me

nts

:$

10

0M

os.

of

1st

yr

op

era

tio

n:

3M

on

ths

Me

t to

we

r:

$0

2n

d y

r o

p c

osts

$1

10

TO

TA

L S

ITE

CO

ST

S

$1

84

Op

Co

sts

/ R

eve

nu

es

12

.16

%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($0

00

)E

LE

CT

RIC

AL

En

gin

ee

rin

g/d

esig

n:

$6

0A

FT

ER

TA

X N

ET

CA

SH

FL

OW

: ($

00

0)

Ba

nk D

eb

tS

ub

sta

tio

n,

Inte

rco

nn

ect

eq

uip

me

nt:

$7

51

00

%o

f$

7,1

54

tota

l p

rin

cip

al

Co

llectio

n s

yste

m:

$2

4Y

ea

rA

nn

ua

lC

um

ula

tive

5

%fo

r1

0ye

ars

Po

we

r lin

e a

nd

tra

nsfo

rme

r:$

75

Ge

ne

ral P

art

ne

r D

eb

tW

ind

fa

rm c

on

tro

l &

mo

nito

rin

g$

20

12

00

9($

40

)($

40

)0

%o

f$

0to

tal a

mt.

Sca

da

Syste

m a

nd

ne

two

rk:

$8

22

20

10

($1

29

)($

16

9)

0%

for

20

ye

ars

Utilit

y I

nte

rco

nn

ect

Fa

cili

tie

s:

$1

09

32

01

1($

16

2)

($3

31

)E

qu

ity in

ve

stm

en

t:$

0T

OT

AL

EL

EC

TR

ICA

L C

OS

TS

$4

45

42

01

2($

29

5)

($6

26

)5

20

13

($3

32

)($

95

8)

INF

LA

TIO

NW

IND

TU

RB

INE

S6

20

14

($3

32

)($

1,2

90

)T

urb

ine

& t

ow

er

on

site

:$

5,7

00

72

01

5($

30

1)

($1

,59

1)

infla

tio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

3%

Sa

les T

ax:

$0

82

01

6($

30

1)

($1

,89

1)

O&

M e

sca

latio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

5%

Fo

un

da

tio

n a

nd

site

wo

rk:

$9

00

92

01

7($

25

1)

($2

,14

2)

Tu

rbin

e in

sta

llatio

n:

$9

00

10

20

18

($2

54

)($

2,3

96

)F

AA

lig

hts

:$

10

11

20

19

($2

6)

($2

,42

2)

PR

OF

ITA

BIL

ITY

($

00

0)

Ne

t In

co

me

Ca

sh

Flo

wS

pa

re p

art

s:

$0

12

20

20

$6

70

($1

,75

2)

Te

ch

nic

al A

dvis

ory

Fe

e$

15

13

20

21

$6

68

($1

,08

4)

Inte

rna

l R

ate

of

Re

turn

NA

NA

Co

mm

issio

nin

g:

$0

14

20

22

$6

70

($4

13

)3

0 y

r. N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$4

,56

0$

61

7T

OT

AL

WIN

D T

UR

BIN

E C

OS

TS

$7

,52

51

52

02

3$

67

2$

25

92

0 y

r. N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$3

,95

5$

12

16

20

24

$6

89

$9

47

5 y

r N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$1

,44

2-$

86

0T

OT

AL

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S

$8

,15

41

72

02

5$

69

2$

1,6

39

Sim

ple

Pa

yb

ack (

ye

ars

)N

AN

AL

ess G

ran

t(s)

$1

,00

01

82

02

6$

69

7$

2,3

35

Ave

rag

e y

ea

rly r

etu

rn$

54

6$

18

8N

ET

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S$

7,1

54

19

20

27

$7

07

$3

,04

2A

ve

rag

e R

etu

rn o

n E

qu

ity

NA

NA

20

20

28

$7

22

$3

,76

4




MO

UN

T W

AC

HU

SE

TT

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CO

LL

EG

E W

IND

EN

ER

GY

PR

OJ

EC

T E

CO

NO

MIC

AN

AL

YS

IS S

UM

MA

RY

CA

SE

9:

TW

O T

UR

BIN

ES

, T

WE

NT

Y Y

EA

R D

EB

T,

EX

PO

RT

ED

PO

WE

R A

T W

HO

LE

SA

LE

AS

SU

MP

TIO

NS

RE

SU

LT

S(D

olla

rs in

th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Ca

se

9:

Ca

se

8 w

/ 2

0 y

r d

eb

tU

p f

ron

t in

ve

stm

en

t:

$0

Tu

rbin

e:

Tw

o V

esta

s V

82

1,6

50

kW

tu

rbin

eC

ash

Flo

w P

ositiv

e?:

ye

sG

ran

t(s):

$1

,00

0P

ayb

ack in

ye

ars

NA

AN

NU

AL

OP

ER

AT

ING

CO

ST

S:

($0

00

)L

oa

n:

$7

,15

42

0 y

ea

r C

um

ula

tive

ca

sh

flo

w:

$1

,97

8

N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue:

$8

20

O &

M c

osts

:$

57

No

tes

: p

ositiv

e c

ash

flo

w.

Hig

he

r N

PV

th

an

#8

A

pp

roxim

ate

d $

/kW

h e

qu

iva

len

t$

0.1

06

3R

ep

air,

de

du

ctib

les:

$0

Lia

bili

ty in

su

ran

ce

:$

20

A

va

ilab

ility

in

su

ran

ce

:$

0W

IND

FA

RM

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NC

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

: ($

00

0)

Ta

xa

ble

pro

pe

rty:

$6

,79

4P

rop

ert

y t

ax:

$0

Assu

mp

tio

n:

Ca

se

9:

Ca

se

8 w

/ 2

0 y

r d

eb

tS

ITE

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

fee

$0

Accu

racy:

bu

dg

eta

ry e

stim

ate

sP

erm

its,

Le

ga

l:$

30

Site

up

ke

ep

:$

6M

ach

ine

:V

esta

s V

82

Civ

il D

esig

n:

$2

5C

on

tin

ge

ncy:

$1

0T

urb

ine

Ra

tin

g:

16

50

KW

na

me

pla

teG

eo

tech

:$

19

Ad

min

fe

e:

$5

Nu

mb

er

of

Tu

rbin

es

2 t

urb

ine

sF

acili

tie

s d

urin

g c

on

str

uctio

n:

$1

0S

ub

sta

tio

n m

ain

t.$

10

Win

d F

arm

Ra

tin

g:

33

00

KW

na

me

pla

teC

on

str

uctio

n a

nd

CO

D f

ee

:$

0A

ud

itin

g f

ee

s:

$2

In S

erv

ice

Da

te2

00

9L

an

d,

roa

d im

pro

ve

me

nts

:$

10

0M

os.

of

1st

yr

op

era

tio

n:

3M

on

ths

Me

t to

we

r:

$0

2n

d y

r o

p c

osts

$1

10

TO

TA

L S

ITE

CO

ST

S

$1

84

Op

Co

sts

/ R

eve

nu

es

12

.16

%

FIN

AN

CIN

G A

SS

UM

PT

ION

S:

($0

00

)E

LE

CT

RIC

AL

En

gin

ee

rin

g/d

esig

n:

$6

0A

FT

ER

TA

X N

ET

CA

SH

FL

OW

: ($

00

0)

Ba

nk D

eb

tS

ub

sta

tio

n,

Inte

rco

nn

ect

eq

uip

me

nt:

$7

51

00

%o

f$

7,1

54

tota

l p

rin

cip

al

Co

llectio

n s

yste

m:

$2

4Y

ea

rA

nn

ua

lC

um

ula

tive

5

%fo

r2

0ye

ars

Po

we

r lin

e a

nd

tra

nsfo

rme

r:$

75

Ge

ne

ral P

art

ne

r D

eb

tW

ind

fa

rm c

on

tro

l &

mo

nito

rin

g$

20

12

00

9$

48

$4

80

%o

f$

0to

tal a

mt.

Sca

da

Syste

m a

nd

ne

two

rk:

$8

22

20

10

$2

24

$2

72

0%

for

20

ye

ars

Utilit

y I

nte

rco

nn

ect

Fa

cili

tie

s:

$1

09

32

01

1$

19

0$

46

2E

qu

ity in

ve

stm

en

t:$

0T

OT

AL

EL

EC

TR

ICA

L C

OS

TS

$4

45

42

01

2$

57

$5

19

52

01

3$

20

$5

40

INF

LA

TIO

NW

IND

TU

RB

INE

S6

20

14

$2

0$

56

0T

urb

ine

& t

ow

er

on

site

:$

5,7

00

72

01

5$

52

$6

12

infla

tio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

3%

Sa

les T

ax:

$0

82

01

6$

52

$6

64

O&

M e

sca

latio

n r

ate

: p

er

ye

ar

5%

Fo

un

da

tio

n a

nd

site

wo

rk:

$9

00

92

01

7$

10

2$

76

6T

urb

ine

in

sta

llatio

n:

$9

00

10

20

18

$9

9$

86

4F

AA

lig

hts

:$

10

11

20

19

$9

5$

95

9P

RO

FIT

AB

ILIT

Y (

$0

00

)N

et

Inco

me

Ca

sh

Flo

wS

pa

re p

art

s:

$0

12

20

20

$9

6$

1,0

55

Te

ch

nic

al A

dvis

ory

Fe

e$

15

13

20

21

$9

4$

1,1

49

Inte

rna

l R

ate

of

Re

turn

NA

NA

Co

mm

issio

nin

g:

$0

14

20

22

$9

6$

1,2

45

30

yr.

Ne

t P

rese

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$3

,81

0$

1,3

68

TO

TA

L W

IND

TU

RB

INE

CO

ST

S$

7,5

25

15

20

23

$9

8$

1,3

43

20

yr.

Ne

t P

rese

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$3

,20

7$

82

01

62

02

4$

11

4$

1,4

58

5 y

r N

et

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

at

10

.0%

$1

,31

0$

43

5T

OT

AL

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

S

$8

,15

41

72

02

5$

11

8$

1,5

75

Sim

ple

Pa

yb

ack (

ye

ars

)N

AN

AL

ess G

ran

t(s)

$1

,00

01

82

02

6$

12

3$

1,6

98

Ave

rag

e y

ea

rly r

etu

rn$

43

6$

99

NE

T C

AP

ITA

L C

OS

TS

$7

,15

41

92

02

7$

13

3$

1,8

31

Ave

rag

e R

etu

rn o

n E

qu

ity

NA

NA

20

20

28

$1

47

$1

,97

8



70 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

16 - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Environmental Overview The environmental overview for the Wind Turbine Project has been prepared to complete the following tasks:

1. Describe the existing environment and discuss potential impact areas, 2. Outline expected permits and approvals, 3. Identify applicable Federal Laws and Executive Orders for Preliminary NEPA

Review, 4. Discuss DOE NEPA Process

16.1 Existing Environment and Potential Environmental Impacts Information for the initial identification of environmental elements within the project area was obtained from a site inspection, the MassGIS database, resource agency websites, and consultation with appropriate state and federal agencies. Summary Table 16.1 lists all the environmental elements that were screened. Elements of the environment that are within the project area are discussed below. Wetland Resources Wetland resources were evaluated using the Mass GIS DEP wetlands database. The project site is an open field which slopes to the west. Towards the base of the slope is a wetland area that includes a wet meadow habitat and Bordering Vegetated Wetlands surrounding a small pond. An intermittent stream flows into the pond from the south. It appears that outflow from the pond area flows to the west and ultimately to Crystal Lake. East of the field, there is a small wetland area identified on the database that appears to be an isolated vegetated wetland. These resources can be seen on the USGS Locus Map Figure 1, in Section 6. The College plans to have wetland delineation carried out in the near future. An Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (WPA Form 4A) or alternatively a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) would be submitted to the Gardner Conservation Commission (Commission) for approval of the wetland boundaries. The Order of Resource Area Delineation issued by the Commission would be in effect for 3 years. Direct impacts to wetland resources are not expected. However, work may take place within the Buffer Zone to wetland resources, depending on the wetland boundaries and design plans.




Water Quality/Water supply The project site is adjacent to a Zone A protection area for Crystal Lake, one of the City’s surface water supplies. The City treats water from the Lake at the Crystal Lake Water Treatment Facility. Since the wetland at the base of the field is hydrologically connected to Crystal Lake, it is within the protection area. It is not expected that the project would adversely affect water quality or the water supply because there would only be minor disturbance to the upland areas for the tower footings and erosion control measures would be implemented. Visual The visual environment of the project site consists of the College building facilities, roads, parking areas and open fields. There is a nearby radio station tower, and Heywood Hospital. Much of the adjacent and nearby land is owned by the City for water supply protection and the High School. The turbine(s) would be visible from the road and the nearby hospital. Assessments have not been made to determine if residential areas will view the turbines. The site selection avoided residential areas to the north and east. The College hopes that the project becomes a visual “signature” of the school’s Renewable Energy Curriculum. Noise Wind turbines can be a source of noise. A noise analysis has not been done. However, the site is relatively distant from residential areas and there are no overnight students at the College. Much of the adjacent land is owned by the city for water supply protection and the High School. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) is any electromagnetic disturbance that interrupts, obstructs, or otherwise degrades or limits the effective performance of electronics and electrical equipment. Wind turbines can sometimes cause EMI. There is a radio tower east of the site for the radio station WGAW 1340 AM. The proposed north turbine would be approximately 1,325 feet from the radio tower. The second, south turbine would be approximately 1,580 feet from the radio tower. Coordination would need to be carried out with the station owners to determine any potential for interference.




FAA Air Traffic Wind turbines are reviewed by FAA to determine that projects do not adversely affect air traffic or radar systems. Air Traffic issues are discussed in Section 17. Birds/Other Wildlife The project site has not been evaluated for existing wildlife resources. Based on comments received from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, and United States Fish and Wildlife staff, pre-construction studies will likely be necessary to determine to what extent the project area is used by migrating or breeding birds and bats. Recreational The North Central Pathway is a 16-mile accessible recreation trail which begins at the Heritage State Park Visitors Center in Gardner. Information obtained from the website for the trail was used to complete this section. The trail will ultimately link with downtown Winchendon. A portion of the North Central Pathway has been completed on the eastern shore of Crystal Lake, opposite the college campus. This phase is described in the trail literature as providing a connection from Gardner’s downtown to the community college campus, fitness center, and hospital. A future proposed link to the trail would follow roads within the college campus, past the high school and end at Dunn Pond. It is not expected that the wind project would impact the use of the trail.




Table 16.1 List of Environmental Categories for Initial Screening Categories Potential Impact Documentation Air Quality No Impacts Project will not result in increased

traffic capacity. Coastal Resources Not Present, No Impacts Mass GIS Department of Transportation Act: Sec. 4(f)

Not Present, No Impacts Site is owned by State for Community College use. Mass GIS

Farmlands Not Present, No Impacts Site is within college landscape. Floodplains Not Present, No Impacts Project not located within flood zones.

FEMA MSC Viewer Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources

No Impacts.

Determination from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), February 26, 2008.

Noise No Impacts Expected Site is distant from residential areas. Electromagnetic Interference To be Determined Secondary (Induced) Impacts No Impacts Expected Project will serve existing electricity

needs. Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks

Not Present, No Impacts Mass GIS, Environmental Justice Viewer

Water Quality/Water Supply No Impacts Expected Mass GIS, Erosion controls will prevent siltation of wetland areas.

Wetlands Potential Buffer Zone Impacts

Mass GIS, DEP Wetlands

Rare and Endangered Species No Impacts Letters from NHESP (March 3, 2008) and USF&W (March 5, 2008)

Birds/Other Wildlife Potential for Impacts Potential for impacts to wildlife needs to be evaluated per letters from NHESP (March 3, 2008) and USF&W (March 5, 2008)

Wild and Scenic Rivers Not Present, No Impacts Mass GIS, NPS database Visual No Impacts Expected Informal site review Traffic No Impacts Project will not result in increased

traffic capacity. Air Traffic Pending Pending Source: Consultant Evaluations.




16.2 Anticipated Permitting / Approvals MA Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) and Gardner Wetlands Protection Ordinance It is likely that the project will be within the 100 Foot Buffer Zone, a jurisdictional area under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Gardner Wetlands Protection Ordinance (GWPO). Additionally, the GWPO has established a thirty-foot No Build and No Disturbance Zones within the Buffer Zone. It is anticipated that the College will complete the Resource Area Delineation process and obtain approved wetland boundaries. A Notice of Intent (NOI) for Work in Buffer Zone (WPA Form 3) filing would be submitted for the project if the project is within 100 feet of wetlands. The WPA provides for a Simplified Review for Work in the Buffer Zone if the project meets certain criteria. The project design should avoid or minimize impacts to the Buffer Zone to the extent feasible. Erosion control measure should be incorporated into the plans to prevent impacts to the adjacent wetland resources. FAA Air Traffic Permitting and approvals relative to aviation issues are discussed in Section 17. Avian Study and Review The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in their consultation letter for the project, recommends pre-construction surveys. The scope of avian/bat studies will be determined after additional consultation with resource agencies. 16.3 Applicable Federal Environmental Laws and Executive Orders for NEPA

Review Table 16.2 lists the Federal environmental laws and Executive Orders that were initially screened for applicability to the project. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation Coordination was carried out with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), State Historic Preservation Officer pursuant to Section 106 consultation requirements. A Project Notification Form and Project Narrative were submitted. On February 26, 2008, the MHC made the following determination:

“After review of MHC files and the materials you submitted, it has been determined that this project is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources.”




Federal Endangered Species Act Coordination under the Federal Endangered Species Act has been completed. A letter from the US Fish and Wild Service, New England Field Office states that no federally-listed or proposed, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service occur within the project area. The consultation letter that was sent by the USF&W is included in the Appendix. Additionally, consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has been completed relative to state listed rare species. A letter from the NHESP determined that the project area is not mapped as Priority or Estimated Habitat and does not contain any state-listed species records. The consultation letter that was sent by the NHESP is included in the Appendix. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, however, recommends that potential impacts to birds be considered. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Project information was sent to NE Field Office of the US Fish & Wildlife Service requesting review under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The consultation letter that was sent by the USF&W recommends extensive pre-construction surveys. Executive Orders E.O. 11988 – Floodplains and E.O. 11990 – Wetlands These Executive Orders relate to floodplain management and protection of wetlands. The project is not within the floodplain zone. Measures to minimize indirect impacts and protect wetlands have been incorporated into the designs for the project E.O. 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office consultation letter dated March 5, 2008 recommends pre-construction surveys and analysis of subsequent data to avoid violation of federal laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.




Table 16.2 List of Federal Environmental Laws and Executive Orders (E.O.) Federal Law / E.O. Applicability Documentation National Historic Preservation Act

Does Not Apply Correspondence from MHC attached.

Endangered Species act Does Not Apply Correspondence from US F&WS and MA NHESP

Coastal Barrier Resources Act

Not Present, Does Not Apply

Mass GIS, Barrier Beach Maps

Clean Water Act Does Not Apply Project is not directly within wetlands and streams.

Coastal Zone Management Act


Mass GIS

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Complete Correspondence received from US F&WS

Clean Air Act No Impacts Project will not result in increased traffic capacity.

Farmland Protection Policy Act


Project within existing college campus landscape.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act May Apply Correspondence from US F&WS Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Impacts Not Expected Correspondence from US F&WS

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Not Present, Does Not Apply

NPS Database

E.O. 11988 - Floodplains Not Present, Does Not Apply

FEMA database

E.O. 11990 - Wetlands Applies Project design will avoid adverse impact

E.O. 13186 – Migratory Birds

May Apply Correspondence from US F&WS

E.O. 12898 – Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations


Mass GIS

Source: Consultant Evaluations




16.4 MEPA / NEPA Review Process Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) A project requires environmental review under MEPA when there is an action of an agency of the Commonwealth (i.e. proponent, funding source, or permit issue) and when the magnitude of a project exceeds a review threshold. The review threshold for wind turbine projects is found at 301 CMR 11.03 (7)(b)1: “Construction of a New electric generating facility with a Capacity of 25 or more MW.” Although there is state agency action, the proposed wind turbine project would not exceed this threshold. Therefore MEPA review is not required. National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) The project requires environmental review under NEPA because there is federal agency action (DOE funding). The DOE NEPA contacts for this project are Laura Margason, NEPA Specialist, and Tim Ramsey, Project Engineer, of Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc in the DOE Golden Field Office. An initial consultation regarding the project was made by telephone. The NEPA specialists do not expect that the project would qualify as a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) under NEPA. Their initial project review concluded that an Environmental Assessment would be required, and would likely focus on FAA Air Traffic and avian / wildlife issues. A final determination of the appropriate review under NEPA will be made after resource agency comments and the Feasibility Study are reviewed.



78 FAA PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS

17 - FAA PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS This section of the report has been prepared to address potential obstructions to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airspace surfaces as they relate to a proposal to erect a wind turbine on the campus of Mount Wachusett Community College. The analysis was originally based on a single turbine in the exact location of the current meteorological tower at:

Latitude 42� -35’ -26.52”N Longitude 071� -59’ -02.76”W

The elevation of the site is 1,158-feet mean sea level (MSL). The wind turbine would sit at an elevation of 397-feet above ground level (AGL). The total overall height of the proposed structure would be 1,555-feet MSL. A graphic is attached showing the location of the site. The FAA requires notice prior to the construction of any structure:

(1) greater than 200 feet above ground level; or (2) within 10,000 feet of an airport that does not have a runway more than 3,200

feet in length and the object would exceed a 50:1 horizontal slope from the nearest point of the nearest runway; or

(3) when requested by the FAA

There are several other criteria in addition to those listed above that require notice to the FAA; however they are not pertinent to this proposed development. Notice of development that meets any of the above criteria must be given to the FAA through the use of FAA Form 7460. The proposed wind turbine site lies 2.6 nautical miles (16,161-feet) from Gardner Municipal Airport (GDM) in Gardner, MA. GDM is a public use airport with a single 2,999-foot long runway. The airport has a single non-precision circle to land instrument approach procedure with non-standard instrument departure minimums. There is no published instrument departure procedure for the airport. The proposed wind turbine does require notification in accordance with FAA guidelines. Once FAA Form 7460 is received, the FAA evaluates the structure to determine if it would penetrate any of several surfaces. These surfaces include:

(1) Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations FAR Part 77.25 Subpart C -primary, approach, transitional, horizontal, and conical surfaces for a utility category airport with non-precision instrument approaches with visibility minimums greater then ¾ statute miles.



79 FAA PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS

(2) FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Change 11 Appendix 2 a. Approach end of runways supporting instrument night circling b. Departure runway ends for all instrument operations (3) FAA Order 8260.3B US Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures

(TERPS) Change 19 a. Para 251. Visual Portion of the Final Approach Segment (evaluated for all

runways authorized with circle to land procedures) b. Diverse Departure

Our analysis of each of these surfaces prior to the submission of FAA Form 7460 to the FAA concludes that of the surfaces listed above, only the TERPS Diverse Departure Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) would be penetrated by the proposed wind turbine. The height of the Diverse Departure OCS over the proposed wind turbine site is 1,473-feet MSL. If the wind turbine is to be 397-feet AGL for a total MSL height of 1,555-feet, then the turbine would penetrate the Diverse Departure OCS by 82’. In order for the wind turbine to remain below the Diverse Departure OCS the maximum allowable height the wind turbine could be is 315-feet AGL. The guidance within FAA Order 8260.3B TERPS suggests that if the Diverse Departure OCS is penetrated, then one available option would be to publish non-standard departure minimums, which GDM has done. This may allow a favorable determination by the FAA that erecting the turbine at its original proposed height of 397-feet AGL (1,555-feet MSL) would not constitute a hazard to air navigation.



80 PRELIMINARY SOUND ANALYSIS

18 - PRELIMINARY SOUND ANALYSIS Using a model from the Danish Windpower Association, an analysis was done assuming two wind turbines and a source sound level of 100 db(A). The model showed that sound levels were about 55 db(A) at the bases of the turbines and reached 45 db(A) at a distance of approximately 240 meters (800’) from the wind turbines. (The American Wind Energy Association uses 350 meters (1150’) as the typical distance for sound levels to reach 45 decibels.) Judging from Google Maps, it appears that there are no residences within 800 to 1,000’ although the Hospital and another large complex are closer. The decibel scale is logarithmic so small changes in a decibel number represent large changes in sound level. A normal conversation at 1 meter distance is about 60 db(A). As shown in the following AWEA slide, 45 db(A) is a low sound level and should not create problems. Figure 18-1



81 PRELIMINARY SOUND ANALYSIS

However, as the AWEA also points out: • Most wind projects are in quiet rural areas • ‘Receptors’ may be sheltered from the wind: This is more of an issue in very hilly or

mountainous terrain and less likely to be an issue for MWCC. • Topography may amplify sound: We believe the rolling topography at MWCC is less

likely to cause this problem. • Sound perception is highly subjective • Acoustical consultant may be helpful

In public communications about the project, it is important to note that some sound will be coming from the wind turbine(s) but that it will generally not be of an objectionable nature and that it will rapidly diminish with distance. It is probably worth pointing out that a normal conversation can be carried out at the base of a turbine. Also, a field trip of key local leaders to an operating turbine may help them understand sound as well as other potential impacts from a project. (If the MWCC turbine(s) are installed, the college can provide that valuable service to others who are considering wind projects.)



82 PUBLIC OPINION CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPACTS

19 - PUBLIC OPINION CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPACTS Though worldwide wind energy is the fastest growing and most cost competitive sector of the electricity markets today, wind electricity is only now gaining acceptance in New England. As with any early adoption of wind energy, the impacts of the proposed project on the emerging wind industry in New England go well beyond consideration of the economics of the project itself. These larger impacts should be carefully evaluated before proceeding with construction. Local public opinion and support is critical to the success of any wind project. Regionally, the wind turbines built in the community of Hull have had overwhelmingly positive public support and that town is in the process of planning and building their third wind project. Near the center of Boston, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was able to permit and build a wind turbine in a very short time with the support of local community groups. In contrast, the Cape Wind project has had significant local opposition which has led to delays and significantly increased costs of the permitting process. Thus we would strongly encourage the Mount Wachusett Community College make the appropriate effort to explain the benefits and impacts of the project clearly to local residents and garner strong public support for the project as part of the preconstruction process. The installation of a large wind turbine is regulated by numerous agencies. Such projects also involve public acceptance considerations that may be beyond the scope of regulatory requirements, but which are critically important to address carefully. Some wind projects like the project in Hull, Massachusetts and the recent installation of a wind turbine at the IBEW 103 headquarters just off of Interstate 93 in Boston have been permitted with remarkable ease and speed. However often in New England, wind projects face challenges from a small group of active opponents that can derail schedules and add significant costs to the permitting process. As unusual large machines, high in the air, wind turbines tend to attract attention. Surveys have shown that the general public is largely supportive of wind projects. Experience in Hull, Massachusetts, Portsmouth Rhode Island, Searsburg, Vermont and many other places has shown that public sentiment in the community was generally already favorable to the wind projects before construction and those communities became even more supportive of the projects and technology after the wind turbines were installed and operating. These nearby wind projects are now a resource that has can be used to help address concerns about proposed wind projects and to assist in gaining community approval and support. There is no better way to make community education real and tangible and hopefully to allay concerns around a proposed project than arranging a guided tour of another nearby wind facility for anyone wishing to attend.



83 PUBLIC OPINION CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPACTS

Visual Impacts: Visual impacts are usually the most significant concern in almost any wind project. Typically concerns about visual impact can be best addressed through presenting clear and accurate photo simulations of the selected turbine and tower superimposed on actual photos of the selected site. Using real photos, the actual dimensions of the machine and publicly available digital mapping information, computer software is available that can create visually accurate simulations of the installation from any selected vantage point. This should be one of the earliest investments in the project moving forward. Noise Impacts: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection regulates noise emissions. A new sound source cannot raise overall noise levels more than 10 dB over the existing ambient sound levels. Noise is of most concern when nearby residences are very close and the project is located in a particularly quiet area. Using sound data supplied by the turbine manufacturer, as well as readily measured background noise data, accurate assessment of noise impacts can be made as part of the planning and permitting process. In this particular project, with a location far from any residences, noise from the wind machine is unlikely to be a significant concern. Our preliminary noise assessment indicates that here are no nearby residential neighbors for whom sound from the proposed project would have any impact. Electromagnetic Interference Impacts: The most significant concern regarding EMI impacts will likely come from the operators of the nearby radio tower. It is recommended that early in the next phase of the project an EMI study be performed to determine if the proposed project would impact the radio station or any other local facilities.



84 PENDING LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IMPACTING THE PROJECT

20 - NEW LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IMPACTING THE PROJECT Net Metering Legislation Financial feasibility of the project is significantly impacted by the new legislation in the Massachusetts Legislature regarding net metering. The final language in the bill is attached in the Appendix of this report. Favorable net-metering legislation and regulations will be particularly important to the feasibility of a two turbine project. Decisions regarding the timing of application for interconnection agreements and the design of those interconnections should be driven in part by the progress of follow on regulations. Potential options for collaboration with the neighboring hospital or other partners in the project could be significantly simplified if the regulations that eventually emerge reflect the apparent language of this bill. It is somewhat unclear in the definition of a Class III net metering facility owned by a public entity if these facilities will be treated differently than is the case for privately owned net metering facilities. Earlier conversations with officials at the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources, prior to passage of the final legislation, indicated that each turbine would be treated separately. However they cautioned that further clarity on this matter awaits the final regulations. Expert legal counsel on these matters is highly advised prior to proceeding with plans for a project with total nameplate capacity over 2 MW. Under the legislation, the option to assign credits to designated near by facilities would potentially allow the college to minimize design, interconnection, transmission and related costs in a two turbine project, tie both machines into the campus load center and enter long term agreements selling credits to designated recipients. Receipts from such sales could be used to repay project debt during the finance period and would become significant added revenue for the college once the debt was repaid. Of course such a scenario carries some risk of future regulatory changes relative to a behind the meter generator that more directly eliminates the need for power purchase from the grid. Production Tax Credit and Turbine Availability Almost everyone in the wind industry is moving forward on projects with a presumption that the US Congress will pass and the president will sign legislation extending the Production Tax Credits for wind projects, which expire at the end of 2008. As mentioned earlier, demand for turbines is tight world wide and manufacturers are taking orders for 2010 and beyond. A significant delay or interruption of the tax credit extension could potentially mean a huge number of machines planned for 2009 installation could become available. While such a delay would be bad for the US wind industry generally, it might provide an opportunity for the college to be opportunistic regarding the price and availability of equipment.



85 PROJECT UNCERTAINTIES

21 - PROJECT UNCERTAINTIES Objectives of Analysis Our objective in this analysis has been to prepare a reasonable and balanced assessment of the cost, performance, value, and ultimately the economic viability of installing one or two wind turbines for the Mount Wachusett Community College. Given the time and resources devoted to this effort, we have been able to accomplish this task by developing estimates of: • Wind Resources at the site • Annual electricity production for selected WTGs • Projected cost for permitting the project • Projected installed costs for selected WTGs • Estimated operations and maintenance costs • Value of the electricity along with the REC and Forward Capacity Market revenue

streams produced Our analyses indicate that a single wind turbine for Mount Wachusett Community College appears economically viable and that if a partnership could be developed with the neighboring hospital in a manner that was allowable under the likely new net-metering regulations, then a two turbine project with separate interconnections could potentially be feasible. It is important to realize that the numbers projected are estimates and by their nature cannot be certain. Uncertainty around several critical variables can be reduced significantly. However, several of the key variables, specifically the value of electricity, RECs and other revenues are potentially volatile over a twenty year time frame. The other most significant uncertainty is the cost and time frame for permitting for a single turbine project, which could become a significant obstacle if active local opposition to the project develops. Uncertainties That Will Become Less Uncertain Some variables such as future power prices and value of RECs or Forward Capacity payments are, by their nature, unknowable. Other uncertainties such as the cost of permitting and construction will become known after the permitting and engineering processes are completed and construction bids are available.

Permitting The design and permitting budgets are reasonable estimates. This variable is highly dependent on the level of review required by regulators and at times the level of public support that any given wind project might receive. The costs and schedules of permitting are the among the biggest uncertainties in planning any wind project in New England.




Equipment Costs Due to the delay between planning and implementing any project, there are uncertainties in projecting costs until actual bids received. The wind business has been somewhat volatile with high growth rates and demand, a limited number of reputable manufacturers, changing fortunes with changing production tax credits and other regulatory impacts, changing steel prices and changing international currency exchange rate impacts. The cost of equipment will become certain as bids are received. Construction and Installation Cost The specific geotechnical and other conditions at the site will influence the type and cost of foundation required for a wind turbine as well as the assembly techniques that can be used. Many economic factors projecting two years out can influence actual installation costs. Geotechnical testing and analysis, finalizing design and getting real bids will eliminate the uncertainties in this area. Operations, Maintenance and Administrative Costs: There is some uncertainty in the projection of O&M costs in a preliminary feasibility study like this one. Precise estimates of these costs cannot be developed without defining various structures and implementation options for O&M over the long term. For purposes of this study, the maintenance cost was calculated using a budgetary quote from the manufacturers for an extended five year warranty and maintenance plan adjusted for inflation over the project life. Periodic additional maintenance and replacement costs were also factored into our financial model. Our projections also assume that project operational structure will be designed so as to have the minimal administrative burdens possible. However, O&M costs can vary greatly with the type of O&M approach followed by the college, and can be impacted by outside contractor, labor rates, WTG supplier charges, etc. The expected O&M cost will become more certain once the college defines its approach to O&M. It is recommended that bid documents be prepared that encourage additional insight into the costs of long term O&M relationships with manufacturers if available. Cost of Capital: As that the project moves forward, it is assumed that Mount Wachusett Community College would take the lead in clarifying how the project would be financed. Closer to actual construction, the costs of what would presumably be fixed cost bonding would be more certain. Currency Exchange Rates: With the several of the appropriate sized turbines being manufactured in Europe and the demand for turbines being competitive world wide, currency exchange rates will undoubtedly influence the initial capital investment costs, as well as ongoing cost for parts involved in future maintenance. Since it is the initial capital investment which will be by far the more significant of these factors, the uncertainty inherent in currency exchange rates is reduced the closer the project gets to actually purchasing and paying for the equipment.




Availability and Appropriateness of Incentives: Various incentives or subsidies may be appropriate to consider for the project. Some of these may change by the time the project is ready to build. Again this uncertainty is greatly reduced as the project gets closer to reality.

Uncertainty That Will Remain Uncertain Projecting the financial performance of any investment out over a twenty year time horizon clearly has inherent uncertainties. The following factors are outside of our control and further research will do little to narrow their range of uncertainty. In wind energy investments such as that proposed a few areas in particular are worthy of highlighting: Future Energy Markets: Factors such as the future pricing of electricity and inflation rates are by their nature unknowable with 100% certainty. We have developed reasonable ranges for these variables by using projections from the most credible experts doing work in these areas. However, as with all financial investments addressing future energy markets, the assumptions made in this report are subject to global energy supply and demand impacts, changes in energy markets wrought by future technological change, impacts from legislative and regulatory actions and other macro-economic forces impacting energy markets. Future Value of Renewable Energy Certificates: We have chosen to err on the conservative side of projecting the value of these certificates. We feel that the numbers assumed in our analysis are representative of long-term certificate value. Again, the actual future values of these certificates are subject to future economic and political influences that are unknowable. Reducing Uncertainty With all these uncertainties in mind, it is the intention of the entire project team to assure that at all phases of the project, appropriate performance from a financial perspective remains highest priority for the project. We strongly recommend having several checkpoints for a go-no go project analysis to assure at all stages, as uncertainty is reduced and further clarity of remaining factors influencing financial performance is gained, that information can be used to assure the college is making a prudent investment. The Value of Utility Cost Hedging: Though the Sustainable Energy Advantage model does not indicate dramatic price increases in electricity costs, there is inherent risk and uncertainty in any long term predictions regarding energy pricing. Some experts believe that we are entering a fundamentally changed global energy market and all such predictions must be treated with skepticism.




Beyond the predicted economic returns, a wind turbine generator would provide the college with a valuable long-term hedging mechanism against significant and unexpected increases in energy prices driven by fuel price increases. Historic price swings in the fossil fuel markets as well as the electricity markets indicate that prices can be quite unpredictable and volatile. The price stability and independence from fossil-fuel price volatility make the proposed project itself a protection against future price uncertainties. It is outside of the scope of this report to economically quantify the value to the college of a power pricing hedge from a wind energy project although some studies have put that value in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 cents per kWh.



89 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

22 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS An ideal wind generation project would possess a stronger wind resource. That said, the preceding technical and financial analysis indicates that the proposed project is likely to be financially viable as a publicly owned project. If the college is able to procure additional grants or subsidies, zero interest CREB bonding, REPI funding and/or opportunistic pricing on turbines, the economics would improve beyond those shown in the models. In addition to the public financing case we made some preliminary assessment of the opportunity for development and financing of the project by a private company. Our analysis suggests that with the modest wind resource, higher financing costs and added transaction costs involved, private ownership or a private/public partnership between the college and a private developer is unlikely to produce the financial returns required by the private sector and still provide significant benefit to the college Unlike a private project in which economic feasibility issues can be evaluated fairly readily based on a straight forward set of economic metrics, determining the feasibility of a public project is more complex. The feasibility of public projects such as this is influenced by the goals that go beyond issues that can be answered by simple return on investment analysis alone. Along with cost savings, the college would also benefit from the long-term hedge against electricity price inflation provided by the wind project. There may be additional ancillary benefits relating to the facility by having a more independent power supply. And other benefits such as environmental benefits of wind power will also receive important consideration in a publicly owned project. Balancing these benefits would be the obligations the college takes on owning, operating, maintaining and insuring a wind project Recommendations for Moving Forward The project team recommends that if the economic analysis and projections are deemed favorable enough to offset projected future energy prices as well as achieve other goals of the college such as hedging utility rate escalation risk and environmental stewardship, then the college should proceed to a design phase for the project. We recommend that the economic models be revised and revisited as engineering, permitting and bidding proceed to confirm that the economic assumptions in this report remain valid as more hard numbers become available. In Closing Everyone on the project team is grateful for the opportunity to work on this project. We look forward to working with everyone at Mount Wachusett Community College and DCAM in the next phase of the project.



90 APPENDIX A WIND DATA

APPENDIX A: WIND DATA

Mean Hourly Summary Sheets

For

Wind Speed and Wind Direction

MWCC Meteorological Monitoring Program




MEAN HOURLY WIND SPEEDS

MOUNT WACHUSETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE MWCC TOWER 20M WIND SPEED (NE) (MPS)

03/01/06 - 08/31/07

Hour Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec | Mean 01 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 4.0 3.5 4.4 | 3.6 02 3.9 4.5 4.0 3.8 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.5 4.2 | 3.6 03 4.3 4.8 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 4.0 3.3 4.4 | 3.5 04 4.1 5.1 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.7 4.3 | 3.5 05 4.3 4.6 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 | 3.5 06 3.8 4.7 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.5 4.4 | 3.6 07 4.1 4.6 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.5 4.0 | 3.7 08 4.4 5.1 4.9 4.4 4.3 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.8 4.2 | 4.2 09 4.7 5.8 5.3 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.5 | 4.5 10 5.1 6.3 5.3 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.6 4.8 4.1 5.1 | 4.7 11 5.2 6.5 5.7 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.8 4.3 5.0 | 4.9 12 5.4 6.6 6.0 5.2 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.8 5.0 4.4 4.9 | 5.0 13 5.5 6.8 6.0 5.4 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.8 5.1 4.3 5.1 | 5.0 14 5.4 6.7 5.9 5.5 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.4 5.1 4.4 5.1 | 5.0 15 5.3 6.3 6.1 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.3 5.1 | 5.0 16 4.9 6.2 5.7 5.5 4.9 4.3 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.7 4.1 4.6 | 4.8 17 4.7 5.5 5.8 5.2 5.0 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.3 3.8 4.1 | 4.6 18 4.4 4.7 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.6 3.9 4.5 | 4.3 19 4.5 4.7 5.0 4.4 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.3 4.4 3.8 4.5 | 4.1 20 4.3 5.0 5.0 4.2 3.6 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.2 4.3 3.7 4.4 | 3.9 21 4.4 4.5 4.6 3.9 3.7 3.2 3.6 3.2 3.3 4.1 3.5 4.4 | 3.8 22 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.4 4.3 3.5 4.2 | 3.8 23 3.9 4.5 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.3 4.1 3.6 4.4 | 3.7 24 3.8 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.3 4.1 3.7 4.2 | 3.6 Mean 4.5 5.3 4.9 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 4.3 3.8 4.5 | 4.2 Good Hours 681 658 1299 1377 1455 1394 1444 1339 695 720 703 735 Missing Hours 63 14 189 63 33 46 44 149 25 24 17 9 12,500 Hours of Good Data 676 Hours Missing 94.9% Data Recovery






03/01/06 - 08/31/07






MOUNT WACHUSETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE MWCC TOWER 30M WIND SPEED (SW) (MPS)

03/01/06 - 08/31/07

Hour Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec | Mean ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- + ---- 01 4.0 4.9 4.2 4.3 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.1 4.0 3.5 4.7 | 3.7 02 4.2 5.0 4.3 4.0 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.8 3.8 4.6 | 3.7 03 4.7 5.3 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.2 4.2 3.6 4.8 | 3.7 04 4.5 5.4 4.2 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.8 4.7 | 3.7 05 4.7 5.0 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.8 3.5 4.5 | 3.6 06 4.2 5.2 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.6 3.6 4.8 | 3.6 07 4.7 5.1 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.0 2.8 3.1 4.0 3.5 4.3 | 3.8 08 4.5 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.4 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.7 4.2 3.8 4.5 | 4.2 09 4.8 6.1 5.4 4.7 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.6 3.9 4.9 | 4.4 10 5.3 6.7 5.4 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.0 3.9 4.6 4.8 4.1 5.3 | 4.8 11 5.5 7.0 5.7 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.7 5.0 4.1 5.3 | 4.9 12 5.6 7.0 6.2 5.3 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.9 5.2 4.4 5.2 | 5.0 13 5.7 7.0 6.3 5.7 4.8 4.8 4.3 4.1 5.0 5.2 4.3 5.3 | 5.1 14 5.7 7.1 6.1 5.8 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.4 5.3 4.4 5.3 | 5.2 15 5.6 6.6 6.3 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.1 4.4 5.1 4.3 5.3 | 5.1 16 5.2 6.5 5.9 5.7 5.1 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.8 4.2 5.0 | 5.0 17 4.6 5.9 6.0 5.5 5.2 4.4 4.3 3.8 3.9 4.4 3.8 4.5 | 4.7 18 4.7 5.0 5.3 4.9 4.7 3.9 3.8 3.2 3.3 4.7 4.0 4.9 | 4.3 19 4.9 5.0 5.3 4.7 4.2 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.4 4.5 3.9 4.8 | 4.1 20 4.5 5.4 5.3 4.6 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 4.5 3.9 4.8 | 4.1 21 4.6 4.8 5.0 4.2 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.4 4.2 3.7 4.8 | 4.0 22 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.2 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.5 4.4 3.6 4.5 | 3.9 23 4.3 4.8 4.5 4.3 3.9 3.3 3.2 2.8 3.3 4.1 3.9 4.7 | 3.8 Mean 4.8 5.7 5.1 4.6 4.3 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.7 4.4 3.9 4.8 | 4.3 Good Hours 684 660 1288 1390 1474 1411 1453 1357 712 733 707 736 Missing Hours 60 12 200 50 14 29 35 131 8 11 13 8 12,605 Hours of Good Data 571 Hours Missing 95.7% Data Recovery






03/01/06 - 08/31/07






MOUNT WACHUSETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE MWCC TOWER 48M WIND SPEED (SW) (MPS)

03/01/06 - 08/31/07





MEAN HOURLY VALUES

MOUNT WACHUSETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE MWCC TOWER 20M WIND DIRECTION (DEG)

03/01/06 - 08/31/07

Hour Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec | Mean 01 244 241 232 200 197 207 214 209 209 216 179 248 | 214 02 243 257 244 214 197 215 223 214 212 215 198 249 | 221 03 245 252 239 198 197 205 226 210 217 194 163 240 | 214 04 245 261 243 192 194 199 235 201 192 205 178 237 | 213 05 236 249 239 191 198 194 232 211 203 212 206 237 | 215 06 238 249 245 200 197 196 235 221 196 210 183 237 | 216 07 245 247 248 194 203 199 239 211 200 215 189 241 | 217 08 232 244 258 209 203 198 238 210 220 220 191 239 | 220 09 244 243 250 200 206 220 224 199 208 218 207 232 | 219 10 244 248 254 218 212 207 223 222 207 220 200 235 | 223 11 243 255 253 204 211 217 238 224 203 220 216 241 | 226 12 244 257 248 209 207 207 224 228 227 219 218 237 | 225 13 245 253 253 211 218 205 224 231 207 222 215 253 | 226 14 248 253 249 220 217 199 223 241 205 210 209 249 | 226 15 249 251 254 218 208 194 220 235 201 218 204 255 | 224 16 254 248 259 219 205 187 218 238 204 208 200 237 | 222 17 251 257 257 216 200 206 222 218 199 215 194 234 | 221 18 245 253 251 213 195 204 214 220 181 213 200 247 | 218 19 230 249 255 204 180 211 215 217 189 209 204 248 | 216 20 227 248 255 192 181 197 204 193 190 203 194 246 | 208 21 247 263 261 190 168 195 195 169 200 206 198 245 | 206 22 238 260 247 208 174 197 195 195 188 214 184 251 | 209 23 240 263 261 202 188 208 206 197 198 214 186 246 | 214 24 237 246 232 202 195 194 210 206 201 216 193 249 | 212 Mean 242 252 250 205 198 203 221 213 202 213 196 243 | 218 Good Hours 656 672 1302 1383 1488 1440 1488 1405 720 744 720 744 Missing Hours 88 0 186 57 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 12,762 Hours of Good Data 414 Hours Missing 96.9% Data Recovery




MEAN HOURLY VALUES


03/01/06 - 08/31/07

Hour Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec | Mean 01 221 218 232 194 187 206 205 199 209 205 178 235 | 206 02 221 231 224 203 185 215 218 211 212 216 195 235 | 212 03 222 238 248 193 191 212 220 209 211 205 189 226 | 213 04 234 246 236 190 188 188 224 202 206 192 171 236 | 207 05 224 235 235 194 188 189 219 207 208 213 193 236 | 209 06 226 235 239 202 186 191 224 203 198 199 183 224 | 208 07 238 234 237 195 191 186 229 199 199 202 189 229 | 208 08 226 219 243 200 202 198 226 204 208 211 190 226 | 212 09 237 229 236 193 199 213 211 211 196 205 196 219 | 211 10 238 235 234 206 205 199 216 209 194 207 187 221 | 212 11 236 243 234 201 197 204 225 212 191 208 204 228 | 214 12 239 243 236 214 195 201 217 221 203 206 205 224 | 216 13 240 239 241 205 204 193 210 218 194 208 203 239 | 214 14 241 239 236 220 205 186 216 228 193 197 196 236 | 215 15 240 237 240 226 196 181 213 222 189 205 191 240 | 214 16 241 234 247 224 198 186 206 226 203 208 187 223 | 214 17 239 243 244 221 188 193 209 211 187 215 182 233 | 212 18 245 240 237 220 200 198 201 221 181 201 187 234 | 213 19 232 236 242 211 173 199 202 205 190 199 192 233 | 207 20 242 236 242 205 180 192 194 192 189 202 183 233 | 205 21 249 250 248 198 169 183 190 182 187 195 187 232 | 201 22 226 248 247 202 179 191 192 191 179 213 172 238 | 204 23 226 251 249 202 189 203 197 194 208 201 176 234 | 208 24 226 245 246 204 182 190 209 203 213 216 182 226 | 209 Mean 234 238 240 205 191 196 211 208 198 205 188 231 | 210 Good Hours 647 672 1291 1382 1488 1440 1488 1405 720 744 720 744 Missing Hours 97 0 197 58 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 12,741 Hours of Good Data 435 Hours Missing 96.7% Data Recovery




MEAN HOURLY VALUES


03/01/06 - 08/31/07

Hour Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec | Mean 01 231 238 239 193 201 220 220 214 219 203 201 255 | 217 02 245 239 236 191 200 216 233 216 221 203 168 253 | 217 03 250 248 234 195 194 210 233 218 222 214 171 245 | 217 04 249 266 250 193 196 197 239 202 207 214 180 243 | 217 05 244 255 243 184 192 198 241 212 195 222 180 242 | 215 06 245 256 252 191 199 192 240 211 209 222 191 232 | 218 07 256 243 259 203 193 199 237 219 210 221 196 236 | 221 08 247 238 255 187 203 198 239 205 218 227 197 236 | 218 09 254 247 247 193 206 214 229 193 214 224 205 238 | 219 10 259 253 253 199 212 205 217 209 213 226 208 241 | 221 11 258 248 246 206 215 216 225 214 198 216 222 245 | 224 12 260 260 255 210 202 206 229 226 199 212 223 243 | 225 13 262 257 253 207 222 206 222 237 214 227 221 257 | 229 14 263 256 255 203 223 204 216 240 211 214 214 254 | 227 15 261 255 259 207 213 199 226 240 206 223 209 257 | 227 16 264 252 259 223 209 192 224 244 197 215 205 242 | 226 17 249 248 264 220 205 210 221 217 206 221 201 242 | 224 18 254 259 256 207 194 210 221 216 190 221 205 253 | 221 19 241 255 255 204 186 213 220 208 197 219 212 251 | 219 20 238 253 249 192 170 205 214 193 197 210 203 252 | 211 21 270 268 255 199 159 203 205 176 197 215 195 252 | 210 22 250 255 260 194 180 205 208 189 199 220 183 256 | 212 23 248 256 242 197 192 215 221 198 217 221 184 254 | 217 24 249 238 239 199 196 202 209 192 209 224 201 245 | 213 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- + ---- Mean 252 252 251 200 199 206 225 212 207 218 199 247 | 219 Good Hours 701 672 1290 1379 1488 1440 1488 1405 720 744 720 744 Missing Hours 43 0 198 61 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 12,791 Hours of Good Data 385 Hours Missing 97.1% Data Recovery



99 APPENDIX B NEW NET METERING LEGISLATION

APPENDIX B: NEW NET METERING LEGISLATION The following is the text of the recently passed Massachusetts Senate Legislation regarding net metering. Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GREEN COMMUNITIES. Section 138. As used in this section and sections 139 and 140, the following words shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the following meanings:- “Agricultural net metering facility”, a renewable energy generating facility operated as part of an agricultural business that generates electricity that does not have a generation capacity of more than 2 megawatts and is located on land owned or controlled by the agricultural business and is used to provide energy to metered accounts of the business. “Agriculture”, the same meaning as provided in section 1A of chapter 128; provided, however, that when necessary, the commissioner of agricultural resources shall determine if a business is an agricultural business. “Class I net metering credit”, a credit equal to the excess kilowatt-hours by time of use billing period, if applicable, multiplied by the sum of the distribution company’s: (i) default service kilowatt-hour charge in the ISO -NE load zone where the customer is located; (ii) distribution kilowatt-hour charge; (iii) transmission kilowatt-hour charge; and (iv) transition kilowatt-hour charge; provided, however, that this shall not include the demand side management and renewable energy kilowatt-hour charges set forth in sections 19 and 20 of chapter 25; and provided further, that credit for a Class I net metering facility not using solar or wind as its energy source shall be the average monthly clearing price at the ISO -NE. “Class I net metering facility”, a plant or equipment that is used to produce, manufacture or otherwise generate electricity and that is not a transmission facility and that has a design capacity of 60 kilowatts or less. “Class II net metering credit”, a credit equal to the excess kilowatt-hours by time of use billing period, if applicable, multiplied by the sum of the distribution company’s: (i) default service kilowatt-hour charge in the ISO -NE load zone where the customer is located; (ii) distribution kilowatt-hour charge; (iii) transmission kilowatt-hour charge; and (iv) transition kilowatt-hour charge; provided, however, that this shall not include the demand side management and renewable energy kilowatt-hour charges set forth in sections 19 and 20 of chapter 25.




“Class II net metering facility”, an agricultural net metering facility, solar net metering facility, or wind net metering facility with a generating capacity of more than 60 kilowatts but less than or equal to 1 megawatt; provided, however, that a Class II net metering facility owned or operated by a customer which is a municipality or other governmental entity may have a generating capacity of more than 60 kilowatts but less than or equal to 1 megawatt per unit. “Class III net metering credit”, a credit equal to the excess kilowatt-hours by time of use billing period, if applicable, multiplied by the sum of the distribution company’s: (i) default service kilowatt-hour charge in the ISO -NE load zone where the customer is located; (ii) transmission kilowatt-hour charge; and (iii) transition kilowatt-hour charge; provided, however, that if a customer is a municipality or other governmental entity, the credit shall be equal to the excess kilowatt-hours multiplied by the sum of (i), (ii) and (iii) and the distribution kilowatt-hour charge; and provided further, that this shall not include the demand side management and renewable energy kilowatt-hour charges set forth in sections 19 and 20 of chapter 25. “Class III net metering facility”, an agricultural net metering facility, solar net metering facility, or wind-net-metering facility with a generating capacity of more than 1 megawatt but less than or equal to 2 megawatts; provided, however, that a Class III net metering facility owned or operated by a customer which is a municipality or other governmental entity may have a generating capacity of more than 1 megawatt but less than or equal to 2 megawatts per solar net metering or wind net metering unit. “Customer”, a customer of a distribution company that is entitled to the net metering credits, including net metering facilities. “Neighborhood”, a geographic area including and limited to a unique community of interests that is recognized as such by residents of such area and which, in addition to residential and undeveloped properties, may encompass commercial properties. “Neighborhood net metering credit”, a credit equal to the excess kilowatt-hours by time of use billing period, if applicable, multiplied by the sum of the distribution company’s: (i) default service kilowatt-hour charge in the ISO -NE load zone where the customer is located; (ii) transmission kilowatt-hour charge; and (iii) transition kilowatt-hour charge; provided, however, that this shall not include the demand side management and renewable energy kilowatt-hour charges set forth in sections 19 and 20 of chapter 25. “Neighborhood net metering facility”, a Class I, II or III net metering facility that: (i) is owned by, or serves the energy needs of, a group of 10 or more residential customers that resides in a single neighborhood and is served by a single distribution company; and (ii) is located within the same neighborhood as the customers that own or are served by the facility.




“Net metering”, the process of measuring the difference between electricity delivered by a distribution company and electricity generated by a Class I, Class II, Class III or neighborhood net metering facility and fed back to the distribution company. “Renewable energy”, energy generated from any source that qualifies as a Class I or Class II renewable energy generating source under section 11F of chapter 25A; provided, however, that after conducting administrative proceedings, the department of energy resources, in consultation with the department of agriculture, may add technologies or technology categories. “Solar net metering facility”, a facility for the production of electrical energy that uses sunlight to generate electricity and is interconnected to a distribution company. “Wind net metering facility”, a facility for the production of electrical energy that uses wind to generate electricity and is interconnected to a distribution company. Section 139. (a) A distribution company customer that uses electricity generated by a Class I or Class II net metering facility may elect net metering as follows: (1) If the electricity generated by the Class I or Class II net metering facility during a billing period exceeds the customer’s kilowatt-hour usage during the billing period, the customer shall be billed for 0 kilowatt-hour usage and the excess Class I or Class II net metering credits shall be credited to the customer’s account. Credits may be carried forward from month to month. A Class I or Class II wind or solar net metering facility may designate customers of the same distribution company to which the Class I or Class II wind or solar net metering facility is interconnected and that are located in the same ISO -NE load zone to receive such credits in amounts attributed by the Class I or Class II wind or solar net metering facility. Written notice of the identities of the customers so designated and the amounts of the credits to be attributed to such customers shall be in a form as the distribution company shall reasonably require. (2) If the customer’s kilowatt-hour usage exceeds the electricity generated by the Class I or Class II net metering facility during the billing period, the customer shall be responsible for the balance at the distribution company’s applicable rate. (b) A distribution company customer that uses electricity generated by a Class III net metering facility may elect net metering as follows: (1) If the electricity generated by the Class III net metering facility during a billing period exceeds the customer’s kilowatt-hour usage during the billing period, the customer shall be billed for 0 kilowatt-hour usage and the excess Class III net metering credits shall be credited to the customer’s account. Credits may be carried forward from month to month. A Class III net metering facility may designate customers of the same distribution company to which the Class III net metering facility is interconnected and that are located in the same ISO -NE load




zone to receive such credits in amounts attributed to such customers by the Class III net metering facility. Written notice of the identities of the customers so designated and the amounts of the credits to be attributed to such customers shall be in a form as the distribution company shall reasonably require. A distribution company may elect not to allocate such credits and instead may purchase net metering credits from the facility at the rates provided for in this subsection. (2) If the customer’s kilowatt-hour usage exceeds the electricity generated by the Class III net metering facility during the billing period, the customer shall be responsible for the balance at the distribution company’s applicable rate. (c) The distribution portion of any Class I, Class II or Class III net metering credits and distribution company delivery charges displaced by a Class I, Class II or Class III net metering facility shall be aggregated by the distribution company and billed to all customers on an annual basis through a uniform per kilowatt-hour surcharge or surcharges. (d) The distribution company shall impose tariffs, as may be approved from time to time by the department, regarding necessary interconnection studies and the type, costs and timeframe for installing metering and distribution system upgrades to accommodate these installations. Such tariffs shall require that all facilities maintain adequate insurance. Distribution companies shall be prohibited from imposing special fees on Class I net metering facilities, such as backup charges and demand charges, or additional controls or liability insurance, as long as the facility meets the other requirements of the interconnection tariff and all relevant safety and power quality standards. Before providing net metering service under this section, a Class II or III net metering facility shall provide all necessary information to, and cooperate with, the distribution utility to which it is interconnected to enable the distribution utility to obtain the appropriate asset identification for reporting generation to ISO -NE. (e) A Class I, II or III net metering facility or net metering customer shall not be: an electric utility, generation company, aggregator, supplier, energy marketer or energy broker, within the meaning of those terms as defined in sections 1 and 1F. (f) The aggregate capacity of net metering shall not exceed 1 per cent of the distribution company’s peak load. For the purpose of calculating the aggregate capacity, the capacity of a solar net metering facility shall be 80 per cent of the facility’s direct current rating at standard test conditions and the capacity of a wind net metering facility shall be the nameplate rating. (g) The department shall adopt rules and regulations necessary to carry out this section. Section 140. A neighborhood net metering facility shall elect net metering as follows:




(a) If the electricity generated by the neighborhood net metering facility during a billing period exceeds its kilowatt-hour usage during the billing period, the neighborhood net metering facility shall be billed for 0 kilowatt-hour usage and the excess neighborhood net metering credits shall be credited to those customers identified by the neighborhood net metering facility as being served by the same company to which the neighborhood net metering facility is interconnected, residing in the same neighborhood in which the neighborhood net metering facility is located and having an ownership interest in the neighborhood net metering facility. The amount of the excess neighborhood net metering credits to be attributed to each such customer shall be determined by the allocation provided by the neighborhood net metering facility. Credits may be carried forward by such customers from month to month. Written notice of the identity of the customers so designated and the allocation of the credits to be attributed to such customers shall be in such form as the distribution company shall reasonably require. (b) The department shall adopt rules and regulations necessary to carry out this section, including, but not limited to, further defining the term “neighborhood” and limiting the number of customers that may be designated by neighborhood net metering facilities to receive neighborhood net metering credits. Section 141. In all decisions or actions regarding rate designs, the department shall consider the impacts of such actions, including the impact of new financial incentives on the successful development of energy efficiency and on-site generation. Where the scale of on-site generation would have an impact on affordability for low-income customers, a fully compensating adjustment shall be made to the low-income rate discount. Section 142. The department shall continue to remove any impediments to the development of efficient, low-emissions distributed generation, including combined heat and power, taking into account the need to appropriately allocate any associated costs in a fair and equitable manner. For the purposes of this section, “efficient, low-emissions” shall mean an efficiency of 60 per cent or greater on an annual basis and emissions lower than required by the department of environmental protection. Section 143. (a) For the purposes of this section, the term “small municipal renewable energy generating facility” shall mean a generating unit that is designed for, or capable of, operating at a gross capacity of less than 10 megawatts and that qualifies as a Class I renewable energy generating source under section 11F of chapter 25A. (b) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, a municipality may design, install, own and operate small municipal renewable energy generating facilities, sell any electricity generated from such facilities and sell any other marketable products resulting from its generation of renewable energy at such facilities, including electronic certificates created to represent the generation attributes, as defined in 225 CMR 14.02, of each megawatt hour of energy generated by the renewable energy facilities; provided, however, that no later than 15 days after the initiation of a procurement of services, equipment or




materials related to a small municipal renewable energy generating facility and again no later than 15 days after the date that such small municipal renewable energy generating facility first produces electrical energy, said municipality shall submit a report to the department of public utilities and the department of energy resources detailing the costs of the small municipal renewable energy generating facility and a plan and forecast for the disposition of the facility’s products. The department of energy resources shall annually issue a report containing information on small municipal renewable energy generating facilities, including the number, capacity, production and performance of such facilities and recommendations, if any, for additional legislative action to increase the benefits available to municipalities through ownership of renewable energy generating facilities. The department of energy resources shall submit such report, including drafts of legislation to implement recommendations within such report, to the joint committee on telecommunications, utilities and energy and the senate and house committees on ways and means not later than April 30 of each year. (c) A municipality may issue from time to time bonds or notes in order to finance all or a portion of the costs of small municipal renewable energy generating facility projects authorized under this section. Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 44 to the contrary, the maturities of any such bonds issued by a municipality hereunder either shall be arranged so that for each issue the annual combined payments of principal and interest payable in each year, commencing with the first year in which a principal payment is required, shall be as nearly equal as practicable in the opinion of the municipal treasurer or shall be arranged in accordance with a schedule providing for a more rapid amortization of principal. The first payment of principal of each issue of bonds or of any temporary notes issued in anticipation of the bonds shall be not later than 5 years after the anticipated date of commencement of the regular operation of the small municipal renewable energy generating facilities financed thereby, as determined by the municipal treasurer, and the last payment of principal of the bonds shall be not later than 25 years from the date of the bonds. Indebtedness incurred under this section shall not be included in determining the limit of indebtedness of a municipality under section 10 of said chapter 44 but, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, shall be subject to the provisions of said chapter 44. (d) A municipality shall procure any services required for the design, installation, improvement, repair and operation of small municipal renewable energy generating facilities authorized under this section, and acquire any equipment necessary in connection therewith, in accordance with the procurement requirements of chapter 30B as applicable. A municipality may procure any such services and equipment together as 1 procurement or as separate procurements thereunder. (e) A municipality may establish an enterprise fund under section 53F1/2 of chapter 44 for the receipt of all revenues from the operation of small municipal renewable energy generating facilities authorized under this section to operate and all moneys received for the benefit of such small municipal renewable energy generating facilities, other than the proceeds of bonds or notes issued therefor. Such receipts shall be used to pay the costs of




operation and maintenance of the small municipal renewable energy generating facilities, to pay the costs of future improvements and repairs thereto and to pay the principals and interest on any bonds or notes issued therefor. STUDY TEAM NOTE: It is still unclear from the definitions in the final language whether publicly owned facilities like the college will have Class 3 Net Metering Facilities treated differently than those of privately owned facilities. Legal interpretation of the final regulations are recommended prior to proceeding with a project over 2 megawatts of total nameplate capacity.



106 APPENDIX C PROJECT PERMITTING SUBMISSIONS

APPENDIX C: PROJECT PERMITTING SUBMISSIONS The following pages are submissions we made on behalf of the college to regulatory and permitting agencies.

Mount Wachusett Community College Wind Turbine Project Gardner, MA Project Narrative ______________________________________________________________________________________

Project Narrative

Wind Turbine Project

Mount Wachusett Community College

Project Overview: Mount Wachusett Community College (MWCC), located on a 300 acre state owned site in Gardner, Massachusetts, plans to install two wind turbines on campus. The project would be funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. Proposed Wind Turbine Project MWCC proposes to erect up to two wind turbines at the site of the current meteorological test tower, as shown on Figure 1, Project Locus. The existing met tower is approximately 164 feet high and has been operating since March of 2006. A view of the tower is provided in the following photo. The proposed turbines would be installed on monopole towers with a total height to the top of the blade arc between approximately 250 and 415 feet above ground level (AGL). Final height and blade diameter determination will be made through an evaluation of both optimized turbine power output and compliance with FAA airspace requirements. The types of wind turbines being considered turn at a maximum rate of approximately 32 revolutions per minute. Turbine Site The site for the wind towers is an open field sloping to the west. Power transmission from the turbine site to the interconnection at the main meter room for the campus will be through underground cable. A transformer will be installed near the base of the wind turbine.

View Of Existing Meteorological Tower At Proposed Site For Wind Turbines, Looking Easterly.

Approx. Scale:

Mount Wachusett Community CollegeWind Turbine ProjectGardner, MA Figure 1

Locus Map1 " equals 2,000 '

Boston

ProjectLocus

Source Data:Data compiled from the following source:MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA

USGS Topographic Quadrangle Images:December 1995

Location of ProposedWind Turbines

Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport

Details for Case : MWCC Wind Turbine 1 Show Project Summary

Project Name: MOUNT-000089351-08 Sponsor: Mount Wachusett Community College

Case Status

ASN: 2008-ANE-276-OE

Status: Accepted

Date Accepted: 03/03/2008

Date Determined:

Letters: None

Construction / Alteration Information Structure Summary

Notice Of: Construction

Duration: Permanent

if Temporary : Months: Days:

Work Schedule - Start: 08/01/2008

Work Schedule - End: 05/01/2009

State Filing: Not filed with State

Structure Type: Wind Turbine

Structure Name: MWCC Wind Turbine 1

FCC Number:

Prior ASN:

Structure Details Common Frequency Bands

Latitude: 42° 35' 26.13'' N

Longitude: 71° 59' 3.39'' W

Horizontal Datum: NAD83

Site Elevation (SE): 1158 (nearest foot)

Structure Height (AGL): 415 (nearest foot)

Marking/Lighting: Red lights

Other :

Nearest City: Gardner

Nearest State: Massachusetts

Description of Location:

The site is located at Mount Wachusett Community College in Gardner, MA. The site elevation is 1,158'MSL and the proposed turbine is 415'AGL. The site is a cleared meadow on Mount Wachusett Community College owned land.

Description of Proposal:

This is one of two proposed wind turbines to be erected by Mount Wachusett Community College. The turbine is 415'AGL and would have FAA approved hazard beacon lighting.

Low Freq High Freq Freq Unit ERP ERP Unit Specific Frequencies

Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport

Details for Case : MWCC Wind Turbine 2 Show Project Summary

Project Name: MOUNT-000089358-08 Sponsor: Mount Wachusett Community College

Case Status

ASN: 2008-ANE-277-OE

Status: Accepted

Date Accepted: 03/03/2008

Date Determined:

Letters: None

Construction / Alteration Information Structure Summary

Notice Of: Construction

Duration: Permanent

if Temporary : Months: Days:

Work Schedule - Start: 08/01/2008

Work Schedule - End: 05/01/2009

State Filing: Not filed with State

Structure Type: Wind Turbine

Structure Name: MWCC Wind Turbine 2

FCC Number:

Prior ASN:

Structure Details Common Frequency Bands

Latitude: 42° 35' 16.97'' N

Longitude: 71° 59' 2.88'' W

Horizontal Datum: NAD83

Site Elevation (SE): 1158 (nearest foot)

Structure Height (AGL): 415 (nearest foot)

Marking/Lighting: Red lights

Other :

Nearest City: Gardner

Nearest State: Massachusetts

Description of Location:

The site is located in Gardner MA in a cleared meadow on Mount Wachusett Community owned land. The site elevation is 1,158'MSL. The site is located 2.6 nautical miles NNE of Gardner Muni Airport.

Description of Proposal:

This is the second of two wind turbines MWCC would like to erect. The structure would be 415'AGL and sit at a total elevation of 1,158'MSL.

Low Freq High Freq Freq Unit ERP ERP Unit Specific Frequencies



117 APPENDIX D PROJECT PERMITTING RESPONSES

APPENDIX D: PROJECT PERMITTING REGULATORY RESPONSES The following pages are the responses from regulatory agencies to our submissions.



123 APPENDIX E STUDY TEAM BIOS

APPENDIX E: RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM DCAM After review of this report submitted 3-11-08, DCAM submitted the following questions on 6-18-08 Questions for the Study Team to Include in Final Report:

1) How will a two turbine project be impacted by an increase in the costs of permitting by the as yet undefined bat and bird studies? Would a one turbine project be less expensive to permit given the US Fish and Wildlife Service requirements and stand a better chance of being built?

Answer: Either a one or two turbine project will require the same level of permitting review. Because there will be federal funding in this project, we are required to go through the federal NEPA process in either case. The lead agency for the NEPA review is U.S. DOE. They have approved Jacobs Engineering Group as the lead consultant on that review. They are the ones that ultimately define and approve the scope of any wildlife and other environmental studies necessary for approval beyond those required by state agencies. The scope of such studies is yet to be fully defined. Until we are much further along in the Environmental Assessment process, it is impossible to determine the overall impact such permitting effort will ultimately have on the project economics in either a one turbine or two turbine scenario.

2) Has the team received a written determination from US Fish and Wildlife in regards to what regulatory requirements they need to complete in order to meet the terms of federal Executive Order (EO 13186)?

Answer: We met on site with Vernon Lang from U.S. Fish and Wildlife. He reiterated the original recommendations in the March 5, 2008 letter that his agency sent to Maryann Magner, which is included in the appendix to our report. As part of our discussions, he made clear that his recommendations are in fact recommendations only and that it is up to DOE, as the lead agency in the NEPA review, to determine whether or not to follow those recommendations exactly or to modify the methods of the Environmental Assessment to some degree.

3) Has the team received a written decision from the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to their request to increase the height of the turbines? (the study notes that a Form 7460 is normally submitted to FAA for this kind of request)

Answer: The necessary applications and submittals have all been made to FAA. No response has been received yet from FAA. Our aviation engineer, Heath Marsden, indicates that this process typically takes about six months. We are hopeful that we will have a response by the end of the summer.




4) Ed Terceiro said in a 4/25/08 email message that MWCC and the study team are submitting an NEPA proposal based on the recommendations of the bird and bat studies. Has NEPA responded to date?

Answer: We have taken the first steps in the NEPA review process with DOE. The process is somewhat of an iterative process to be determined by DOE with input from our consultants as well as input from the appropriate regulatory agencies. The Statement of Work for the environmental assessment on the project, which has been prepared for us by our lead environmental consultant, Maryann Magner is attached. That document and other relevant documents have been forwarded to DOE. We currently expect the entire process to take approximately nine months. As a funder of this work, DCAM will be kept abreast of progress and results as the process evolves. Based on advice from our avian consultant Paul Kerlinger, PhD and our bat consultant, Scott Reynolds, PhD., we have already installed equipment and begun sonar studies on bats, already completed the first phase of the on-site field analysis regarding both birds and bats, and have begun preliminary work on the Phase One Avian Risk Assessment and a Phase One Bat Risk Assessment. Field work to determine whether at risk bird species nest on site has been completed.

5) The study mentions that the hospital adjacent to the MWCC campus might be

interested in purchasing some of the electricity generated by a two turbine project. Does MWCC have anything in writing from the hospital spelling out the terms of any prospective agreement to purchase power from the college?

Answer: Prior to entering any formal negotiations with the hospital or any other potential off-taker of power or net-metering credits, it was important that we finalize the Feasibility Study and determine the impact of the new Massachusetts net-metering legislation. That legislation has been anticipated for over eight months, but just actually passed last week. Once the net-metering regulations are promulgated, we will be better able to determine how this project will be treated under the new law. We can then determine whether this should be a one or two turbine project and better determine how any excess energy production or net-metering credits should be allocated.




APPENDIX F: STUDY TEAM BIOS (Listed Alphabetically) Jason Gifford – Project Manager Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC 10 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701 Tel: 508-665-5856 E-Mail: [email protected] Jason Gifford has ten years of experience in the development of renewable energy policy in restructured electricity markets, market and financial analysis, REC market policy and development, and the development of community-scale renewable energy projects. Prior to joining Sustainable Energy Advantage, Jason served as Industry Investment and Development Manager at the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. At MTC, Mr. Gifford focused on project finance, community-scale renewable energy development, and investment-related financial analysis and due diligence for the Renewable Energy Trust. From 1998 to 2002, Jason was Manager of Regulatory Affairs and Business Development at Green Mountain Energy Company, where he led the Company’s public policy efforts to establish competitive markets for renewable energy in PJM, Ohio and New England. Jason holds a B.A. from Bates College and an M.B.A. in Finance and Entrepreneurship from Babson College. W. Thompson (Tom) Greer, P.E., LEED - Manager, Electrical Engineering Department Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey 343 Congress Street, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: 617-532-4283 e-mail: [email protected] With thirty-two years of electrical engineering and experience, Tom Greer is the electrical engineer for the project and also oversees Jacob Edwards and Kelcey’s responsibilities for the project. His experience includes supervision and quality control for complex electrical design and construction administration for power distribution, lighting, emergency systems, motor controls, fire alarm, security, sound, signal and communication systems for communications facilities, office and commercial buildings, power plants, industrial plants, hospitals, government projects, retail facilities, educational facilities, and housing. Tom managed a campus wide Generator Study for Harvard Business School. For Wentworth Institute of Technology, he was the project manager for the power house electrical upgrades, power distribution upgrades to the main campus electrical service and design of a new 13,800 volt power distribution system. Tom was electrical engineer for a wind power feasibility study for the Norfolk County Correctional Facility. Recent sustainable design projects include daylighting studies and subsequent design for daylight dimming lighting and controls at UMass Amherst’s Berkshire Dining Hall and electrical engineering for a supermarket project, which included photovoltaic equipment.




Harley Lee – President Endless Energy Corporation 57 Ryder Road Yarmouth, Maine 04096 Tel: 207-847-9323 E-Mail: [email protected] Harley Lee is founder and president of Endless Energy Corporation, a wind farm development firm specializing in New England sites. He has been in the wind energy field since 1979. Harley started his wind energy work in Washington, DC., consulting for the Department of Energy and private sector clients. He founded Endless Energy in Maine in 1987. Harley has experience in all facets of developing wind farms including power contracting, land acquisition, meteorology, permitting, finance, and design. Endless Energy Corporation was the first wind farming company in the US to win a power contract in a competitive bid, installed 50 kilowatt wind turbine in Orland, Maine in 2001, and is now developing the 90 MW Redington wind farm in Maine and the 15 MW Equinox wind farm in Vermont. He received a BA degree in economics from the University of the South and an MBA from Duke University. Maryann T. Magner - Senior Environmental Planner Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey 343 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 617-242-9222 [email protected] As an environmental analyst for Edwards and Kelcey, Maryann Magner has extensive experience preparing environmental documents for transportation projects including highway, transit, and airport projects. She has contributed to several major EIS/EIR documents and has also prepared EA and CE checklist documents. She has prepared many applications for permits and other agency review including Corps of Engineers Highway Methodology, CZM Consistency Review, Notice of Intent, Chapter 91 License, 401 Water Quality Certification, USCOE 404 Permit, Stormwater Management Plans, and NPDES permits. She has also served as a monitor for environmental regulatory compliance during construction of highway and transit projects. She has contributed to the design of wetland replication sites and served as wetland specialist for wetland monitoring during construction.




Heath Marsden – Airport Planner Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey 1 Sundial Avenue, Suite 410 Manchester, NH 03103 Tel: 603-666-7181 E-Mail: [email protected] Heath Marsden serves as an Airport Planner for projects throughout New England. His experience includes in depth aircraft performance analysis, runway length analysis, and airspace analysis as well as real-time operational expertise as a licensed commercial pilot with multi-engine and instrument ratings. Heath is also experienced in all facets of Airport Master Planning, to include: demand/capacity analysis, forecasting, and facility requirements. Heath makes extensive use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and AutoCAD to analyze and present complex planning and design issues. Edward F. McCarthy – Principal & Meteorological Consultant E.F. McCarthy & Associates 511 Frumenti Ct. Martinez, CA 94553 Tel: 925-229-0648 Fax: 925-229-0685 E-Mail: [email protected] Ed McCarthy, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM), is the principal of Edward F. McCarthy & Associates, a firm specializing in meteorological services to the wind energy industry and widely recognized as one of the leading experts in this field. Ed provides these services to a wide range of clients, private developers and government agencies, both nationally and internationally. His experience includes working for US Windpower, later Kenetech, Inc. for ten years from 1984-94 and as a private consultant for twelve years from 1994 to Present.




William E Richardson - Airport Planner Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey 343 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 617-242-9222 [email protected] For 34 years Bill has specialized in airport development, land use, site planning and EIS evaluations for airport improvement projects. He has extensive experience in environmental assessments and NEPA related procedures requiring innovative streamlining techniques, consolidated permitting and interagency coordination. Bill has helped defuse public controversy and project delays with clear communication and graphic presentations early in the planning process using his strong writing and graphic skills. In addition to being a commercial pilot, with 40 years flying experience, Bill is an accomplished aerial photographer and an FAA Aviation Safety Counselor. Roy Tiano – Civil Engineer Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey 343 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210 617-242-9222 [email protected] Roy Tiano has more than 30 years experience in a wide variety of site development projects. As a Senior Project Manager, he provides leadership in design, management, and construction for commercial site developments, regional and local shopping centers, office parks, residential subdivisions, and transportation facilities. Roy has served as senior site - civil engineer on projects for the University of Massachusetts, Bunker Hill Community College, Landmark School, Massachusetts College of Art, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and numerous public, corporate and institutional civil engineering and site development projects.




Fred Unger - President Heartwood Group, Inc. 165 Evergreen Street Providence, RI 02906 Tel: 401-861-1650 E-Mail: [email protected] Fred Unger has worked as an engineering consultant, strategic business planning consultant and a developer of environmentally responsible real estate projects. He has led project development efforts on several renewable energy projects, including the largest photovoltaic contract ever awarded in Massachusetts and has led project feasibility efforts on prominent wind and solar energy projects. As a business owner for over twenty-five years and as project manager for Edwards and Kelcey, Fred has successfully managed hundreds of projects. Having represented owners of major facilities, several government agencies and been active in local government, Fred's experience on both sides of land use planning issues, along with his experience with the financial concerns of government and private developers, bring insight to private and public projects alike. He has authored numerous articles and studies on green building and renewable energy and has been a speaker at numerous energy conferences. Fred served as Treasurer of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association and in 2003 chaired the Building Energy Conference.

mt wachusett community college wind feasibility final...

Documents