Documents from Colorado
NextEra's Golden West Wind Energy Center sited in El Paso County, Colorado was required under the County permit to conduct a noise impact study after the project was placed in service in October 2015. Acoustician Robert Rand was asked by residents living near the turbines to review the noise impact study as prepared by NextEra consultant, Epsilon Associates. Mr. Rand's report, included here, identified several material errors with Epsilon's report and also found that the project appears to be operating outside the noise limits permitted by the County and the State. The Golden West Wind Energy Center consists 145 1.72-megawatt GE turbines for a total installed capacity of 249.4-megawatts Mr. Rand's executive summary is provided below. The full report can be accessed by clicking the document icon on this page.
El Paso County Property Rights Coalition, a Colorado, a Colorado limited cooperative association et. al. filed this complaint against the Colorado County Commissioners of El Pase County and NexEra Energy Resources following the county's approval of the Golden West wind energy facility, a 250 MW project. The project was initially approved by the County in December 2013. Within weeks of the project permit being issued, NextEra Energy acquired the rights of the project and started the process of amending the plans to move the turbines, increase their height and seek permission to raise the transmission line so it was above ground. On January 6, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the amended project and ultimately recommended it be denied by a 6-3 vote.
These minutes of the El Paso County Planning Commission January 6, 2015 hearing end with the Planning Commission voting to deny recommending approval of the amended Golden West wind energy facility that would site a 250 MW project in the county. Seventy-five people were present in the hearing room to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the project. The final vote was 6-3 to deny the project with the primary reasons for denial being impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents, The full minutes for the hearing can be accessed by clicking the links on this page.
This document details OSHA violations at the Vestas blade manufacturing facility in Windsor, Colorado. Safety and workplace violations are not unique to this site. Vestas was also cited for workplace violations at overseas factories. These violations date back to April and May, 2010.
This new report from Colorado's natural gas industry says increased use of wind energy indirectly results in raised pollution levels produced by some coal-fired power plants along the Front Range. The report recommends curbing the use of wind energy during the next one or two years to levels that match power output at existing natural gas-fired power plants -- and building more natural gas plants in the long term. The introductory sections of the report are provided below. To access the full document click on the link at the bottom of this page.
This useful paper examines the impact of wind turbine development on species habitat use. In particular, this paper focuses on bird species residing in American grasslands. The abstract of the paper is provided below. The full paper can be downloaded from the links on this page.
This paper investigates the impact of the passage of Colorado's expanded Renewable Energy Standard (RES) on the state's energy and generation capacity needs. In September 2006, the Colorado Energy Forum (CEF) issued a report which found that, in order to reliably meet Colorado's anticipated customer electricity needs, 4,900 MW of new electric capacity is required by 2025.
In this report we discuss some recent studies that have occurred in the United States since our previous work [2, 3]. The key objectives of these studies were to quantify the physical impacts and costs of wind generation on grid operations and the associated costs. Examples of these costs are (a) committing unneeded generation, (b) allocating more load-following capability to account for wind variability, and (c) allocating more regulation capacity. These are referred to as “ancillary service” costs, and are based on the physical system and operating characteristics and procedures. This topic is covered in more detail by Zavadil et al. .
If renewables were indeed less expensive than conventional alternatives as suggested by the Public Policy Consulting Report, why mandate their purchase and set a minimum market share?