What BRSA Isn't Telling You About Their Wind Turbine Plan - Part 1

The BRSA claims they could save $400,000 a year on their electric bill if they get to build their Industrial Wind Turbine, but they can offer no document to prove it. That document is called a cost/benefit analysis, an essential and basic tool for any business, even if your business only seeks to purchase some new computers.

On DEP Commissioner Bob Martin's website he states, "Our regulations and decisions need to be based on…a robust cost/benefit analysis." OK, where is it? The Union Beach Environmental Trust (UBET) filed an OPRA request for one with the BRSA, The Board of Public Utilities and the DEP. We got nothing back - nada! It simply does not exist, not even on a napkin. And that probably explains why the BRSA hates to admit that there are more costs and less benefits than they claim.

By assuming that residents and town governments would not rise up against them, BRSA has allowed their attorney to run up one heck of a legal bill. Plus, in the unlikely event that BRSA eventually gets their turbine, the legal fight will not be over. Homeowners near ground zero are sure to sue due to noise complaints, diminished home values, etc., and the battle will rage on for years. Ratepayers will pay the ongoing BRSA legal tab and any resulting awards to homeowners.

Here are a few more costs not accounted for:

• As far as we can tell, the turbine does not come with a warranty. UBET is awaiting OPRA'd documents from the BRSA concerning GE, the turbine manufacturer. We should know for sure when we receive them. If anything unexpected goes wrong with the turbine, it will be extremely expensive to fix.
• Every three to seven years the gearbox will wear out, with a replacement cost of around $400,000.
• The blades will likely have to be replaced once over the life of the turbine. That costs about the same as the gears to replace. Plus, the composite the blades are made from is not recyclable, and used IWT blades are becoming a real environmental issue.
• No money is being set aside each year for the eventual removal of the turbine and remediation of the site. Under state law, that will be the responsibility of the BRSA. This would just kick the can down the road.
• On the hottest days of summer at peak demand there is little wind and the IWT will sit idle. According to former BRSA Chairman Coligas, GE will not let them run the turbine when the temperature falls below freezing, probably due to the potential for ice throw from the blades. If true, this IWT would be a money-loser for sure.
• In many places, wind developers end up buying homes at market value to settle the inevitable lawsuits. The settlements come with a very strict nondisclosure agreement, so not a lot is known about the details. There are other homeowners who accept cash, also with a gag order. This usually occurs in farm county where there are only a few homes located close to a turbine. But with the density of homes in Union Beach, BRSA could end up compensating or buying out a lot of homeowners.
• Regarding home values, the BRSA commissioned their own study of homes near the Atlantic City wind farm. They got the result they paid for, no lowering of home values. However, there is a lot wrong with that study. For starters, the work was done by a trainee, the senior appraiser merely reviewed the results. The report does not have a signed certificate, a requirement of most licensing and professional associations. The report states that none of the sales were verified…and so on and so forth. It would never stand up in court.

The BRSA's IWT project was ill conceived and enacted by commissioners who knew little about the subject. Those same commissioners ignored warnings by the courts and the DEP not to undertake any construction until they had secured all necesary local permissions, yet they have misspent millions to date on contruction. The blame for these huge sums falls to them, and the residents of Union Beach are not going to welcome the 386-foot IWT into town so that BRSA can get off the hook for what I consider malfeasance. For the sake of the ratepayers, the BRSA should abandon their project now and cap ratepayer losses. "We The Ratepayers" deserve no less.