in News Departments > New & Noteworthy
print the content item

In a filing released Tuesday, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) reveals that it recently rejected Fishermen's Energy's settlement agreement with the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel because, among other factors, the developer continually changed turbine suppliers.

The BPU's decision represented a major setback for the developer, which is planning to use New Jersey's offshore renewable energy certificates to support the financing and construction of the Fishermen's Atlantic Wind Farm (FACW), a 25 MW pilot project located off the coast of Atlantic City.

According to the BPU filing, the developer’s initial June 2011 project application materially changed after Fisherman’s notified the agency it was switching turbine suppliers several times. Originally, the BPU says the developer was considering three possible turbine manufacturers: Siemens, GE and China-based XEMC New Energy.

On June 16, 2011, Fishermen's informed the BPU that Siemens would be the turbine of record for the board's review. At that time, the board considered the Fishermen's application "administratively complete." The completeness of its application was subject to the condition that the review of the project would only consider the Siemens turbine.

The BPU notes that staff informed Fishermen's that the use of a more technologically advanced turbine equal to, or better than, the Siemens turbine could be submitted for consideration.

On June 24, 2011, Fishermen’s entered into an agreement with XEMC New Energy for a majority share of the project. Then, on July 12, 2011, Fishermen's designated XEMC as the official turbine of record. At the time, Fishermen's noted that the XEMC turbines were "the most technically advanced and are better for FACW and New Jersey than the other currently available turbines."

However, in an amended application on June 2012, Fishermen’s requested the BPU review both XEMC and Siemens turbines.

According to the BPU ruling, "Staff informed FACW that promoting two different turbine manufacturers was essentially equivalent to asking the board to review two different turbine applications."

At that point, BPU staff insisted that the developer select one provider. In September 2012, the developer instructed the BPU to review its application using XEMC technology, with the caveat that it may need to change turbine suppliers again.

"The type of turbine a developer intends to use is fundamental to the application process," explains the BPU, adding that turbines are the largest cost component of the project. "Any substitution of the turbine could have a material impact on the project costs and performance and require careful review by the board."

Ultimately, the BPU ruled that "the repeated back-and-forth concerning turbine manufacturer fails to instill confidence in the viability of this project."



Trachte Inc._id1770
Latest Top Stories

Wind Energy Dominates New U.S. Power In October

Data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shows that wind power accounted for over two-thirds of the country's new electricity generating capacity in last month.


Are Fitch Ratings' Claims About Wind Farm Underperformance Unfounded?

A recent report from Fitch Ratings suggests that wind farms underperform due to an overestimation of wind resources, but AWS Truepower says the analysis misses the mark.


SunEdison Buying First Wind In $2.4 Billion Deal

Global solar company SunEdison and its yeildco have announced an agreement to buy the Boston-based developer, a major player in the U.S. wind industry.


U.S., China Reach Ambitious Climate Change Accord

The agreement between the global superpowers leans heavily on the deployment of renewable energy, such as wind and solar.


What The Midterm Elections Mean For The U.S. Wind Industry

Both chambers of Congress are now under Republican control for the first time since 2006. How will wind energy fare?

Hybrid Energy Innovations 2015
Renewable NRG_id1934