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."


IOWA Economic Development id2073

Trachte_id2056
Latest Top Stories

More Investors Entering Tax Equity Market; Returns Holding Steady

The entry of new tax equity investors to the wind space last year re-ignited an old debate.


Report: Top 10 Turbine OEMs Had Record Year In 2014

Preliminary findings suggest Vestas reigned supreme again among the world's leading wind turbine makers. How did some of the other OEMs fare?


AWEA's Gramlich To FERC: Additional Transmission Needed Regardless Of Clean Power Plan

To further build a more balanced and reliable electricity portfolio, the U.S. needs to build more transmission capacity.


Getting A Grip On Grinding Gearboxes: Why Such Events Need Not Be Showstoppers

Despite advances in gearbox reliability - namely, from condition monitoring systems and greater design standardization - challenges remain.


How Wind Energy Can Meet EPA Clean Power Plan Requirements

According to the American Wind Energy Association, wind power is a cost-effective solution for complying with the environmental effort.

Hybrid Energy Innovations 2015