feasibility study report - final

report

5

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

AMO

SCIRCL E

OLDBRIC

KYARDROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

NATHAN ELLIS HIGHWAY


OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

30m: 5.0147 m/s50m: 5.7596 m/s70m: 6.3406 m/s100m: 7.054 m/s

AWS Truewind Wind Speeds

FIGURE 3TOWN OF MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS

MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOLWIND TURBINE FEASIBILITY STUDY

0 250 500 750 1,000

Scale in Feet

³

Overview MapLegend

5 Proposed Turbine Location

10' Contour

Mashpee High School Property

Data Sources:Office of Geographic andEnvironmental Information (MassGIS),Commonwealth of MassachusettsExecutive Office of Environmental Affairs.

\\Gis

ds\g

is\D

ataS

tore

\Uni

tedS

tate

s\N

ewEn

glan

d\M

A\Ba

rnst

able

\Mas

hpee

\Pro

ject

\Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y\Fi

gure

3_AW

Swin

dSpe

eds_

Aeria

l.mxd

11

/19/

2009

1:0

8:00

PM

du

ijves

o

5

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

AMO

SCIRCL E

OLDBRIC

KYARDROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD



OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

30m: 5.0147 m/s50m: 5.7596 m/s70m: 6.3406 m/s100m: 7.054 m/s




0 250 500 750 1,000

Scale in Feet

³

Overview MapLegend


10' Contour



\\Gis

ds\g

is\D

ataS

tore

\Uni

tedS

tate

s\N

ewEn

glan

d\M

A\Ba

rnst

able

\Mas

hpee

\Pro

ject

\Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y\Fi

gure

3_AW

Swin

dSpe

eds_

Aeria

l.mxd

11

/19/

2009

1:0

8:00

PM

du

ijves

o

5

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

AMO

SCIRCL E

OLDBRIC

KYARDROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD



OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

30m: 5.0147 m/s50m: 5.7596 m/s70m: 6.3406 m/s100m: 7.054 m/s




0 250 500 750 1,000

Scale in Feet

³

Overview MapLegend


10' Contour



\\Gis

ds\g

is\D

ataS

tore

\Uni

tedS

tate

s\N

ewEn

glan

d\M

A\Ba

rnst

able

\Mas

hpee

\Pro

ject

\Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y\Fi

gure

3_AW

Swin

dSpe

eds_

Aeria

l.mxd

11

/19/

2009

1:0

8:00

PM

du

ijves

o

5

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

AMO

SCIRCL E

OLDBRIC

KYARDROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD



OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

30m: 5.0147 m/s50m: 5.7596 m/s70m: 6.3406 m/s100m: 7.054 m/s




0 250 500 750 1,000

Scale in Feet

³

Overview MapLegend


10' Contour



\\Gis

ds\g

is\D

ataS

tore

\Uni

tedS

tate

s\N

ewEn

glan

d\M

A\Ba

rnst

able

\Mas

hpee

\Pro

ject

\Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y\Fi

gure

3_AW

Swin

dSpe

eds_

Aeria

l.mxd

11

/19/

2009

1:0

8:00

PM

du

ijves

o

5

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

AMO

SCIRCL E

OLDBRIC

KYARDROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD



OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

30m: 5.0147 m/s50m: 5.7596 m/s70m: 6.3406 m/s100m: 7.054 m/s




0 250 500 750 1,000

Scale in Feet

³

Overview MapLegend


10' Contour



\\Gis

ds\g

is\D

ataS

tore

\Uni

tedS

tate

s\N

ewEn

glan

d\M

A\Ba

rnst

able

\Mas

hpee

\Pro

ject

\Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y\Fi

gure

3_AW

Swin

dSpe

eds_

Aeria

l.mxd

11

/19/

2009

1:0

8:00

PM

du

ijves

o

5

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

AMO

SCIRCL E

OLDBRIC

KYARDROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD



OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

30m: 5.0147 m/s50m: 5.7596 m/s70m: 6.3406 m/s100m: 7.054 m/s




0 250 500 750 1,000

Scale in Feet

³

Overview MapLegend


10' Contour



\\Gis

ds\g

is\D

ataS

tore

\Uni

tedS

tate

s\N

ewEn

glan

d\M

A\Ba

rnst

able

\Mas

hpee

\Pro

ject

\Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y\Fi

gure

3_AW

Swin

dSpe

eds_

Aeria

l.mxd

11

/19/

2009

1:0

8:00

PM

du

ijves

o

5

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

AMO

SCIRCL E

OLDBRIC

KYARDROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD



OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

30m: 5.0147 m/s50m: 5.7596 m/s70m: 6.3406 m/s100m: 7.054 m/s




0 250 500 750 1,000

Scale in Feet

³

Overview MapLegend


10' Contour



\\Gis

ds\g

is\D

ataS

tore

\Uni

tedS

tate

s\N

ewEn

glan

d\M

A\Ba

rnst

able

\Mas

hpee

\Pro

ject

\Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y\Fi

gure

3_AW

Swin

dSpe

eds_

Aeria

l.mxd

11

/19/

2009

1:0

8:00

PM

du

ijves

o

5

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

AMO

SCIRCL E

OLDBRIC

KYARDROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD



OLD

BARN

STAB

LERO

AD

30m: 5.0147 m/s50m: 5.7596 m/s70m: 6.3406 m/s100m: 7.054 m/s




0 250 500 750 1,000

Scale in Feet

³

Overview MapLegend


10' Contour



\\Gis

ds\g

is\D

ataS

tore

\Uni

tedS

tate

s\N

ewEn

glan

d\M

A\Ba

rnst

able

\Mas

hpee

\Pro

ject

\Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y\Fi

gure

3_AW

Swin

dSpe

eds_

Aeria

l.mxd

11

/19/

2009

1:0

8:00

PM

du

ijves

o

westonandsampson.com

June 2010

Feasibility Study Final Report

MashpeeTown of

MASSACHUSETTS

Five Centennial Drive, Peabody, MA 01960-7985tel: 978-532-1900 fax: 978-977-0100

environmental/infrastructure consultants

FINAL Wind Turbine Feasibility Study Town of Mashpee, MA

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................IV L IST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................V 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1 2.0 WIND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT........................................................................................ 4

2.1 Methodology and Data Sources ...................................................................................... 4 2.2 Obstructions and Their Impact on Wind Resources....................................................... 4 2.3 Correlation to Long Term Data....................................................................................... 4

3.0 INSTALLATION SITE AND VICINITY ................................................................................... 6 3.1 Evaluation of Site Vicinity.............................................................................................. 6 3.2 Site Physical Characteristics ........................................................................................... 8 3.3 Wind Turbine Location................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Site Access ...................................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Site Geology and Soil Conditions................................................................................... 9 3.6 Mashpee Electricity Use ............................................................................................... 12 3.7 Existing Electrical Infrastructure at Mashpee High School.......................................... 12 3.8 Electrical Interconnection Plan..................................................................................... 12 3.9 Electrical Interconnection Details................................................................................. 14 3.10 Revenue Metering Modifications ................................................................................. 16 3.11 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimate...................................................................... 16

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY REVIEW AND PERMITTING PLAN ....................... 18 4.1 Environmental Review.................................................................................................. 18 4.2 Reduction in Air Pollution........................................................................................... 27 4.3 Permitting Plan.............................................................................................................. 27

5.0 WIND PLANT CONFIGURATIONS ...................................................................................... 30 5.1 Foundation and Turbine Support .................................................................................. 30 5.2 Wind Turbine Alternatives ........................................................................................... 30 5.3 Noise Assessment ......................................................................................................... 33 5.4 Visibility Assessment.................................................................................................... 35 5.5 Shadow Flicker ............................................................................................................. 36

6.0 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ......................................................... 37 6.1 Project Economics ........................................................................................................ 37 6.2 Estimated Energy Production ....................................................................................... 37 6.3 Project Costs ................................................................................................................. 39 6.4 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimates .................................................................... 39 6.5 Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................... 41

7.0 PROJECT RISK FACTORS.................................................................................................. 45 7.1 Human Health and Safety ............................................................................................. 46 7.2 Hazards to Navigation and Radar ................................................................................. 46 7.3 Financial Risk ............................................................................................................... 46 7.4 Project Economic Sensitivity Analysis......................................................................... 47

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 48 9.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 49


iii

LIST OF APPENDICIES Appendix A.................................................................................Wind Data Reports (RERL, 2007) Appendix B .............................................................................................. Relevant Correspondence Appendix C ................................................................................................... Mashpee Electric Bills Appendix D...................................................................................................... USFWS Information Appendix E .........................................................................................................Visual Simulations Appendix F............................................................................Selected Wind Turbine Specifications Appendix G.........................................................................................WindPro Model Output Data Appendix H.................................................................................................. Economic Calculations

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 ......................................................................................................USGS Topographic Map Figure 2 .................................................................................................................Site Vicinity Map Figure 3 .................................................................... Mashpee High School Site with Wind Speeds Figure 4 .......................................................................................................................Geologic Map Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................. Soils Map Figure E-1 ........................................................................................... Electrical One Line Diagram Figure 6 ......................................................................................................Sensitive Receptors Map Figure 7 .........................................................North American Flyways with Principal Routes Map Figure 8 ..............................................................................................................Sound Decibel Map Figure 9 ............................................................................................................Shadow Flicker Map Figure 10 ..........................................................................................................Conceptual Site Plan


iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A feasibility study has been completed for the proposed construction of one large scale wind turbine in the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts. The following report presents a comprehensive review of the critical factors and considerations analyzed as part of the feasibility for installing a wind turbine in the Town. This feasibility study incorporated thorough evaluation of existing published wind data; electrical usage, consumption and generation; economics; environmental, avian and noise impacts; engineering assessments and permitting issues towards development of a commercial-scale wind turbine. The feasibility study addresses the technical and economic feasibility of construction of one 600 kW to 1.5 MW wind turbines within Mashpee. Construction of the wind turbine would offset electrical consumption at multiple Town-owned facilities through virtual net metering. Based on the results of this study, installation of a wind energy conversion facility is considered technically viable, with favorable wind resources and adequate electrical demand town-wide to justify development of a wind turbine in the Town. Long-term wind speed of 5.76 meters per second, at a height of 50 meters, is estimated for the Town. Measured and predicated wind speeds are considered favorable for development of a commercial scale wind turbine at the Mashpee High School, with the limiting factor being the expected maximum height restriction of 319 feet imposed by FAA. Aesthetic concerns and the degree of public support or opposition is another limiting factor. We recommend that the Town use the services of a commercial Virtual Met Mast in order to further refine the wind resource assessment. The cost for design, permitting, procurement and construction of a single 600 kW to 1.5 MW wind turbine is on the order of $2,600 to $4,000 to per kW. A project of this size is therefore estimated to cost on the order of $2,380,000 to $4,690,000. The standard figures of merit, including: Net Present Value, Net Cash Flow, Benefit to Cost Ratio and Internal Rate of Return are all positive for the three turbine sizes evaluated (600kW, 750kW, 1.0 MW, and 1.5 MW), suggesting development of one of these size turbines is economically viable. Gross capacity factors range from of 22.0% to 25.8% based on an average wind speed of 6.34 m/s at a height of 70 meters based on AWS TrueWind Maps for the Mashpee High School Site. Simple payback would be on the order of 9.3 to 11.9 years. Internal rates of return were estimated to be 7.4% to 10.5%. Benefit to cost ratios ranged from 1.3 to 1.58. The project economics are improved when factoring the current possible grant funding from the Mass CEC, if determined eligible. Based upon the above, it is our opinion that development of a large-scale wind turbine is both technically and economically viable. The next steps include an internal assessment by the Town of Mashpee to make a “Go” or “No Go” decision on the project. This would include deciding upon a procurement strategy, partnerships with interested third parties (such as CVEC and Mass CEC), and financing options. One of the first steps should be for the Town to obtain project entitlements for the land on which the proposed wind turbine will be located. If Mashpee decides to develop the project under municipal ownership, then a draft Town Warrant article to authorize the debt incurred should be considered. Project permitting could also begin including obtaining a special permit or variance; filing with the USFWS, Natural Heritage, Massachusetts Historical Commission; and filing an electrical interconnection application; and performing an acoustical background study.


v

L IST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABC American Bird Conservancy AGL Above Ground Level ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BCC Bird of Conservation Concern CEC Massachusetts Clean Energy Center CMR Code of Massachusetts Regulation dB decibel dBA A-weighted sound, in decibels DMS Decimal, Minute, Second ESA Endangered Species Act FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic ft feet GWh Gigawatt hours kV kilovolts kVA kilovolt Amperes kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt-hours m meter Mass DEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection MASS GIS Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information System MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act MHC Massachusetts Historical Commission MHD Massachusetts Highway Department MMA Massachusetts Maritime Academy mph miles per hour ms meters per second MTC Massachusetts Technology Collaborative MW megawatt NHESP National Heritage and Endangered Species Program NIMBY Not In My Back Yard PPA Power Purchase Agreement REPI Renewable Energy Production Incentive rpm revolutions per minute USDA United State Department of Agriculture USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey V Volt WECS Wind Energy Conversion System


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND A feasibility study has been completed for the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts. The following report presents a review of the critical factors and considerations analyzed as part of the feasibility for installing one or more wind turbines within the Town of Mashpee. This feasibility study incorporated evaluation of wind resources, site characteristics, existing electrical infrastructure, electrical usage, environmental, avian and noise impacts; a regulatory review, and permitting plan. An estimate of wind turbine energy production and a financial analysis are also presented. The Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts is a resort and residential community located on the south side of the Cape Cod peninsula. Mashpee has an extensive shoreline on Nantucket Sound, which not only provides inspiring views, but also makes the Town a prime candidate for the siting of a wind turbine. In August 2007, at the request of MTC’s Renewable Energy Trust, a representative of the University of Massachusetts Renewable Energy Research Laboratory (RERL) identified seven potential wind turbine sites and completed a study on the wind power in Mashpee. The report (included in Appendix A) focused primarily on siting considerations for a MET tower and a fatal flaw analysis for a wind turbine. The overall conclusion of the study was that there were a number of factors favorable for a wind energy project in Mashpee. The Town of Mashpee owns and controls significant land holdings within the Town of Mashpee which are considered suitable for siting of one or more wind turbines. Four of the seven locations considered in the Wind Power Report prepared by RERL were considered viable, including the Municipal Complex (schools, police, and fire stations), the Transfer Station, South Cape Beach, and Heritage Park. In addition, the Town owns several other properties which include the Mashpee High School and two large fallow cranberry bogs which may prove to be viable sites on which to develop one or more large-scale wind turbines. In total eight candidate locations are reviewed for this report. This feasibility study evaluates a range of turbine sizes focusing on the Mashpee High School Site. The proposed wind turbine(s) would provide power for the Town to offset commercial electrical expenses and will be a showcase renewable energy project for surrounding towns located on the Cape peninsula. The location of the Town of Mashpee is illustrated on a portion of a USGS topographic map as Figure 1. A Site Vicinity Map illustrating relevant landmarks within the Town of Mashpee is provided as Figure 2.


2

Figure 1- USGS Site Location Map


3

Figure 2 - Site Vicinity Map


4

2.0 WIND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT There are many factors that affect the siting of a wind turbine, including topography, soils, setbacks, access, construction considerations, electrical interconnection, and wind speeds. The following section presents an assessment of the expected wind resources based on available published wind data. 2.1 Methodology and Data Sources Weston & Sampson reviewed the AWS TrueWind Map model of wind speeds for Mashpee. Predicted annual average wind speeds from the AWS model were as follows:

Table 2-1 AWS True Wind Map Predicted Wind Speeds, m/s

Elevation Municipal Complex

Transfer Station

South Cape Beach

Heritage Park

Mashpee High

School

John’s Pond Bog

Garner/Farley Bogs

Coombs Elementary

School 30 meters 5.15 5.51 6.43 5.25 5.01 5.17 5.17 5.15 50 meters 5.89 6.13 7.03 5.99 5.76 5.85 5.92 5.89 70 meters 6.44 6.60 7.48 6.53 6.34 6.36 6.50 6.44 100 meters 7.11 7.21 8.02 7.18 7.05 7.02 7.18 7.11

The AWS TrueWind estimates are useful for site screening and while they do not replace the accuracy of site specific anemometry, they are considered reliable with a 94% factor of confidence. Figure 3 shows the AWS true wind speeds for the High School at various heights. 2.2 Obstructions and Their Impact on Wind Resources The proposed wind turbine location at Mashpee High School is currently wooded. Other than the trees on site, there are few obstructions at the site which would impact the wind resources. Ideally, the wind turbine would be placed on the highest available elevation at the site and trees would be cleared around the turbine sufficient to allow access and a clear area for construction. 2.3 Correlation to Long Term Data AWS wind speeds are used as the long-term wind speeds for the Mashpee sites. A long-term wind speed annual average of 5.76 m/s is predicated at a height of 50 meters for the High School site. The wind speeds at the High School are considered viable for development of a wind turbine. This wind speed also meets the minimum criteria for grant eligibility under the Commonwealth Wind Program as having wind speeds of at least 6.0 m/s at 70 meters. We recommend that the Town use the services of a commercial Virtual Met Mast in order to further refine the wind resource assessment.


5

Figure 3 – AWS Truewind Speeds


6

3.0 INSTALLATION SITE AND VICINITY 3.1 Evaluation of Site Vicinity Eight locations within the Town of Mashpee were considered for the installation of a wind turbine as part of this study. These sites included the Municipal Complex (schools, police, and fire stations), the Transfer Station, South Cape Beach, Heritage Park, Mashpee High School, John’s Pond Bog, Garner/ Farley Bog, and Coombs Elementary School. Below is a brief description of each of each of the site locations considered during this study. Site 1 Municipal Complex The Municipal Complex consists of the police station, the fire station, council on aging, and three school buildings including the Mashpee High School and Coombs Elementary School (which were also considered as potential sites). The Municipal Complex property contains sufficient land area for siting of a wind turbine. Precedent for siting of a wind turbine at a public school exists in both Massachusetts (Town of Hull, Massachusetts) and elsewhere in the United States (Spirit Lake, Iowa). A wind turbine at this location would be over 600 feet from the nearest residential abutter. Site 2 Transfer Station The Transfer Station is a capped landfill near the Mashpee River. The Transfer Station abuts the Mashpee DPW facility to the south and it is bordered on the west by conservation land. The Transfer Station property does not contain sufficient land area to locate a turbine unless the turbine was placed on top of the landfill. The landfill cap would most likely need to be punctured in order to place a turbine on this site. This potential site features homes that may be situated in close proximity to the turbine site, therefore a wind turbine would be visible to the residential areas. Site 3 South Cape Beach The South Cape Beach is located on Nantucket Sound. It is part state park, part town park. The state portion is managed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The South Cape Beach site has the best wind resources out of all the other potential sites due to its proximity to the ocean. Since the site is remote, electrical infrastructure would be required to transfer power from the turbine to the grid. There is no electricity demand at this site. This site also features relatively large areas of open space. Public opposition is anticipated if a wind turbine were to be constructed at this site.


7

Site 4 Heritage Park The Heritage Park area includes several town recreational fields west of Carleton Drive. This site has favorable wind speeds however it is located less than 200 ft. to residential abutters. It is anticipated that abutters would oppose a turbine at this location due to potential noise and aesthetic impacts. Site 5 Mashpee High School The Mashpee high school is located within a one mile radius of the Municipal Complex on Old Barnstable Road. There is adequate land area south of the athletic fields to place a turbine. A wind turbine at this location would be over 1,600 ft. to the nearest residential abutter. The Mashpee High School is considered the most favorable site for a wind turbine. Site 6 John’s Pond Bog John’s Pond Bog is a large fallow cranberry bog located southeast of Otis Air Force Base on Boghouse Road. This site contains a groundwater remediation system operated by the U.S. Air Force. Surrounding the bog is Quashnet conservation land.

Site 7 Garner/Farley Bog The Garner/Farley Bog is located west of Milford Road in Mashpee. The residential abutters on Thornberry Circle and Lady’s Slipper Lane would be within 500 ft. of a proposed turbine on this site. Site 8 Coombs Elementary School The Coombs Elementary School is located on Old Barnstable Road a turbine located at this school would be close to residential abutters. Abutter opposition is anticipated due to this short distance. Height Restrictions and Proximity to Airports The following is a summary of the obstruction evaluation given as a maximum structure height above ground level (AGL) at all eight sites:

Table 2-3 Obstruction Evaluation and Maximum Heights

Site Name Study Number Study By Max Height AGL (Ft.)

Johns Pond Bog 2008-WTE-4130-OE FAA 97

Transfer Station 2008-WTE-4133-OE FAA 97

Heritage Park 2008-WTE-4134-OE FAA 173

Garner/Farley Bogs 2008-WTE-4131-OE FAA 224


8

Fire/Police Complex 2008-WTE-4339-OE FAA 234

Coombs Elementary 2008-WTE-0910-OE FAA 234

Mashpee High School 07-N-0448.011 ASI 319

South Cape Beach 2008-WTE-4132-OE FAA 425 Based on the height limitations, the South Cape Beach site and the Mashpee High School are the most favorable locations. However, due to public support concerns the Town requested that this feasibility study focus on the Mashpee High School site for a large scale turbine. Proximity to airports is another important siting factor. The location of the Mashpee High School with respect to operating airports and air navigation facilities was evaluated. The High School is located 2.3 miles northeast of the nearest airport, which is the Falmouth Airpark Airport located in Falmouth, MA. The next nearest airfield is located at Otis Air Force Base, which is located approximately 2.6 miles northeast of the site. Other airports include Cape Cod Airfield, located 7.2 miles northeast of the site and the Barnstable Airport, located 12.3 miles southwest of the site, in Barnstable, MA. The proximity of the site with respect to these airfields is a potential limiting factor. Weston & Sampson retained the service of an aeronautical consultant to provide an obstruction evaluation in accordance with 14 CFR, part 77 at a nearby location with coordinates:

70° 30’ 23.00” West 41° 36’ 40.00” North.

This location is on the Mashpee High School property in the general area of the proposed wind turbine. The results of the analysis indicates that a structure 319 feet AGL should be approvable with a 2-C Survey. A new obstruction evaluation and new height determination should be sought from the FAA for the location selected for the proposed wind turbine. There are no known AM radio stations located within three miles of the Mashpee High School. The relevant correspondence is attached as Appendix B. 3.2 Site Physical Characteristics The Mashpee High School is located off of Old Barnstable Road near Route 151 in Mashpee. The site contains one main building and several smaller ancillary buildings for maintenance and concession. There are baseball/softball fields to the east and south of the High School and a football field to the south. The area surrounding the school property is forest. The physical boundary of the property is depicted on Figure 3. 3.3 Wind Turbine Location The location of the proposed wind turbine at the Mashpee High School is on the southern end of the property to the south of the football field. This location will allow for the majority of the playing fields on the property to remain undisturbed. It is also located further from the main school building. This location is not located in any flight paths for the surrounding airports. It is also


9

considered to be located at a reasonable distance from the school so as to minimize the visual and sound impact for the school. The coordinates (NAD83) for this location are as follows:

70° 30’ 20.95” West 41° 36’ 42.15” North

The ground elevation at this location is approximately 60 ft. above sea level. 3.4 Site Access Access to the proposed wind turbine location is available through existing paved highways, roads, driveways and parking lots. Turning radii and slopes of Routes 28 and 151 on Cape Cod, as well as local roads are expected to be passable without any significant alterations or modifications. A detailed transportation study would need to be preformed to better define the preferred access route and dimensional requirements, based on specific turbine weights and measurements. Based on average expected weights and lengths of the components of a commercial scale wind turbine in 100 kW to 1.5 MW class, delivery of the major components and parts to the Mashpee High School are considered feasible and not considered a fatal flaw. The proposed location at the school site is currently a wooded area. An access road on school property will need to be provided so the turbine can be delivered and erected at the selected location. 3.5 Site Geology and Soil Conditions Based on review of the United Sates Geologic Survey Maps, the bedrock at the Mashpee High School consists of Unconsolidated Sediment. Figure 4 depicts a portion of the Geologic Map illustrating the geological conditions in the area of the High School Review of United State Department of Agriculture Soil Maps for Barnstable County, Massachusetts, shows that the surficial soil at the High School consists of two soil types. In the location of the proposed turbine, the soil is Merrimac Fine Sandy Loam, with zero to eight percent slopes. Refer to Figure 5 for a portion of the referenced USDA Soil Map illustrating soil types at the High School. Soil borings should be conducted in the location of any proposed wind turbine in accordance with ASTM D-1586. The borings should be drilled to a depth of 100 feet or until bedrock is encountered, whichever is less. Where bedrock is encountered, drilling should include coring at depth of 10 to 20 feet to confirm the competency of the existing of bedrock. The data from the test borings should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer who would provide the structural engineer with design parameters such as bearing capacity, friction angles and other soil characteristics, including recommendations for a foundation type. A specific design could only be prepared once a specific turbine has been selected and specific loads are known.


10

Figure 4 Geologic Map


11

Figure 5 Soils Map


12

3.6 Mashpee Electricity Use NSTAR provides electricity at the Town of Mashpee under multiple accounts. Review of the 2007 electrical data provided from an Energy Audit and the RERL Report indicates a total Town-wide usage of 3,044,816 kWh per year. Review of electrical usage data provided by NSTAR indicates that the Mashpee High School has the highest electrical use when compared to the other town facilities. The annual energy use at the High School in 2007 was approximately 1,453,000 kWh. The annual electricity use at the High School from November 2008 through October 2009 was 1,271,280 kWh. The most recent average cost of electricity is $0.17719 kWh. The estimated value of a net metering credit to the Town of Mashpee is estimated to be $0.16 per kWh. A copy of a recent High School electric bill is included in Appendix C. 3.7 Existing Electrical Infrastructure at Mashpee High School The existing facility is supplied power from an overhead 23kV NStar distribution circuit, located on Route 151 (Nathan Ellis Highway) in Mashpee, MA. On Pole #34/21 on Nathan Ellis Highway there exists an underground primary riser to bring the 23kV (22,800 volt) three phase underground power cable to the Mashpee High School site. The underground primary conduit is 2-4” from the Pole #34/21 to the existing padmount transformer located behind the High School, on the east side of the building. Adjacent to the existing padmount transformer is a pedestal which has the revenue metering for the school, along with a standby generator. This generator provides power to the emergency and life safety loads of the Mashpee High School facility. 3.8 Electrical Interconnection Plan A number of alternatives have been considered for the interconnection of wind turbines ranging from 600kW to 1,500kW (1.5MW). Regardless of proposed turbine size, there is one probable interconnection option that would allow the new turbine to connect to the existing primary distribution system at its closest point, which would be the most economical. The proposed interconnection is illustrated on the attached one-lien diagram Drawing E-1. A 1,500kW wind turbine is shown, but the connection would be similar for any turbine between 600kW-1,500kW. The wind turbine generator would operate in parallel with the NStar Electric 22,800V distribution system. This option would require a connection to the closest existing primary point on the Mashpee High School electrical 23kV distribution system, which is the padmount transformer behind the building. This location is north of the proposed turbine location, and the capacity of the existing infrastructure can support the proposed turbine output power, based on no larger than a 600-1500kW single turbine being considered. The proposed wind turbine location is approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the existing padmount transformer. It is the most economical to connect with primary class (23kV) given this distance, instead of trying to made a low-voltage (480V) connection to the electrical infrastructure present in the existing facility.


13

Although there is an electrical easement approximately 250 ft. south of the proposed turbine location, it is not technically advisable to connect at this location. One of the two electrical lines running through the easement is a high voltage line and the other is a 25kV express line. It is more economical and technically feasible to connect with primary class voltage as described above. The wind turbine generator would be connected to supply the electrical load in parallel with the existing Mashpee High School distribution supply, fed from the local utility NStar Electric. Electrical power that is produced by the wind turbine generator that is in excess of the Mashpee High School’s electrical load would flow back into the NStar Electric distribution system. The wind turbine generators each operate at a 600 volt class generating voltage so the interconnection facilities for all options must include a generator step-up transformer to convert the generator voltage to 23 kV. The generator step-up transformer will have a 2000kVA power rating consistent with the generator power rating of the maximum size 1500kW and 0.9 max power factor. If a smaller 600kW or 660kW turbine is chosen, then a 750kVA step-up transformer could be installed. A 23 kV underground cable circuit will connect the primary of the generator step up transformer to facilitate the distribution of the wind turbine generator output to the point of interconnection (existing padmount transformer). For a generator rated up to 1500 kW, the current carrying requirement of the 23 kV power cable circuit will be less than 100 amperes and can be accommodated by three, single conductor, 25kV class, #1 AWG, aluminum cables. New 25kV class cables should be installed in an underground conduit for physical protection rather than being directly buried. It is anticipated that NStar Electric will require utility grade relaying be installed with the turbine at the turbine location. The turbines main low-voltage circuit breaker will be capable of normal switching and fault current interruption. The new protective relaying is typically required by NStar Electric for interconnection or parallel generation to their distribution system. The protective relays sense abnormal circuit conditions that require the wind turbine generators to be disconnected from the rest of the primary 23 kV circuit. The protective relays that NStar Electric will likely require include over/under voltage relays, over/under frequency relays, and overcurrent relays. The interconnection plan also includes a three pole, non-fused disconnect switch for the manual disconnection and visible isolation of the wind turbine generator from the existing distribution system. This switch is typically required by the local utility to isolate the turbine, while not affecting the reliable operation of the existing system. NStar Electric operations personnel will need access to manually open and padlock this disconnect switch in the open position to guarantee that the wind turbine generator will not back-energize their 23kV distribution circuit while they are working on it or when they otherwise deem it necessary.


14

3.9 Electrical Interconnection Details NStar Electric Interconnection Requirements NStar Electric has specific standards and requirements for the interconnection of distributed generation such as the proposed wind turbine generator project. The interconnection requirements address electrical system protection, revenue metering, operation, and the configuration of the primary interconnection equipment. NStar Electric will review the proposed design of the electrical interconnection facilities and will perform analyses to determine the impact of the proposed generation on their electrical distribution system. Based on the results of NStar Electric’s analysis, certain modifications may be needed within the NStar Electric distribution system and/or to the interconnection facilities. Electrical Interconnection Equipment Details The technical details of the major power system components associated with the electrical interconnection of the wind turbine generator are described in this section. Generator Step-up and Step-down Transformers The generator step-up transformer is described by specifying the transformer voltage rating (primary and secondary), power rating (kilovolt-amperes or kVA), winding configuration (primary and secondary), and construction type. For all transformers they shall be three phase, padmount type, oil-filled, self-cooled transformers. The primary voltage rating of the transformers shall be consistent with the nominal voltage of the NStar Electric distribution supply circuit to Mashpee High School which is 23 kV phase-to-phase for this part of the campus. To allow flexibility for local voltage deviations that may exist on the NStar Electric distribution system or within the 23 kV interconnection circuitry, the transformer primary winding shall be equipped with five (5) fixed taps to change the primary voltage rating +/- 5% from nominal voltage in 2-½ % increments. For the generator step-up transformer, the secondary voltage rating shall be consistent with the wind turbine generator voltage which is typically in the range of 575 volts to 690 volts. The transformers shall be oil-filled and the owner may prefer less flammable oil at a price premium of approximately 10% or environmentally safe, seed-based, oil at a price premium of approximately 20%. The three phase power rating of the generator step-up transformer (expressed in kVA) shall be consistent with the wind turbine generator power rating (expressed in kW) and increased for the allowable generator power factor. A 1500 kW wind turbine generator operating at a 90% lagging power factor requires a padmount transformer with a minimum continuous rating of 2000 kVA.


15

Interconnection Circuit 25kV Class Cables The wind turbine generator interconnection option requires the use of 25kV class interconnection circuit cables. A three phase interconnection circuit of approximately 1,300 feet is required from the generator step-up transformer to the point of interconnection to the Mashpee High School 23 kV system. The power cables shall be specified for 25kV class insulation and consist of three, single conductor cables with either aluminum or copper conductors. For a wind turbine generator power ratings of up to 1500 kW, the size of the power cables shall be a minimum of #1 AWG Aluminum. This is typically the smallest size primary cable installed by utilities. The power cables from the wind turbine generator step-up transformer to each 23 kV interconnection point shall be installed in underground conduit. The conduit shall be Schedule 40 PVC that is encased in concrete At least two (2) additional conduit for communications and control of the wind turbine generator should also be included in the conduit system, with separate communications handholds. Utility Disconnect Switch The utility, non-fused disconnect switch specified for generator interconnection shall be a manually operated, three pole switch, necessary to break the current on the secondary side of the wind turbine transformer. The switch shall be rated 600 amperes continuous current. The disconnect switch provides a visible open point between the wind turbine generator and the NStar Electric system. The operating handle of the disconnect switch shall be capable of being padlocked by NStar Electric’s lock in the open position. The position of the disconnect switch blades shall be capable of being visually observed to allow positive determination of the electrical connection between the wind turbine generator and the rest of the 23kV system. The utility disconnect switch must be accessible to NStar Electric personnel at all times. Protective Relay Scheme The required protective relays for the selected generator interconnection option will be specified by NStar Electric based on the results of their system impact study. Based on a review of the NStar Electric Interconnection Requirements, it is anticipated that the protective relay scheme for the interconnection of the wind turbine generator will include over/under frequency relays, over/under voltage relays, and overcurrent relays. All relays shall monitor all three phases and the overcurrent protection should include ground overcurrent relaying. Upon sensing conditions that exceed allowable operating limits, the protective relay scheme shall send a trip signal to the appropriate tripping devices to open and disconnect the wind turbine generator from the rest of the distribution system. For the interconnection, the protective relaying and controls will curtail the operation of the wind turbine generator if the electrical connection from the wind turbine generator to the Mashpee High School’s distribution system is disrupted. It will be necessary to include protective relays to sense the amount of power that flows to the system and disconnect the wind turbine generator if power flows exceed equipment ratings.


16

3.10 Revenue Metering Modifications For the interconnection it is anticipated that Mashpee High School will need a meter to measure the amount of power delivered from the wind turbine generator through the new 23kV interconnection circuitry. This metering is anticipated to be located at the wind turbine main breaker or the secondary of the dedicated transformer to be installed at the turbine. It is also anticipated that NStar Electric will require the existing revenue metering at the Mashpee High School main primary switchgear to be modified to allow the measurement of power flowing to the NStar Electric 23 kV system during light load conditions. 3.11 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimate An Electrical interconnection cost estimates is provided in this section for the recommended interconnection of the proposed 1500kW (maximum size) wind turbine generator. The attached planning accuracy cost estimate has been developed for use in the feasibility analysis. The planning accuracy cost estimate is based on conceptual interconnection plans for the wind turbine generators and are generally expected to be within an accuracy of +/-25%. The cost estimate is based on recent project experience and vendor quotes and could change based on the final design and construction conditions. Attached Table 1-1 details the major cost items for the recommended option. After the major electrical equipment listed, the balance of the interconnection system plant and miscellaneous 23kV components includes surge arresters, cable terminations, control wiring, and start-up testing. The balance of the interconnection system plant and miscellaneous 23kV components are estimated at 25% of the total installed cost for the major 23kV interconnection system components.


18

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY REVIEW AND PERMITTING PLAN 4.1 Environmental Review The following section discusses the environmental and ecological characteristics at the Mashpee High School. A review of various area receptors was conducted to determine what, if any, impact a wind turbine would have upon sensitive receptors at the site. The result of this evaluation shows that development of a single wind turbine is not expected to result in unacceptable negative impacts to wildlife or other sensitive receptors present at the High School site. Avian and Wildlife Impact Analysis The pertinent ecological and environmental factors associated with avian and wildlife impacts from the proposed construction of a single, commercial-scale wind turbine have been evaluated. The analysis consisted of a review of existing site conditions and available scientific databases. This information was correlated with available Mass GIS data layers including a review of aerial photographic imagery to make an initial determination of the potential ecological impacts of the proposed project. In addition, a determination of the likely avian impacts were formulated following the interim guideline developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which include eight impact evaluation criteria for assessing avian impacts. Methodology used in making a determination about avian impacts was developed to incorporate three principal characteristics. These characteristics are environmental attributes, species composition, and ecological attractiveness of the area. Additional information regarding USFWS impact evaluation criteria can be found in Appendix D. Agency Consultation Federal and State agencies should be contacted to request information concerning endangered or threatened species and critical habitats within the project area. The Owner should contact the USFWS, New England Regional office, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, to determine whether any federal listed species or habitats are present in the project area if construction of a wind turbine is planned. In addition, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) should be consulted for information regarding any state listed species and habitats. The initial correspondence would constitute the beginning of the “informal” or “simple” review process as outlined by Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (321 CMR 10.0000). If, at the conclusion of these consultations, it is determined that no federal or state listed rare species are present or in close proximity to the proposed project site, then the informal or simple review process may be considered complete. Should the conclusion of these consultations reveals that the project site will likely disturb one or more listed species, then a more detailed biological assessment or order of conditions may be required.


19

Landscape Evaluation and Analysis Composition and spatial variation patterns for wildlife are strongly influenced by a multitude of biotic and abiotic landscape features. In lieu of comprehensive site surveys, Weston & Sampson gathered information regarding existing site conditions and habitats on the proposed site and analysis was conducted through review of site photographs, aerial photography, and scientific databases and literature. The landscape evaluation focused on examining aerial photography of existing conditions to identify those biotic and abiotic features of significance. The Mashpee High School site is a forested area with trees approximately 30-40 ft high. These trees would require clearing for wind turbine installation. Examination of the proposed site reveals the presence of continuous corridors for wildlife movement. The site has few buffers to the natural communities and movement of wildlife between suitable habitats. The High School site is bordered on the east, west, north, and south by contiguous plots of natural communities. Natural corridors exist in the region in the form undeveloped linear lands, streams, and wetland complexes that connect patches of preferred habitat. Man-made travel corridors include roads, utility corridors, and urban development. Mass GIS Data Layers: Data regarding rare species and critical habitats is complied by the Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (Mass GIS) and organized as a number of Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers. These layers are represented as number of polygons drawn in conjunction with existing landscape features, and can be utilized to determine the spatial relationships between areas of environmental significance (e.g. wetlands) and a proposed project site. A table of the GIS data layers used in avian impact screenings and subsequent analysis within this report has been summarized below:

Table 4-1 Mass GIS Screening Data Layers

Data Layers Authority Date of Update

Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife NHESP September 2008

Priority Habitats for Rare Species NHESP September 2008

BioMap Core Habitat NHESP June 2002

BioMap Supporting Natural Landscape NHESP June 2002

Massachusetts Certified Vernal Pools NHESP January 2009

Potential Vernal Pools NHESP December 2000

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern DCR April 2009

DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) MADEP December 2004 Notes/Abbreviations: NHESP: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program MADEP: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DCR: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation


20

GIS screening of the area shows that no part of the Mashpee High School Site is considered protected open space. However, the Site is within an area of NHESP Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species. The NHESP Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife data layer represents estimations of the habitats of state-protected rare wildlife (plants and animals) populations that occur in Massachusetts, while NHESP Priority Habitats data layer represents estimations of important state-listed rare species (animals only) habitats in Massachusetts. The NHESP habitat polygons are drawn by analyzing population records, species, habitat requirements, and available information about the landscape. The Site is also within a DEP Approved Zone II area. BioMap Core Habitat data layers present the most viable habitat for rare species and natural communities in Massachusetts. The BioMap Supporting Natural Landscape layers buffer and connect Core Habitat polygons and identifies large, naturally vegetated blocks that are relatively free from the impact of roads and other development. Based on previous development, a large area of the site is not mapped as core wildlife habitat. Figure 6 is a map presenting the results of the habitat GIS screening for Natural Communities, Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern with respect to the location of the Site.

Figure 6 Area Receptors Map


21

Species Listing and Habitat Considerations Correctly identifying the species and associated habitats is critical to successfully assessing potential impacts of a wind turbine. National, regional and local references were reviewed to create a comprehensive species listing for the Town of Mashpee. Compiling GIS screening information and visual examination of aerial imagery was performed to assess habitat constraints. These data were used to determine which species could reasonably be expected in the proposed study area. In addition, the surrounding areas were considered since regional and daily migratory effects can be substantial. Determination of likely impacted avian species was the main objective of this analysis. Species listings were evaluated from a number of sources and were assembled to account for those species utilizing the Town of Mashpee area during migratory stopover. Species listings were further refined to specifically address federally and state listed wildlife with endangered/threatened status or species of special concern. In total, there are thirty-three federal and state listed species present in the area near the Town of Mashpee. Table 4-2 lists wildlife that are endangered, threatened or species of special concern status within the Town of Mashpee, MA, as compiled by the Massachusetts NHESP. The table includes the state listing status, taxonomic group and most recent field observation.

Table 4-2 List of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife in Mashpee

Taxonomic Group Scientific Name Common

Name

MESA Status

Federal Status

Most Recent

Observation

Bird Ammodramus savannarum

Grasshopper Sparrow

T 2007

Bird Bartramia longicauda

Upland Sandpiper

E 2007

Bird Botaurus

lentiginosus American

Bittern E 2006

Bird Charadrius melodus

Piping Plover T T 2006

Bird Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier

T 2003

Bird Parula americana Northern Parula

T 2009

Bird Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern E E 2008

Bird Sterna hirundo Common

Tern SC 2008

Bird Sternula antillarum Least Tern SC 2007 Bird Tyto alba Barn Owl SC 1991

Butterfly / Moth Hemileuca maia Barrens

Buckmoth SC 2003

Butterfly / Moth Papaipema sulphurata

Water-willow Stem Borer

T 1994


22

Dragonfly/Damselfly Anax longipes Comet Darner SC 1996

Dragonfly/Damselfly Enallagma laterale New England

Bluet SC 2000

Dragonfly/Damselfly Enallagma pictum Scarlet Bluet T 1999

Dragonfly/Damselfly Enallagma recurvatum

Pine Barrens Bluet

T 1996

Fish Lampetra appendix

American Brook

Lamprey T 1988

Mussel Alasmidonta

undulata Triangle Floater

SC 2007

Mussel Leptodea ochracea Tidewater Mucket

SC 2007

Mussel Ligumia nasuta Eastern

Pondmussel SC 2007

Reptile Malaclemys

terrapin

Diamond-backed

Terrapin T 1971

Reptile Terrapene carolina Eastern Box

Turtle SC 2008

Vascular Plant Corema conradii Broom

Crowberry SC 1985

Vascular Plant Crocanthemum

dumosum Bushy

Rockrose SC 1935

Vascular Plant Dichanthelium

dichotomum ssp. mattamuskeetense

Mattamuskeet Panic-grass

E 2007

Vascular Plant Dichanthelium

ovale ssp. pseudopubescens

Commons's Panic-grass

SC 1968

Vascular Plant Dichanthelium wrightianum

Wright's Panic-grass

SC 1926

Vascular Plant Lachnanthes

caroliana Redroot SC 1988

Vascular Plant Lipocarpha micrantha

Dwarf Bulrush

T 1990

Vascular Plant Polygonum puritanorum

Pondshore Knotweed

SC 2003

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora

inundata Inundated

Horned-sedge T 1926

Vascular Plant Sagittaria teres Terete

Arrowhead SC 1997

Vascular Plant Utricularia subulata

Subulate Bladderwort

SC 1931


23

Table 4-3 Birds of Conservation Concern

Common Name Scientific Name

1 Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus

2 Black rail

Laterallus jamaicensis

3 Wilson's Plover

Charadrius wilsonia

4 American Oystercatcher

Haematopus palliatus

5 Upland Sandpiper Bartramia

longicauda

6 Whimbrel Numenius

phaeopus

7 Hudsonian Godwit Limosa

haemastica 8 Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

9 Red Knot Calidris

canutus

10 Purple Sandpiper

Calidris maritima

11

Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Tryngites subruficollis

12 Common Tern

Sterna hirundo

13 Least Tern Sterna

antillarum 14 Black Skimmer Rynchops niger

15 Razorbill Alca torda

16 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

17 Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus

vociferus

18

Red-headed Woodpecker

Malanerpes erythrocephalus

19 Sedge Wren Cistothorus

platensis

20 Marsh Wren Cistothorus

palustris

21 Wood Thrush Hylocichla

mustelina 22 Blue-winged Vermivora


24

Warbler pinus

23 Golden-winged Warbler

Vermivora chrysoptera

24 Prairie Warbler Dendroica

discolor

25 Cerulean Warbler Dendroica

cerulea

26 Kentucky Warbler Helmitheros

vermivorus

27 Canada Warbler Oporornis

formosus

28

Henslow's Sparrow

Wilsonia canadensis

29 Salt-marsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow

Ammodramus henlowii

30 Seaside Sparrow

Ammodramus caudacutus

31 Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Source: "Birds of Conservation Concern 2002" U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. December 2002.

Special Considerations The project site is located in the path of the North East Atlantic regional flyway, which can be identified as running along the east coast of North America. In a broad sense the flyway concept can be defined as the biological systems of migration routes that directly link sites in ecosystems in different geographical settings (Boere et al., 2006). Ecosystems primarily comprised of the suitable habitats of both breeding and non-breeding areas for birds. A flyway is in fact the totality of the ecological systems that are necessary to enable migratory birds to survive and fulfill their annual life cycles. Figure 7 illustrates the four generalized North American regional migration flyways, with respect to the location of the Site. Development of a single large scale wind turbine is not expected to result in unacceptable negative impacts to wildlife or substantially degrade habitat. Wetlands The Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission is an appointed body with authority to protect and preserve natural resources within the Town. The Conservation Commission's primary role is the administration of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40) within the Town of Mashpee. The Wetland Protection Act provides for the protection of several types of Resource Areas including Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (bordering on lakes, ponds, and streams), Banks, Land Under Water, Land Subject to Flooding, and Riverfront Areas (area within 200 feet of a river or perennial stream) and coastal resource areas. The Mashpee High School Site is not classified as having any type of the protected resource areas at the proposed turbine location.


25

Review of Mass GIS Wetland data layer indicates that no portions of the High School property are protected open space and there are no wetlands on site. The area for the proposed wind turbine is upland area and greater than 100 feet from the nearest wetland, streams, ponds or surface water body. To confirm there is no potential for destruction or impacts to wetlands, written notification should be filed with the Town’s Conservation Commission for a formal determination of no impacts by the proposed addition of a wind turbine at the Site. Based on review of the wetlands protection area maps and the expected footprint of a wind turbine, wetlands are not a concern for development.


26

Figure 7 North American Flyways with Principal Routes


27

4.2 Reduction in Air Pollution Based on information from the CEC website, a single 1.0-MW turbine displaces 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year, which is equivalent to planting a square mile of forest, based on the current average U.S. utility fuel mix. To generate the same amount of electricity as a single 1- MW turbine using the average U.S. utility fuel mix would mean emissions of 10 tons of sulfur dioxide and 6 tons of nitrogen oxide each year. To generate the same amount of electricity as a single 1-MW wind turbine for 20 years would require burning 26,000 tons of coal (a line of 10- ton trucks 10 miles long) or 87,000 barrels of oil. To generate the same amount of electricity as today's U.S. wind turbine fleet (6,374 MW) would require burning 8.6 million tons of coal (a line of 10-ton trucks 4,321 miles long) or 28 million barrels of oil each year. 100,000 MW of wind energy will reduce carbon dioxide production by nearly 200 million tons annually. Since 1993, ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) has analyzed the aggregate emission of SO2, NOX, and CO2 from fossil fuel-based electrical generating facilities. The 2006 DRAFT New England Marginal Emission Rate Analysis Report, dated 2008, provides calculated estimates of marginal SO2, NOX, and CO2 air emissions for the calendar year 2006 in pounds per megawatt hour (lbs/MWh). Emission rates were estimated using the energy weighted average emission rates of generating units that typically would increase loading during higher energy demands. Since the wind turbine uses air to generate electrons versus the predominately fossil-fuel based generation capacity of the NEPOOL’s system, each electron generated by a renewable energy system can be viewed as displacing from the grid an electron that would otherwise be created by the existing system’s fossil fueled marginal power plant. A 1.0 MW wind turbine is estimated to generate an output of approximately 1,561MWh annually, based on a 19.8% capacity factor. Based on these statistics, the use of a 1.0 MW wind turbine would have the follow beneficial affect on air pollution:

Table 4-4 Pollution Reduction Per Year by 1 MW Wind Turbine

Pollutant Rate (From ISO-NE) Energy from Turbine Pollution Displaced SO2 1.59 lbs/MWh 1,561 MWh 2,482 lbs/yr

NOX 0.67 lbs/MWh 1,561 MWh 1,046 lbs/yr

CO2 808 lbs/MWh 1,561 MWh 1,261,288 lbs/yr 4.3 Permitting Plan A review of permitting requirements for Local, State and Federal jurisdictions was conducted as part of the project feasibility study. Below is a summary of the agencies potentially having jurisdiction, where review and approval should be obtained:

Local Agencies Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission Town of Mashpee Planning and Zoning Permit Town of Mashpee Building Permit


28

State Agencies Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD)

Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

Federal Agencies NPDES Permit Application with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

A summary of regulatory stakeholders, applicability to the scope of the proposed project, and possible administrative review requirements is summarized in below Table 4-5.

Table 4-5 Permitting Matrix

Agency Permit or

Approval Project

Relevance Approval

Process/Timeframe Comments

Loca

l

Conservation Commission

Notice of Intent (NOI)

Scope of work does not involve wetland or water resources

None

Subject site outside the 100 foot buffer zone of

any wetland/water resource.

MEPA Environmental

Notification Form (ENF)

Required for construction projects

disturbing greater than 2 acres.

N/A N/A

Environmental Impact Report

(EIR) N/A N/A N/A

NHESP ENF/MESA

Checklist

Project does not take part in Estimated

Habitat

30 days from point of submission for simple review

Simple review pertains to those projects that

will disturb less than 5 acres of estimated

habitats

Sta

te

Mass Turnpike Authority

Special Hauling Permit

Transportation of Turbine

parts/accessories over state Highways

24 hours notice prior to transport

Project may not subject these requirements based on loads and

dimensional characteristics of

material


29

Mass Highway Department

Permit to Move Overweight or

Overdimensional Loads

Transportation of Turbine

parts/accessories via State highways

If regulated as oversize/dimension load, then

same day processing. If regulated as "super load," then

application must be filed in writing and requires full

structural analysis and detailed transportation routing plan.

Super load requirements: >115 x 14

x 14 (length, width, height). All units in

feet. Any transport of any oversized loads greater than 13'8" in

height require a routing survey.

Massachusetts Historical

Commission

Project Notification Form

All projects that require a permit,

license or funding from any state

agency must file a PNF

Project notification only

NSTAR

Interconnection with existing

transmission system study

Must be notified when doing work, and if electricity generated will be tied into existing

transmission system.

Project notification and possible Interconnection Transmission

System Study

EPA NPDES/CGP/NOI Applies to

construction sites that disturb > 1 acre

Notification only, supported with SWPP plan.

Construction General Permit is applied for by

the entity that has operational control over

the job site, and the ability to enforce SWPP

plan.

FAA Aircraft warning

lighting

Required for all towers greater than

200 feet

Must file Form 7460-1 at least 30 days prior to start of

construction

Max height of turbine expected to be 319 feet

FERC Qualifying Facility

Status

Required in order to enter power

purchase agreement w/ electrical utility

Must file Form No. 556 with FERC

Dependent upon size of generating facility

Fed

eral

FWS

Informal Consultation Notice and/or Biological

Assessment

Requires applicant request a list of all

threatened, endangered,

candidate species and critical habitats prior to beginning

construction.

Notification only

If at the completion of informal consultation, further assessment is

required a formal Biological Assessment must be prepared and

reviewed by FWS. May require implementation of Habitat Conservation

Plan (HCP) Town of Mashpee Zoning Bylaw The Town of Mashpee has a zoning bylaw regarding Land-Based Wind Energy Conversion Facilities (WECFs). The bylaw states that all WECFs shall require issuance of a special permit by the Planning Board, acting as the Special Permit Granting Authority. The base of any WECF shall be set back from any property line or road layout by at least 120% of the proposed height of the tower where the tower abuts residentially zoned properties; and set back 80% of the proposed tower


30

height where the tower abuts non-residentially zoned properties. The bylaw also states that no WECF may exceed 100 ft. in height unless approved by the SPGA. Therefore, a variance from the zoning bylaw must be obtained in order to construct a wind turbine greater than 100 ft. in height. Federal Aviation Administration A Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration is required by the Federal Aviation Administration, Chapter 14 CFR, Part 77 and form 7640-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) for all structures over 200 feet above ground-level, or within a few miles of an airport. Any wind turbine with a tip-height over 200 feet will also likely require hazard lighting. Form 7640-1 was filed for a nearby location with the FAA for a determination if the proposed height of 319 feet above ground level would pose a hazard to navigation. Copies of the filing are included in Appendix B as relevant correspondence. 5.0 WIND PLANT CONFIGURATIONS 5.1 Foundation and Turbine Support Wind turbine foundations vary depending upon the make, model and soil conditions at each site. Typical foundations include monolithic reinforced concrete slabs, pile supported mono slabs and deep piling or caissons. The foundation design depends on the tower design, which is most often a monopole tubular steel tower. The lattice towers are not used as frequently, which also minimizes the potential for nesting birds. Monopole designs are either straight or tapered poles. Standard tapered monopoles for a 600 to 1.5 MW wind turbine generally range in height from 50 to 80 meters, would have a base diameter of 10 to 18 feet and taper to four to eight feet at the hub height. The foundation design will also depend upon the soil type, bearing capacity and tolerances of actual turbine and tower selected. Given the general soil characteristics of the region and area, a shallow, monolithic reinforced concrete slab could be used to support a tapered monopole. Foundations for similar projects have included octagonal-shaped reinforced monolithic slabs with a length and width of 40 to 50 feet and a thickness of six to eight feet. Deep foundation designs, which provide stability from overturning through the pressure created by the weight of the soil, is also likely to be a viable alternative for the Town of Mashpee. Analysis of a specific foundation design is beyond the scope of this feasibility study, but should be developed in conjunction with a geotechnical exploration conducted during the design stage of the project, based on actual equipment specifications. The scope of a geotechnical study typically includes a series of standard penetration test borings, in accordance with ASTM D-1586, to depths of 50 to 100 feet or until bedrock is encountered and confirmed by coring. 5.2 Wind Turbine Alternatives There are a number of commercially produced wind turbines on the market today. Generally, the most popular models are horizontal axis, three bladed, upwind models which are mounted atop of monopole towers. There are a large number of generator sizes, rotor blade lengths and tower highs which are commonly used. Table 5-1 provides a sample of the various manufacturers standard size


31

wind turbine generators, rotor diameters, tower heights and overall height as measured from the tallest point of the blade in the 12 o’clock position.

Table 5-1 Typical Wind Turbine Dimensions

Generator Tower Rotor Overall Overall Manufacturer Size (kW) Height (m) Diameter (m) Height (m) Height (feet) Vestas V-90 2,000 105 90 150 492 95 90 140 459 80 90 125 410 AAER-2000 2,000 100 84 142 466 80 80 120 394 65 71 101 330 Vestas V-82 1,650 80 82 121 397 78 82 119 390 70 82 111 364 69 82 110 359 59 82 100 328 GE 1.5 SLE 1,500 80 77 119 389 Fuhrländer FL-1500 1,500 80 77 119 389 65 70 100 328 AAER-1500 1,500 80 77 119 389 65 70 100 328 Nordic 1000 1,000 70 59 129 326 60 54 114 285 AAER-1000 1,000 82 54 136 358 70 54 124 318 Vestas RRB PS 600 600 65 47 112 290 48 47 95 236 39 47 86 204 Elecon T600-48 DS 600 50 48 98 243 Norwin 225 40 29 55 179

Turbine Availability The percent of time that a wind turbine is capable of producing power is known as the total availability. The factors and values used to compute turbine availability at the Site are tabulated in Table 5-2. The total annual availability of a turbine was computed from the product of the factors and equaled 93.0% of the year for the Site.


32

Table 5-2- Factors Affecting the Availability of Turbines

Factor Percent/yr Grid connection efficiency 97.0% Turbine availability 97.0% Turbine icing and blade fouling 99.2% Substation maintenance 99.8% Utility downtime 99.9% High wind speed hysteresis 100%

Total Availability 93.0% The following assumptions were made for the factors affecting availability: • Grid connection efficiency. The efficiency of the grid connection is estimated to be 97%. This

includes the losses in the transformer and the transmission line. This should be confirmed by an electric loss calculation once the grid connection has been defined.

• Turbine availability. The technical availability of the turbine is assumed to be 97%. This

figure is based on data from modern operational wind farms. Technical availability may be a part of the contract terms between the project owner and the wind turbine supplier. It is worth noting that manufacturers may not guarantee technical availability at the 97% level for small, one or two turbine projects. It is advisable to review this figure when the terms of the warranty are established.

• Turbine icing and blade fouling. Serious icing conditions can prevent a wind turbine from

operating, as the turbine shuts down if there is imbalance of the blades. Undoubtedly there is the prospect for ice to collect on turbine blades located at Mashpee High School. Three days has been given as the likely total occurrence per year of icing events, which equates to an availability of 99.2%. Blade fouling is not expected to occur, as this is primarily a problem in very hot climates where severe insect fouling can affect the aerodynamics of the turbine blades.

• Substation maintenance. The connection to the grid may have to be temporarily shut down for

maintenance. We have assumed that this might occur for a total of 16 hours per year. • Utility downtime. Most wind turbines will fail to efficiently produce energy during lower wind

conditions when the grid does not actively supply electricity for the machine’s control systems due to a grid power outage. The will occur, on average, approximately 8 hours per year.

• High wind speed hysteresis. During very high wind conditions, a wind turbine will shut down

to protect its electrical and mechanical components. The machine will only restart when wind conditions fall significantly below the cut-off wind speed. This factor is used to compensate for power loss during this restarting delay. Because Mashpee rarely experiences winds above the typical wind turbine cut-out speeds (~25 m/s), high wind speed hysteresis is not expected to have any significant effect on power output.


33

5.3 Noise Assessment Sound evaluations can become quite complicated due to the numerous factors affecting sound propagation, attenuation and absorption of sound, variable ambient conditions, and the characteristics of sound waves at different frequencies. The purpose of this sound evaluation is to qualitatively assess the likelihood of noise impacts from the proposed turbine. Sound Basics Sound is produced by pressure waves of a specific frequency or range of frequencies. The human ear registers sound by detecting very minute variations in sound pressure. The loudness of a sound as perceived by an individual can be quite subjective, but loudness is generally dependent on the sound pressure level. The sound pressure level is traditionally defined as a ratio of the sound pressure from a given source to a reference pressure. Loudness is represented by the unit decibel (dB) on a logarithmic scale, where 0 dB is undetectable to the human ear. For reference, normal conversation is typically around 65 dB, a quiet evening in a rural setting is typically around 30 dB, and a lawn mower is typically around 95 dB from the perspective of the operator. To facilitate noise evaluations with respect to human receptors, the A-weighted sound level (dBA) is used. This convention accentuates or “weights” the sound pressure level within the frequency response of the human ear to better characterize the sound pressure level for a human receptor. Aerodynamic sound generation is very sensitive to speed at the very tip of the blade. To limit the generation of aerodynamic sounds, large modern wind turbines may limit the rotor rotation speeds to reduce the tip speeds. Large variable speed wind turbines often rotate at slower speeds in low winds, increasing in higher winds until the limiting rotor speed is reached. This results in much quieter operation in low winds than a comparable constant speed wind turbine. Sound Propagation In order to predict the sound pressure level at a distance from source with a known power level, one must determine how the sound waves propagate. In general, as sound propagates without obstruction from a point source, the sound pressure level decreases. The initial energy in the sound is distributed over a larger and larger area as the distance from the source increases. Thus, assuming spherical propagation, the same energy that is distributed over a square meter at a distance of one meter from a source is distributed over 10,000 m2 at a distance of 100 meters away from the source. With spherical propagation, the sound pressure level is reduced by 6 dB per doubling of distance. This simple model of spherical propagation must be modified in the presence of reflective surfaces and other disruptive effects. The development of an accurate sound propagation model generally must include the following factors:

• Source characteristics (e.g., directivity, height, etc.) • Distance of the source from the observer • Air absorption, which depends on frequency


34

• Ground effects (i.e., reflection and absorption of sound on the ground, dependent on source height, terrain cover, ground properties, frequency, etc.)

• Blocking of sound by obstructions and uneven terrain • Weather effects (i.e., wind speed, change of wind speed or temperature with height). The

prevailing wind direction can cause differences in sound pressure levels between upwind and downwind positions.

• Shape of the land; certain land forms can focus sound Noise Evaluation Criteria The proposed wind turbine project would be subject to Massachusetts’s noise regulation (310 CMR 7.10). Massachusetts DEP Noise Guideline Document, dated March 2006, stipulates no increase of ambient sound levels at the property line, and at the nearest inhabited building, by more than 10 dB(A) above ambient conditions with no pure tone conditions. Wind Turbine Sound Production Wind turbines in operation produce sound. The sound is produced by the rotating blades passing through the air, and by the mechanical noise associated with the components in the turbine hub. Review of manufacture specifications for a Nordic N-1000 indicates the maximum noise level produced at the hub is approximately 103 dB(A) at wind speed of 9.0 meters per second. Predicted Noise Levels Accurately predicting noise levels from a given source at different locations is a complex task, and involves the identification and quantification of a number of factors including the relative reflectivity of surrounding surfaces, atmospheric conditions, ambient sound conditions, wind speed and direction, obstacles, the frequency distribution and intensity of the source, and a number of other factors. There are a number of computational models available to predict sound propagation, but each requires a degree of knowledge regarding some or all of these factors, or at the very least a number of assumptions must be made. For the purposes of this study, both a qualitative and quantitative approach was taken. The qualitative approach considers the likelihood of significant noise impacts from a commercial scale turbine based on the proximity of receptors to the turbine location. Based on discussions with noise evaluation experts, a useful “rule of thumb” is that noise impacts may be a concern to receptors within 1,000 feet, and are not likely be a concern to receptors greater than 1,000 feet. The preliminary quantitative approach relies on a straightforward application of the inverse square law, which governs the physics of sound propagation in an ideal setting. This law states that sound intensity decreases as the inverse of the square of the distance from the source. This approach is obviously rudimentary and does not consider the various factors mentioned above. It was used in this study to simply support the qualitative approach discussed above. In order to estimate the increase in ambient noise conditions caused by the turbine, the ambient conditions must be known. The determination of ambient noise levels is itself a complicated


35

process, typically involving extensive data collection over a length of time to properly characterize the ambient conditions. The measurement of ambient noise levels was beyond the scope of this study. Computer software was also to predict sound impacts. WindPRO DECIBEL module was utilized for this assessment. The WindPRO module DECIBEL for Noise Impact Calculation makes noise calculations a relatively simple task. The software uses a database of sound measurements from various manufactures of wind turbines. It is possible to define Noise Sensitive Positions (spots) as well as areas described by polygons. These polygons can be drawn directly on the background maps of the Site. The program calculates based on the noise emission data (Lwa or octave data) the point on the polygon line with the highest noise impact and prints the coordinates and noise level for the point in an output report. Differences in elevations between wind turbines and neighbors are included in the calculations since the coordinates for the wind turbines and the noise sensitive areas/positions all are given in 3D. The program automatically calculates these elevations where digital maps are used. For each polygon/position, the maximum allowable noise level can be entered. In this way, it is possible to simultaneously carry out, for example, calculations relative to the nearest neighbor based on a 45 dB level and a nearby urban area at another distance based on a 40 dB level. Also it is possible to enter the initial background noise level without turbines if this is known and then calculate the additional noise produced by the proposed wind turbine. It is also possible to link a DECIBEL calculation to a project layout so a noise isoline map is automatically updated in the project window when changes are made. This makes it easier to find the optimal layout with regards to noise impact. Predicted Compliance with Criteria With respect to the DEP it appears that all provisions with respect to noise will be satisfied without complaints or requirement to mitigate noise impacts. The closest noise sensitive (residential) areas are estimated to be approximately 1,600 ft. away from the proposed turbine location at the High School, and both the qualitative evaluation and preliminary quantitative evaluation suggest that noise impacts should not be a concern at this location. WindPRO DECIBEL Module output indicates noise criteria would likely be in compliance with respect to the DEP regulations at the property boundaries It appears that noise criteria would be satisfied without the need to mitigate the noise impacts. Should complaints about noise be received or arise, mitigation strategies, such as limiting rotor speed or erecting sound barriers, could be considered and implemented. Figure 8, included in Appendix E, depicts the estimated sound levels produced by the proposed turbine at various distances. At the nearest buildings and residences located along Old Barnstable Road, the noise level would be approximately 36 dB. 5.4 Visibility Assessment WindPRO visual was used to produce a photomontage to visually represent the impact from a wind turbine. The visibility study was conducted to assess how the proposed wind turbine would impact the look of the site and representative areas beyond the site. The wind turbines used in the


36

simulations was a 1.0 MW Nordic N-100 on an 70 meter tall tower, a Norwin 750 kW machine on a 65 meter tall tower, a 1.5 MW Fuhrlander FL-1500 on a 60 meter tall tower, and a 600 kW RRB on a 65 meter tall tower. The Nordic N-100 1MW (or similar) wind turbine is representative of the largest turbine currently considered for the High School Site. This size configuration, modeled in the visual simulations included in Appendix E, has a hub height of 70 meters (229.6 feet) above ground level (AGL) and a rotor diameter of 54 meters (177.1 ft.). The structure would have an overall height of approximately 97 meters (318 feet). The tower was assumed to be a tubular steel monopole with a three rotor blades. Viewpoint Locations As one moves away from the proposed turbine location, intervening structures, topography, trees and vegetation quickly block and obscure views of the turbine. Some of the views of the wind turbine will, therefore, always be partially or completely blocked. Open views of a proposed turbine at the Mashpee High School Site are represented from the several different locations. Visually sensitive areas in the vicinity of the proposed project were identified based upon a review of maps of the area and field reconnaissance. Locations were selected to provide representative vantage points where the turbine may be visible to simulate the view shed if a wind turbine was erected as proposed. These include locations that may experience visibility of the proposed turbine. The locations, which were visited during the area reconnaissance to assess potential visibility, included the surrounding residential areas and nearby roadways. Multiple locations, termed viewpoints, were used to simulate the visibility of the proposed turbine. The viewpoints were selected for simulation purposes to provide a range of distances and directions from the site where the turbine may be visible. The images were produced using images of a 1.0 MW Nordic N-100 on a 70 meter tall tower. Refer to Appendix E for a series of photographic simulations, including a key map depicting the vantage point for each of the simulations. Manufacture details which describe representative wind turbines in this size range are also provided in Appendix F for reference. 5.5 Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is a phenomenon caused by periodic obstruction of light caused by the rotating blades of the turbine. Modern commercial-scale turbines are typically three-bladed and rotate at approximately 20 rpm, which means that shadow flicker, when present, would occur at a frequency of 60 shadows per minute, or 1.0 Hz. Shadow flicker at this frequency is normally considered a nuisance issue, but there are no established health and safety regulations or exposure standards to date in the United States. Shadow flicker is an intermittent nuisance and is generally a concern only under the following conditions:

• The sun is shining and has a clear unobstructed path to the turbine; • The turbine is between the viewer(s) and the sun, and within approximately ½ mile of the

viewer(s); • The turbine is in operation; and • There are no obstacles between the turbine and the viewer(s).


37

As is evident from the list of conditions above, an evaluation of the significance of shadow flicker for a particular site is dependent on a number of factors, including site geometry, the locations of potential viewers, blade finish on the turbine’s rotors, the relative “sunniness” of the location and the operational status of the turbine at a given time on a daily basis. As part of this feasibility study, we have attempted to describe the likely extent of shadow flicker in reference to the proposed turbine location and known receptors, and to qualitatively evaluate the impacts associated with shadow flicker in the areas of concern. Shadow flicker was modeled using WindPRO SHADOW module software, and used to produce a map of the area that would be subjected to shadow flicker. The model computes flicker density contours representing the range of potential show-flicker hours for the areas near the wind turbine. This distribution was based on a single Nordic N-100 wind turbine on a 70-meter tall tower. Development of a single Nordic N-100 wind turbine on a 70-meter tall tower is expected to result in a low number of shadow flicker hours for the surrounding residential areas. In general, locations greater than 1,000 ft. from the proposed turbine location will fall into the low range. Refer to Figure 9, included in Appendix E, for a Shadow Flicker Map representing the distribution of shadow flicker produced from a turbine at the proposed location. Under a worst-case scenario, the nearest residences located along Old Barnstable Road would experience shadow flicker effects for a total of approximately 10 hours per year or 1.6 minutes per day. However, much of the area surrounding the site is wooded, and therefore there will be existing visual barriers to shadow flicker. Model input and output data are also included in Appendix G. 6.0 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 6.1 Project Economics This section provides an analysis of the various direct costs and revenue factors associated with the typical behind the meter large scale wind turbine project, as well as estimates of indirect costs and benefits. Several financial scenarios are evaluated based upon different turbines, funding sources, etc. The merits of a net metered wind turbine project are often evaluated on a pre-tax, equity financed scenario, where simple payback and internal rate of return are easily calculated. A number of economic risk factors are also identified and discussed in this section. For a given project, a general rule is the larger the turbine, the higher the output and the lower the cost per unit of energy produced. The project is also depended upon three significant factors: wind resource, the value of the energy created and the cost to develop the project. It should be noted, that market demand for wind turbines over the last several years has increased and fluctuated dramatically, resulting in increased pricing and decreased availability of equipment, and longer lead time for delivery of turbines and related equipment. In today’s rapidly evolving wind turbine market, many utility scale turbine manufactures are not willing to support a single turbine project and require minimum orders ranging from 20 to 50 megawatts. 6.2 Estimated Energy Production Based on the predicted wind speed and the wind resource modeling, the wind speed and direction distribution were derived at the selected wind turbine height. The wind speed distribution gives the


38

number of hours that a particular wind speed blows per year. Using WindPRO modeling software, this wind speed distribution was then combined with the power curve of four different sized wind turbine generators to obtain an estimate of the annual wind energy production. The output is corrected for estimated availability and electrical grid efficiency to obtain an estimate for the net annual wind energy production. Based on the wind resource at the Mashpee High School site, four different sized wind turbines were considered for this assessment. The turbines considered are all within the recommended size class that would meet the FAA height restriction. The FAA height restriction could limit some turbines from further consideration if the manufacturer’s minimum height is taller than the allowable height. The power curve for the various wind turbine generators was obtained from the modeling software data sources or input from manufactures specifications for modeling purposes. Copies of specification from the various wind turbines selected are included within Appendix F. Calculation of Net Energy Production The WindPRO calculations of energy production and capacity factors for the selected turbines are summarized in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. In this analysis we used a wind resource probability of 50% (P50). That is, the average wind speed will be 5.76 m/s at 50 meters at least 50% of the time. It should be noted that a higher probability, P90 for example, would result in a lower expected wind speed average, and thus lower expected turbine output. Net output of the turbines has taken into account a 90% availability factor for the typical losses discussed above. The P50 value has been evaluated for all four turbines. The P90 number has also been evaluated for the Fuhrländer FL-1500 wind turbine. Modeling output report is included in Appendix G.

Table 6-1 Summary of Energy Production Modeling (P50)

Characteristics RRB

PS-600 Norwin

ASR-750 Nordic N-1000

Fuhrländer FL-1500

Turbine Size, kW 600 750 1,000 1,500 Estimated Project Cost $2,380,250 $2,671,250 $2,660,250 $4,690,250 Possible CEC Grant $300,000 $327,016 $356,076 $400,000

Cost per kW (No Grant) $3,967 $3,562 $2,660 $3,127 Cost per kW (With Grant) $3,467 $3,126 $2,304 $2,860 Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2%

Estimated Net Energy Output, MWh 1,173 1,378 1,734 3,051

Net Output = Gross output at 90% availability factor (90%) at P50.


39

Table 6-2 Summary of Energy Production Modeling (P90)

Characteristics Fuhrländer

FL-1500 Turbine Size, kW 1,500

Estimated Project Cost $4,690,250 Possible CEC Grant $400,000

Cost per kW (No Grant) $3,127 Cost per kW (With Grant) $2,860 Net Capacity Factor, % 21.1%

Estimated Net Energy Output, MWh 2,767

Net Output = Gross output at 90% availability factor (90%) at P90. Wind resource data and modeling indicate an adequate wind resource at the proposed location. Estimates of the long-term annual average wind speed for the Mashpee High School were obtained by using the published wind speed information correlated with AWS True Wind Maps and models. 6.3 Project Costs The project costs evaluated included estimated soft costs for the required studies, permitting, design and other related efforts (legal and public relations excluded); capital costs for the procurement and installation of the turbine; construction of foundation, electrical interconnection, and erection of the turbine, commissioning, startup costs. Other long term project cost include the principal and interest payments for financing of the project, as well as ongoing annual operation, maintenance and insurance costs. Financing terms were set 4% over 20 years, the longest term available under the Green Communities Act of 2008. 6.4 Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimates A planning level cost estimate has been developed based on the conceptual design concept prior to completion of formal interconnection of a nominal 1.5MW wind turbine application with National Grid. The planning accuracy cost estimate is generally expected to be within an accuracy of +/-25%. The cost estimate is based on recent project experience and vendor quotes and could change based on the final design and construction conditions. The estimated cost for the electrical interconnection is $440,250. After the major electrical equipment listed, the balance of the interconnection system plant and miscellaneous 23kV components includes surge arresters, cable terminations, control wiring, and start-up testing. The balance of the interconnection system plant and miscellaneous 23kV components are estimated at 25% of the total installed cost for the major 23kV interconnection system components. Table 6-3 details the major cost items for the proposed interconnection:


40

Table 6-3 –Electrical Interconnection Cost Estimate (Nominal 1.5 MW Turbine)

Item Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost Excavation, Backfill and Compaction for Primary Cable Ductbank (2-5")

1,300 feet $60.00 $78,000.00

Additional excavation & backfill for 2-2" communications conduits

1,300 feet $35.00 $45,500.00

Installation of Primary and Communications Conduits

2,600 feet $12.00 $31,200.00

Concrete Encasement of conduits 1,300 feet $28.00 $36,400.00 Concrete Pad for New Padmount Transformer 1 each $7,000 $7,000 Grounding of Transformer 1 each $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Installation of Secondary Conduits to Turbine 6-5" 50 feet $80.00 $4,000.00 Installation of Secondary Cable to Turbine, 5 sets 4W-600MCM

50 feet $170.00 $8,500.00

New Padmount Transformer, 2000kVA 690v-23kV, installed

1 each $60,000.00 $60,000.00

New Utility Disconnect, Installed 1 each $6,500.00 $6,500.00 Installation of New Precast Electric Manhole 6'x8'x8' 1 each $8,000.00 $8,000.00 Installation of New Communication Handholes (36”x24"x22")

2 each $1,200.00 $2,400.00

Paving of Roadway Trench 1 Lot $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Site Restoration – Loaming and Seeding (Manhole/Trench area only)

1 Lot $3,500.00 $3,500.00

SUBTOTAL - SITE CONSTRUCTION $293,500.00 Contractor Markup, Insurance, Permits, etc. 15% of

subtotal $ 44,025.00

Additional Electrical Equipment and Testing 25% of subtotal

$ 73,375.00

(Control Wiring, Cable Terminations, Start-up, 547 Relay, etc.)

Contingency 10% $ 29,350.00 TOTAL ESTIMATE $440,250.00 NOTES: 1. Cost Estimate is budgetary for planning purposes and does not include permitting, legal, financing and other

costs beyond those listed above. 2. Cost Estimate does not include communication cable, as type is unknown at this time. 3. Cost Estimate is for interconnection and does not include wind turbine itself 4. An interconnection to a single 1500kW wind turbine is assumed. For most single turbine behind the meter applications, the capital cost of the wind turbine is the single largest expense of the project. For this project, we evaluated four different wind turbines sizes in the 600 to 1,500 kW range. The capital expense of a wind turbine in the 600 to 1,500 kW size class is $2,700 to $4,000 per kW. Another of the larger cost items is the foundation system, which can vary, depending upon final design, soil conditions, and other factors. The total estimated cost of developing a project of this size ranged is $2.3M to $4.7M. The maximum possible MassCEC grant funding, based on the most recent program criteria, is $570,000. The unit cost ranged from $2,700 to $4,000 per installed kW, without grant incentives


41

and from $2,100 to $3,000 per kW with maximum grant incentives. A summary of the project costs are presented in Table 6-4 below:

Table 6-4 Wind Turbine Project Cost Estimates

Turbine Size 600kW 750kW 1,000kW 1,500kW Design and Permitting $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $200,000 Capital Equipment $1,090,000 $1,381,000 $1,410,000 $3,200,000 General Construction $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Foundation installation $350,000 $350,000 $335,000 $500,000 Electrical interconnection $440,250 $440,250 $440,250 $440,250 Installation (crane) $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 Commissioning/startup $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $100,000 TOTAL $2,380,250 $2,671,250 $2,660,250 $4,690,250 Possible CEC Grant $300,000 $327,016 $356,076 $400,000 Total with Maximum Grant Incentive $2,080,250 $2,344,234 $2,304,174 $4,290,250

If the Mashpee High School desires to incorporate the wind turbine as a component of the science curriculum an on-line monitoring program could lend itself to this purpose. The cost of an on-line monitoring program would likely range from $5,000-$7,000 for the initial software program and set-up. Annual maintenance would likely be approximately $5,000. 6.5 Economic Analysis For a wind energy project of this nature, the viability is generally based on the wind resource, the value of the energy created (or displaced) and the capital cost of the project. In this analysis we used a wind resource probability of 50% (P50). That is, the average wind speed will be 6.34 m/s at a 70 meter hub height at least 50% of the time. It should be noted that a higher probability, P90 for example, would result in a lower expected wind speed average, and thus lower expected turbine output, and lower rate of return on the investment. Specific risk tolerances should be considered as part of the next steps in the development of the project. A sensitivity analysis of this variable is also given below. In order to perform an economic analysis for the alternatives presented, the benefits and costs of the project were evaluated. The project costs include costs for design and permitting, installation and interconnection, operation and maintenance, and insurance. The benefits of the project include the value of offset retail energy purchases. The value of the avoided cost was calculated based on the sum of the estimated value of default service, distribution, transmission and transition kilowatt-hour charges. The value of the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) was estimated in the short term at $25 per MWh. The cost and benefits are estimated over the useful life of the project and are then factored into a simple economic model (discounted cash flows) which estimates the Net Present Value and other financial metrics of each alternative. For this study, we have modeled the cost and benefits of three single wind turbine sizes, assuming a project paid with cash with and without the maximum available grant ($570,000), a loan term of 20 years at 4%, also both with and without a grant. The table below provides a summary of the economic model assumptions:


42

Table 6-5 Economic Model Variable Input

Project Term 20 years Value of Net Metering Credit $164.23 MWh Value of Renewable Energy Certificates $25-30 MWh Discount/Loan Rate 4.0% Interest Rate on Principal Debt 4.0% Term of Debt 20 years Operation and Maintenance $40 kW Energy Escalation Rate 2.0% Inflation Escalation Rate 2.0%

An industry-standard economic metric for a wind turbine project is the net present value (NPV). The NPV can be defined as the present value of the initial investment, plus all future cash flows. For a wind turbine, cash flows are evaluated over the useful life of the equipment, usually 20 years, but sometimes 25 to 30 years, depending upon the manufacturer and care taken during the maintenance of the equipment. Another useful measure is a time-adjusted benefit-cost ratio (BCR). The BCR is the present value of cash inflows divided by the present value of cash outflow. An investment which has BCR which is greater than 1.00 predicates a positive return on the investment and anything less than 1.00 costs more than the benefit of the investment. A project with a BCR of 1.00 is considered breakeven. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is also used to judge the economic merits of an investment. If the IRR exceeds the opportunity cost of capital, the investment is attractive. If the IRR equals the cost of capital, the investment is marginal. The IRR is a capital budgeting metric typically used by private firms to decide whether they should make investments. It is an indicator of the efficiency or quality of an investment, as opposed to net present value (NPV), which indicates value or magnitude. The IRR is the annualized effective compounded return rate which can be earned on the invested capital, i.e., the yield on the investment. A project is a good investment proposition if its IRR is greater than the rate of return that could be earned by alternate investments of equal risk (investing in other projects, buying bonds, even putting the money in a bank account). In general, if the IRR is greater than the project's cost of capital, or hurdle rate, the project would add value for the Town. Formally, the IRR of an investment is equal the discount rate at which the investment’s NPV equals zero (Higgins, 1998). Project cash flow is based upon the amount of retail power which can be off set by the turbine, sale of any excess energy which may be produced and the sale of renewable energy certificates (REC) which have a marketable value. The amount of retail power which can be off-set is also a function of coincidence factor. The coincidence factor, a measure of the percentage of time power is being created and used on the site at the same time, in that the value of electricity is instantaneous. If energy is not being used when it is produced, it is typically sold back to the grid. Since the changes in net metering allow all of the energy produced from a renewable source with a nameplate rating of up to 2.0 MW, a 100% coincidence factor is used in this analysis.


43

The economic performance of each scenario improves when factoring in grant funding from CEC under the Commonwealth Wind program, which can provide, if eligible, up to $300,000 per project for a public entity for design and construction for 600kW turbines. Grant funding is a significant factor on the NPV, BCR and IRR, particularly for smaller capital projects. Other economic factors which impact the project economics are the discount rate (cost of capital) and inflation factors (both general and fuel-related energy costs). The economic performance erodes as the discount rate and general inflation rise. The economic modeling herein assumes that the project will be paid for with equity (cash) or debt (loan). Simple payback estimates, as the name implies, does not consider inflation and is based on the first full year of net revenue divided by the project cost. The cost estimates do not include the cost of decommissioning, nor do they include the residual value of the installation. In this case, these figures are assumed to be of equal value and therefore would have a net zero impact on the analysis. Below is a summary of the economic analyses for each scenario:


44

Table 6-6 Economic Model Results

Scenario 1: Equity Financing, No Grant Turbine Size, kW 600 (P50) 750 (P50) 1000 (P50) 1500 (P50) 1500 (P90) Project Cost $ 2,380,250 $ 2,671,250 $ 2,660,250 $ 4,690,250 $4,690,250 Cost per kW $ 3,967 $ 3,562 $ 2,660 $ 3,127 $ 3,127 Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.06% Hub Height, Meters 65 65 70 60 60 Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284 NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $812,607 $939,195 $1,736,926 $3,236,613 $2,463,354 20-Year Net Cash Flow $2,549,702 $2,905,463 $4,121,993 $7,534,784 $6,349,500 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.30 1.30 1.53 1.58 1.44 IRR 7.35% 7.44% 10.13% 10.46% 9.01% Simple Payback, Years 11.99 11.92 9.52 9.31 10.42 Scenario 2: Equity Financing, With Grant Turbine Size, kW 600(P50) 750(P50) 1000(P50) 1500(P50) 1500 (P90) Project Cost $ 1,810,250 $ 2,101,250 $ 2,090,250 $ 4,120,250 $4,120,250 Cost per kW $ 3,017 $ 2,802 $ 2,090 $ 2,747 $ 2,747 Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.1% Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60 Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284 NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $1,360,684 $1,487,272 $2,285,003 $3,784,690 $3,011,431 20-Year Net Cash Flow $3,119,702 $3,475,463 $4,691,993 $8,104,784 $6,919,500 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.62 1.58 1.83 1.75 1.59 IRR 10.84% 10.48% 13.65% 12.31% 10.74% Simple Payback, Years 9.12 9.38 7.48 8.18 9.15 Scenario 3: Debt Financing, No Grant Turbine Size, kW 600(P50) 750(P50) 1000(P50) 1500(P50) 1500 (P90) Project Cost $2,380,250 $2,671,250 $2,660,250 $4,690,250 $4,690,250 Cost per kW $3,967 $3,562 $2,660 $3,127 $3,127 Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.1% Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60 Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284 NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $721,059 $836,455 $1,634,609 $3,056,219 $2,282,959 20-Year Net Cash Flow $1,427,093 $1,645,608 $2,867,326 $5,322,698 $4,137,414 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.26 1.26 1.48 1.53 1.39 IRR NA NA NA NA NA Simple Payback, Years NA NA NA NA NA


45

Scenario 4: Debt Financing, With Grant Turbine Size, kW 600 (P50) 750(P50) 1000(P50) 1500(P50) 1500 (P90) Project Cost $1,810,250 $2,101,250 $2,090,250 $4,120,250 $4,120,250 Cost per kW $3,017 $2,802 $2,090 $2,747 $2,747 Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.1% Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60 Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284 NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $1,291,059 $1,406,455 $2,204,609 $3,626,219 $2,852,959 20-Year Net Cash Flow $2,265,925 $2,484,440 $3,706,158 $6,161,530 $4,976,246 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.57 1.53 1.78 1.69 1.55 IRR NA NA NA NA NA Simple Payback, Years NA NA NA NA NA Scenario 1: Equity Financing, No Grant Scenario 2: Equity Financing, With Grant Scenario 3: Debt Financing, No Grant Scenario 4: Debt Financing, With Grant Scenario 1: Equity Financing, No Grant

Based on the above, development of a large wind turbine appears economically viable. The alternatives become more attractive with grant funding to off set initial capital costs, as indicated by the higher Net Present Value for the grant-funded projects using the same values for discount rate and inflation factors. The NPV, Net Cash Flow and benefit to cost ratio are all positive and increase markedly with increase in turbine size. Given the rate at which the Town could expect to borrow money for a project of this nature, which is estimated to be 4.0%, the investment opportunity cost is also considered attractive. It should be noted that all of the scenarios are sensitive to the discount rate (4.0%), rate of general inflation (2%) and energy inflation rate (2.0%), which have been used in this analysis. Grant funding helps reduce the initial capital cost of the project, improving all of the scenarios Net Present Value by an amount equal to the grant. Refer to Appendix H for detailed economic calculations, which include estimated annual operation, maintenance and insurance cost of the wind turbines. 7.0 PROJECT RISK FACTORS There are risk factors inherent with implementation of a wind turbine generator. Most of the risk factors associated with wind turbines have been investigated and are well documented in the literature. Proponents and advocates of developing wind power, which include the America Wind Energy Association (AWEA), have developed publications designed to educate and dispel certain myths associate with the risks and hazards of operating modern wind turbines. The risk factors considered for this study include: Hazards to human health and safety; Hazards with aeronautical navigation or interference with radar and other facilities; and Financial risks. Each of the factors is discussed below.


46

7.1 Human Health and Safety The hazards to human health and safety include basic life safety issues associated with construction of the wind turbine. Given the height of the theses facilities, there is a risk of slip, trip or falling during construction, where complex rigging operations are involved. This factor is effectively mitigated through use of trained, experienced personnel during the construction, operation and maintenance phases. There is also a risk, however small, of a catastrophic structural failure of the turbine and potentially resulting in death or serious bodily injury from falling ice, ice throw, parts or components. Installing fencing around the perimeter of the wind turbine can mitigate safety issues. Access limitation and control over the personnel who have access to the wind turbine will mitigate some of safety related risk factors. Security and access to the facility can be closely monitored and restricted, further reducing the risk of injury or harm. 7.2 Hazards to Navigation and Radar There is a risk that wind turbines can result in interference with radar or pose a hazard to aeronautical navigation. The hazard to navigation may be mitigated through installation of additional navigation aids; however, the evaluation of the costs and benefits of these types of improvements are beyond the scope of this assessment. As noted earlier, a request for determination for a nearby location has been filed with the FAA. Preliminary studies indicate that a structure height of up to 319 feet AGL would not likely pose a hazard to air navigation. 7.3 Financial Risk As discussed briefly in the preceding sections, there are several economic risk factors that could significantly impact the expected financial performance of the proposed project. These factors are as follows: Turbine Cost and Availability Based upon the research conducted for this study, procuring a single commercial scale turbine is not a straightforward process. There are relatively few established vendors with proven equipment that are interested in selling a single turbine, and pricing is subject to significant variability due to procurement timing, currency exchange rates, and other factors. It is clear that definitive pricing for the turbine sizes evaluated for this project will not be available until a procurement decision is made. In addition, it should be noted that current delivery schedules for a single large scale wind turbine, assuming a turbine can be procured, range from 12 to 24 months, or more. Several manufactures of a 600 kW wind turbines (Elecon, RRB) have begun to fill single turbine orders in the North American market. In addition, construction-pricing variability (cost of concrete, steel, etc) becomes a significant secondary concern for budgeting purposes.


47

Energy Regulatory Framework The passage of the Green Communities Act of Massachusetts in July 2008 which increases the net metering criteria from 60 kW to 2 MW, with the ability for virtual net metering, creates a framework with positive significant impacts on the financial performance of renewable energy projects. The increased size and ability for virtual net metering, which previously limited use of energy generated from a renewable energy project to on site use, with excess power made available to the grid at wholesale rates, now permits excess power to be applied to other meters in the same ISO NE load zone to receive the credits mandated by the legislation. Net metering takes effect on December 1 under an order adopted by Department of Public Utilities (DPU) on November 13, 2009. The Act stipulates net metering credits for municipalities include credit for the per kilowatt hour default service rate, distribution, transmission and per kilowatt hour transition charges. 7.4 Project Economic Sensitivity Analysis Variations in Energy Production and REC Values The long-term reliability of the REC markets and the continued availability of grant funding are both considered significant factors that could impact the economic viability of the project. Downward pressure has recently been exerted on REC values, as more renewable projects have been added to the ISO-NE grid. Conversely, the RPS which currently is at 4% of the maximum peak demand state-wide for 2009, are mandated to rise 1% annually to 15% by the year 2020, which should serve to stabilize the REC market and value of credits in the future. The economic model herein uses a constant energy production value, based on the predicted average annual wind speed and generally expected turbine availability values. Inevitably, the actual energy production will vary from year to year. Hence, the products which are associated with these values, namely the credit for displaced energy use, net metered excess power and sale of REC will be directly impacted by the actual MWh of energy produced. In order evaluate risk tolerances, a sensitivity analysis can be performed, by simply varying the net capacity factor for the turbine out put in the model. The same sensitivity can be performed for the value of the REC credits and so forth for each variable in the model.

Table 7-1 Sensitivity Analyses of Net Capacity Factor Net Capacity Factor Sensitivity Analyses S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 Scenario 2: Equity, With Grant -20% -10% Base Case +10% +20% Turbine Size, kW 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Project Cost $

2,101,250 $

2,101,250 $

2,101,250 $

2,101,250 $

2,101,250

Cost per kW $

2,101 $

2,101 $

2,101 $

2,101 $

2,101 Net Capacity Factor, % 15.8% 17.8% 19.8% 21.8% 23.8% Hub Height 70 70 70 70 70


48

Annual Energy, MWh

1,387,584

1,561,032

1,734,480

1,907,928

2,081,376 NPV (Discount Rate of 4.0%) $1,339,908 $1,812,456 $2,285,003 $2,757,550 $3,230,097 20-Year Net Cash Flow $3,243,312 $3,967,653 $4,691,993 $5,416,334 $6,140,674 Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.49 1.66 1.83 2.00 2.18 Estimated Simple Payback, years 9.78 8.48 7.48 6.70 6.06

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A feasibility study has been completed for the proposed construction of one large-scale wind turbine at the Mashpee High School in Mashpee, Massachusetts. The study represents a comprehensive review of the critical factors associated with the installation of a wind turbine at the Site. This feasibility study included evaluation of published wind data; electrical usage, consumption and generation; economics; environmental; engineering assessments and permitting issues associated with construction of a commercial-scale wind turbine at the site. The feasibility study addresses the technical and economic feasibility of construction of a nominal 600 kW to 1.5 MW wind turbine at the High School Site. Construction of the wind turbine in this size range would offset all of the electrical consumption at the Mashpee High School. Installation of a 1.0 or 1.5 MW wind turbine would create a surplus where additional Town owned facilities could offset a part of their electricity use through virtual net metering. Based on the results of this study, installation of a wind energy conversion facility is considered technically viable, with favorable wind resources and site conditions which favor development of a large scale wind turbine at the Mashpee High School. Long-term wind speed of 6.34 meters per second, at a height of 70 meters, is estimated for the Site. Measured and predicated wind speeds are considered favorable for development of a commercial scale wind turbine at the Site. The cost for design, permitting, procurement and construction of a single 600 kW to 1.5 MW wind turbine is on the order of $2.38 to $4.69M. The standard figures of merit, including: Net Present Value, Net Cash Flow, Benefit to Cost Ratio and Internal Rate of Return are all positive for the four turbine sizes evaluated (600kW, 750kW, 1.0MW and 1.5MW), suggesting development of one of these size turbines is economically viable. Gross capacity factors range from of 19.8% to 25.8% for the turbines modeled with a mean wind speed of 6.34 ms at a hub height of 70 meters. Simple payback would be on the order of 9.3 to 11.9 years. Internal rates of return were estimated to be on the order of 7.35% to 10.46%. Benefit to cost ratios for ranged from 1.30 to 1.58. The project economics are improved when factoring the current possible grant funding from the CEC, if determined eligible. Based upon the above, it is our opinion that development of a large-scale wind turbine is both technically and economically viable at the Mashpee High School. The next steps include an internal assessment by the Town to make a “Go” or “No Go” decision on the project.


49

9.0 REFERENCES American Wind Energy Association and The American Bird Conservancy. May 18-19, 2004,

Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts, Washington, D.C.

American Wind Energy Association, Facts About Wind Energy And Noise, http://www.awea.org American Wind Energy Association, Wind Power Myths vs. Facts, http://www.awea.org Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A. and Stroud, D.A. (eds). Waterbirds Around the World, Stationery

Office, Edinburgh, U.K. 960 pp. (2006). Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency, Wind Turbine Analysis for Cape Cod Air Force

Station Early Warning Radar and Beale Air Force Base Upgraded Early Warning Radar, Spring 2007

Higgins, Robert C., Analysis for Financial Management, Fifth Edition, 1998, University of

Washington, Irwin/McGraw Hill. ISO New England Inc., 2005 New England Marginal Emission Rate Analysis, July 2007 Massachusetts Geographic Information Systems (Mass GIS), 2007, Various Data Layers. Office of

Geographic and Environmental Information, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

Rogers, A.L., Manwell, J.F., and Wright, S., Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise, 2002, Amended 2006,

Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003

Skehan, J.W., 1997, Assembly and Dispersal of Supercontinents: The view from Avalon: Journal

of Geodynamics, v. 23, p. 237-262. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-221 A Pictorial Survey of the Bedrock Beneath

Western Cape Cod, Massachusetts Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc., July 2005, Feasibility Study for Wind Turbine

Installation, in association with Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, et al. Wernham, C., Toms, M., Marchant, J., Clark, J., Siriwardena, G., and Baillie, S., 2002. The

Migration Atlas: Movements of the Birds of Britain and Ireland. T & A.D. Poyser, London, UK. 884 pp.

Zen, E-an, Goldsmith, Richard, Ratcliffe, N.M., Robinson, Peter, Stanley, R.S., Hatch, N.L.,

Shride, A.F., Weed, E.G.A. and Wones, D.R., 1983, Bedrock geologic map of Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:250000.

APPENDIX A

WIND DATA REPORT (RERL, 2007)

Wind Power in Mashpee: Siting Considerations for a Wind Turbine

Sally Wright, M.S., P.E.

Site visit date: 23 August 2007

Report date: 6 November 2007

Table of contents Discussion

I. Introduction II. Sites Considered III. Wind Turbine Siting Considerations

A. Predicted Wind Resource B. Noise C. Proximity to Nearby Airports D. Environmental Issues and Permitting E. Wind Turbine Component Transportation & Access F. Distance to Distribution/Transmission Lines for Power Distribution G. Potential Electrical Loads Offset

IV. Conclusions & Recommendations Appendix A Site Survey Data Appendix B Wind Monitoring Logistics Appendix C Maps, Photos, & Figures

Locator Map

Mashpee X

Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts at Amherst Page 2

I. Introduction The town of Mashpee is considering the possibility of a wind power generation facility on public land. At the request of the town and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s Renewable Energy Trust, Sally Wright of the RERL visited potential wind turbine and/or wind-monitoring sites in Mashpee, along with representatives of the town.

This report provides an initial assessment of the suitability of the proposed sites for utility- or medium-scale wind turbines. The report is in the form of a broad “fatal flaw” analysis, which is designed to determine whether the town should move forward in considering this type of wind power project. Many factors are discussed in this report, not all of which present major influence for every site; at the end of the report, the most significant factor for each site is summarized.

The “Locator Map” on the previous page is an AWS-TrueWind map of the estimated mean wind speeds in Massachusetts at 70 meters height. Areas of primary interest for utility-scale wind power have estimated mean wind speeds of 6.5 m/s or greater (dark green or more). On this map, the town of Mashpee is marked with an “X”.

Appendix A provides details of the site discussed in this report in tabular form. Appendix B focuses on siting considerations for wind-monitoring towers (met towers) in Mashpee. Wind monitoring is an important aspect in determining feasibility. Appendix C provides photographs, ortho (aerial) photographs, and figures for the site.

For more background information This report assumes some familiarity with wind resource assessment, wind power siting, and other issues that arise with wind power technology. For an introduction to these areas, please refer to RERL’s Community Wind Fact Sheets, which are available on the web at: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/.

These sheets include information on the following subjects:

• Wind Technology Today • Performance, Integration, & Economics • Capacity Factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn't blow? • An Introduction to Major Factors that Influence Community Wind Economics • Impacts & Issues • Siting in Communities • Resource Assessment • Interpreting Your Wind Resource Data • Permitting in Your Community

More information on wind turbine technology, policy, and general information can be found at these websites:

• American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org • Danish Wind Industry Association, www.windpower.org

Use of this report This engineering report is intended to be used in consultation with MTC as the town explores its options for wind development at municipally owned sites.

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_1_Wind_Technology.pdf

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2_Community_Wind_Performance.pdf

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_3_Impacts&Issues.pdf

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_4_Siting.pdf

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_5_Resource_Assessment.pdf

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_6_Wind_resource_interpretation.pdf

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_7_Permitting.pdf

http://www.awea.org/

http://www.windpower.org/


II. Sites Considered The town of Mashpee originally suggested that seven locations be evaluated for their suitability for a wind power project. The top four are summarized here:

1. South Cape Beach: This beach on Nantucket Sound is part state park, part town park. The state portion is managed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).

2. Transfer Station: a capped landfill near the Mashpee River, bordered on the west by conservation land

3. Schools & Police/Fire Complex: The town has a cluster of town-owned parcels which are home to three schools (Coombs Elementary, Quashnet Elementary, & Mashpee High School across the road to the southwest), the Fire/Police complex, some senior housing, a skate part and many playing fields.

4. Heritage Park: This area includes several town recreational fields north of Carleton Drive West.

These four sites will be examined in this report (see also Appendix A, lines 1-7 for a data on these sites.)

The following three additional sites are not considered further in this report for the reasons listed:

5. Town Hall (lat-long: 41.648188 -70.481325): this area is too small for a met tower. The parcel is somewhat constrained for a full-scale wind turbine, though the town could reexamine this site for a wind turbine in the future if it likes.

6. Fire Sub-station (lat-long: 41.582935 -70.481874): this area is very closely surrounded by residences

7. EDIC Lot (lat-long: 41.603227,-70.489515) : this area is also very closely surrounded by residences


III. Wind Turbine Siting Considerations

Purpose The purpose of this section is to consider whether there are any “fatal flaws” to siting a wind turbine in the sites under discussion. For this discussion, we examine the potential for a “utility-” or “commercial-scale” (600 – 2,500 kW) turbine. The blade-tip heights of these turbines range between 250 and 450 feet.

The following characteristics are important in considering a wind turbine site, and are examined in this report:

A. Predicted Wind Resource

B. Noise

C. Proximity to Airports

D. Environmental Issues and Permitting

E. Wind Turbine Component Transportation & Access

F. Distance to Transmission/Distribution Lines for Power Distribution

G. Potential Electrical Loads Offset

Each section below briefly describes why the characteristic is important in general and then discusses it in particular for these sites. Information about these characteristics for the sites is also presented in tabular form in Appendix A. The corresponding lines are noted in parentheses after each subject line.

A. Predicted Wind Resource

About wind resource in general The economics of wind power at a given site depend on many factors; one of the most important is wind speed. Understanding wind speed and turbulence is critical to estimating the energy that can be produced at a given site. The power in wind is related to its speed, and small changes or inaccuracies in estimated wind speed can mean big changes in annual energy production. For these reasons, wind speed is the first criterion to examine when considering a wind power project.

The primary motivation for understanding the winds at a proposed wind power site is an improved understanding of the project feasibility and returns, and thus a lowering of investment risk. Better, longer, and more site-specific data leads to lower risks. Additional information regarding the monitoring of wind resources can be found in Appendix B.

When considering wind resource at this screening stage, we look at several factors: TrueWind estimates: An initial site screening can use estimated wind speeds based on computer models by AWS TrueWind (http://truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/); for more detail, the wind is monitored on site.

Existing wind data: High-quality wind data from nearby locations can be useful, primarily for correlation with on-site data. Concurrent, long-term, nearby data is most useful. Wind resource data collected by RERL are available on the web: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/resource_data/.

Obstacles to wind: Obstacles cause both turbulence and slowing of the wind. If the surrounding landscape is built up, forested, or otherwise rough, turbulence will increase. These are important factors

http://truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/


in site selection for a wind turbine because they affect the power production and the longevity of a wind turbine, and may affect the type of turbine that can function reliably at the site.

TrueWind estimates of annual average wind speed (Lines 8-12) Of the four sites reviewed here, the coastal site is estimated to have favorable wind speeds, with annual average wind speeds of 7.5 m/s at 70 meters, according to the AWS-TrueWind model.

The transfer station and Heritage Park are both predicted to have 6.5 m/s at 70 meters.

The schools and safety complexes are in the low-wind center of the town, with an estimated 6.3-6.4 m/s at 70 meters; this area does not meet the MTC Community Wind Collaborative threshold of 6.5 m/s at 70 meters.

Other available wind data (Line 13) RERL has maintained anemometry in Falmouth, Barnstable and Bourne. These wind datasets are too far away to yield sufficient accuracy for determining the feasibility of a utility-scale wind turbine at the Mashpee sites. Therefore on-site wind monitoring is still advisable. The RERL wind datasets are available on the web: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/resource_data/

Obstacles to wind flow (Lines 18-19) With the exception of the coastal site, trees obstruct all the sites under consideration. An especially tall wind turbine tower will be advisable.

B. Noise

About Noise in general Noise considerations generally take two forms, state regulatory compliance and nuisance levels at nearby residences:

A. Regulatory compliance: Massachusetts state regulations do not allow a rise of 10 dB or greater above background levels at a property boundary (Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations, Regulation 310 CMR 7.10). Regulatory compliance will rarely impose a siting constraint on a large modern wind turbine, since in most cases modern turbines are quiet enough to meet these criteria easily.

B. Human annoyance: Aside from Massachusetts regulations, residences should also be taken into consideration. Any eventual wind turbine would be sited such that it would be minimally audible at the nearest residences. At this stage, to check for fatal flaws, this rule of thumb can be used to minimize possible noise: site wind turbines at least three times the blade-tip height from residences. Distances from mixed-use areas may be shorter. Note that noise considerations influence not only siting, but also sizing decisions.

For example, this first-pass rule of thumb tells us that a turbine with a 77-meter rotor diameter on a 60-meter tower should be about 300 meters (60 + 77/2 = 98.5, times 3 comes to ~300 m or ~1000 feet) from residences. Other turbine sizes would suggest other distances. Note that many factors affect the transmission of sound and that this is a rule of thumb only.

The three-times-blade-tip height suggestion is not a hard rule; wind turbines can be and often are positioned closer to residences. This initial recommendation is meant to be the beginning of a conversation among the town’s citizens. The town’s decision to site a wind turbine must take into consideration the community’s needs and priorities.

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/resource_data/


If the town would like to consider a site closer than this distance, then a more detailed sound study can be performed that takes into consideration actual ambient levels and terrain; this site-specific information would then supersede the rough rule-of-thumb.

Noise at the Mashpee sites (Lines 20-21) Mashpee is a built-up community and noise will be a siting consideration for a wind turbine at all of the inland sites under consideration. Consideration of the neighbors will be an important factor in siting and sizing a wind turbine in Mashpee.

From a noise perspective, the “three-times-blade-tip” distance guideline suggests a utility-scale wind turbine is possible at all four sites. However, in all but the coastal case, noise considerations will influence micro-siting and turbine choice. In particular it will probably put a limit on the size of a turbine in Heritage Park, the transfer station, and all the school/safety complex areas except for the High School. The High School playing fields are sufficiently far away that a wind turbine there is unlikely to be heard at residences.

C. Nearby Airports

About airspace in general The form “7460-1 - Notice Of Proposed Construction or Alteration” must be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before construction of any structure over 200 feet (i.e. all utility-scale wind turbines). The corresponding form for the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC form E10, Request for Airspace Review) must also be filed.

These filings are reviewed by the FAA and the Department of Defense (DOD) for any potential obstruction or interference with air traffic, aircraft navigation/communication systems, military RADAR, etc. This process typically takes about three months for a first response. We recommend that these filings, or a detailed analysis of airspace issues, be undertaken as soon as possible if a site is seriously being considered for a wind turbine.

The U.S. Air Force recently published a policy to “contest … windmill farms within radar line of sight of the national Air Defense and Homeland Security Radars.” In Massachusetts, these include the Long Range Radar Sites in North Truro, Boston, and in the foothills of the Berkshires; additionally, parts of northeastern Massachusetts are within 60 nm of a long-range radar site in New Hampshire*. Nevertheless, wind projects have been approved within 60 nm of these long-range radar sites.

While we cannot predict the FAA or DOD response, most sites that are not within about 3-5 miles of a public or military airport are not considered a hazard to air traffic. At this preliminary stage, we look for fatal flaws by considering the distance to public and military runways.

Note that the FAA requires that any structure over 200’ be lit. All utility-scale wind power installations are lit.

Airspace at the Mashpee Sites (Line 27) Mashpee borders on Otis Air National Guard Base and the FAA will likely place limits on the possible heights of wind turbines anywhere in town. MTC commissioned a preliminary study by Aviation

* The FAA offers a “Long Range Radar Tool” that displays these 60 nm radius areas. See their Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) website: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showLongRangeRadarToolForm


Systems Inc (ASI) to review height limitations at the high school; ASI determined a that likely height limit will be 316 feet above ground level. The height limits at the other two noon-coastal sites may be as, or more, restrictive.

The North Truro Joint Use Long Range Radar Site is within 60 nautical miles (69 statute miles) of the Mashpee sites and the DOD will have to review the potential impact of a wind turbine on this unit; however, full scale wind turbines have already been approved by the DOD and FAA in this general area.

The FAA form 7460-1 and the corresponding MAC form should be filed early in the process of considering a wind turbine at any of these sites.

D. Environmental Issues and Permitting

Environmental permitting in general At this early stage, the following items are reviewed:

- State designations of Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), Open Space, Wetlands, and other land-use restrictions

- Massachusetts Audubon Society Important Bird Area (IBA)

- Current or former landfill

The permitting implications of these designations are not clear-cut in all cases. For instance, a “Core Habitat” designation may require a filing with the NHESP, but does not eliminate the possibility of a wind turbine installation. Compatibility of some land-use restrictions with wind power has not yet been determined.

Please note that this report is based on publicly available information and conversations with town representatives. There may, however, be other land-use restrictions, unregistered wetlands, etc. of which RERL is not aware. It is the town’s responsibility to ensure the environmental appropriateness of the chosen site.

Environmental permitting at the Mashpee sites (Lines 22-26) All four sites carry a land-use designation of open space protection. Most of the coastal area is wetlands including barrier beach dune and salt marsh; a wind turbine installation should be sited with a suitable setback from these wetlands.

It is not known if any site carries Article 97 restrictions.

At this stage, environmental permitting does not appear to be a fatal flaw to wind power development on Mashpee town land but can be expected to be a siting constraint.

E. Wind Turbine Component Transportation & Access

About transportation and access in general With blades up to 130 feet long, modern wind turbines require transportation on roads with fairly large turning radii and only small changes in slope. The example at right shows the set of turning radii (in millimeters) required for transporting one of the 39-meter turbine blades of a Vestas V80, a 1.8 MW machine, on a 47-meter tractor-trailer bed. Transportation accessibility for turbine installation is an important consideration for a potential wind turbine site.


Transportation and access to the Mashpee sites (Line 17) There may be some logistical difficulties in moving wind turbine components to the sites, but component transportation does not appear to be a fatal flaw. Road reinforcement will likely be required for the coastal site.

If the town proceeds with a wind power project at the coastal site in particular, an access plan will be an important part of the feasibility analysis.

F. Distance to Transmission/Distribution Lines for Power Distribution

About power distribution in general The power generated by any installed wind turbine must be transported to adequately sized lines, either on the “load side” of a meter, or out to transmission or distribution lines. Proximity to utility distribution or transmission lines is an important cost consideration for a wind turbine project.

Power distribution at the Mashpee sites (Line 16) The coastal site will require bringing in three phase lines at least two miles, which will add to the cost of the project. All other sites have three-phase distribution lines at the road or on-site, and while voltage and line capacity was not determined, we expect that a small wind power project should be able to be interconnected without significant additional expense.

Interconnection does not appear to be a fatal flaw at this stage. The point of interconnection would be determined later in the project.

G. Potential Electrical Loads Offset

About offsetting loads in general Energy used on-site is more valuable than energy sold onto the wholesale market. At this preliminary stage, we can compare the energy (kWh) used in a year with the predicted energy that could be generated in a year of turbine operation.

In fact, a more detailed analysis is needed to better understand the value of the generated energy. For on-site generators over 60 kW (Massachusetts’ current net-metering limit), energy must be generated at the same time that it is consumed or else sold to the grid. Therefore, the extent to which on-site loads can be offset depends on how well the daily profiles of consumption and generation align with each other. This more detailed analysis could be carried out in a later feasibility study.

About offsetting the load at the Mashpee sites (Lines 14-15) The school reports the following electricity billed during 13 months:

School Energy billed from 2006/07 to 2007/07 (kWh) Coombs 245,600Quashnet 526,864High School 1,453,400Total 2,225,864

The high school’s load may be significant enough to warrant net metering if current regulations are changed to allow this. Grouping other loads together would increase these benefits. Note that current utility regulations would not allow the combination of these three electrical loads since the High School lies across a road from the other two. Some changes have been proposed to net billing regulations, but


distance limits in some proposals may also not allow the combination of these loads; this will require careful review.

RERL did not review other electric bills, although the other sites are not expected to have significant energy usage. Playing field lights are intermittent and seasonal enough that they may be difficult to offset. This could be reviewed in more detail if this site is of interest.

A more detailed analysis at a later date could compare the annual and diurnal profiles of electricity production and consumption at these sites.

IV. Conclusions & Recommendations The town of Mashpee is interested in a wind power project on municipally owned land. The purpose of this report is to guide the town to its most promising site(s) for further study of wind power feasibility.

The town should weigh its existing land use plans for these areas, with the factors that influence the economics of these community wind projects.

The South Cape Beach has the important advantage of higher wind speeds; an economic analysis will weigh this advantage against the somewhat lower revenue due to lack of local load, and the higher installation cost due to the longer lines and roads. The Transfer Station, Schools, and Police/Fire Complex have moderate wind speeds but are located closer to roads and substations; furthermore, the schools have a large enough load to be an important benefit in the economic analysis. These factors must be weighed against the moderate wind speeds.

Note that utility regulations have a great influence on the economics of wind power installations and any future changes to these regulations will necessitate a reevaluation of the economics.

The FAA will probably put prohibitive height limits on the Heritage Park site; thus, if the town is interested in pursuing this site further, height limits would have to be confirmed with the FAA.

Next steps (Line 29) A preliminary economic analysis should be an important input as the town weighs its plans for these sites. After choosing a site for consideration, establishing full feasibility (which may include wind resource monitoring) is an important next step. The wind monitoring process and met tower siting considerations are discussed in Appendix B.

In any case, next steps include: • Economic analysis including estimates of interconnect & transportation costs • Wind resource assessment • Phase one avian impact study for coastal site in particular • File FAA form 7460-1 • South Cape Beach: Determine if DCR is interested in cooperating on neighboring state land. • Public outreach.

Appendix A: Site Survey Data

Key: Green shading: Particularly positive aspect that distinguishes this site from the others. Yellow shading: Significant constraints: these items may force micrositing choices, or may make the site difficult Red shading: Fatal flaws: these make placement impossible at this site.

Refer to the report “Wind Power in Salem: Siting Considerations for a Wind Turbine” for a discussion of these data.

Table 1: Data for sites 1-4:

1. South Cape Beach 2. Transfer Station 3. Schools & Police/Fire Complex 4. Heritage Park

Site overview

1. Description, current land use State Beach on Nantucket Sound Town transfer station Multiple use area including: 3 schools,

safety complex, senior housing, playing fields, skate park.

recreational facilities including playing fields

2. Address

Mashpee, MA 02649

380 Asher’s Path E

Mashpee, MA 02649

Mashpee High School: 500 Old Barnstable Road, Mashpee, MA 02649

Quashnet School: 150 Old Barnstable Road, Mashpee, MA 02649 Coombs: 152 Old Barnstable Road Mashpee, MA 02649

Ashumet Road

Mashpee, MA 02649

3. Owner State Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)

Town Town Town



Location

4. NAD 83, lat & long

41.552111° -70.502597°

41.629478° -70.480101°

High school settling ponds: 41.611456° -70.505241°

Coombs School Playing fields: 41.621742° -70.492918°

Skate park: 41.619217° -70.493752°

41.653271° -70.499225°

5. Degree, minute, second

41°33'7.60"N 70°30'9.35"W

41°37'46.12"N 70°28'48.36"W

HS Settling ponds: 41°36'41.24"N 70°30'18.87"W

41°39'11.78"N 70°29'57.21"W

6. Approximate Elevation (feet) 3 ~59 ~39-66 ~100-115

7. Notes Route 151, Old Falmouth Road divides the high school from the other sites.

Wind Speeds

Estimated Mean Speeds* in m/s To convert m/s to mph, multiply by 2.24

8. • At height of 100 m 8.1 7.1 7.0-7.1 7.2

9. • At height of 70 m 7.5 6.5 6.3-6.4 6.5

10. • At height of 50 m 7.1 6.0 5.7-5.9 6.0

11. • At height of 30 m 6.6 5.4 5.0-5.1 5.3



12. Wind Speed Summary (for utility-scale):

Favorable Adequate Marginal. this may be the lowest-wind area in

town. High school is on the lower end of these ranges.

Adequate

13. Existing wind data Falmouth WWTP: ~6 miles away Barnstable: ~9

CCCC: ~10 Upper Cape Tech School, Bourne: ~10

Wind Turbine Considerations:

Economic

14. On-site Electric Loads No No Small Small/intermittent

15. Electric Loads, kWh/year - - Unknown Unknown

16. Distance to Distribution/ Transmission lines**

Approximately 2 miles to three phase power.

Not a fatal flaw Not a fatal flaw Not a fatal flaw

17. Access for blade transportation** Small access roads Not a fatal flaw Not a fatal flaw Not a fatal flaw

Obstructions to wind

18. Terrain Beach Small hills, both wooded & developed Small hills, both wooded & developed Small hills, both wooded & developed

19. Obstacles to wind

Open to Sound to the south Trees Trees Trees

Noise

20. Nearby residential areas: No Yes Some, depending on micrositing Yes

21. Radius to residences: (m): (ideally >~300m for utility scale‡)

~850, depending on micrositing Up to ~270, depending on micrositing ~250 near skate park,

~600 near high school

100 – 230, depending on micrositing



Environmental permitting †

22. Designated by the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program as a Core Habitat or a Supporting Natural Landscape?

Yes: Priority & Core Habitat of Rare Species

Yes, along Mashpee River on the west edge of this parcel:

Priority & Core Habitat of Rare Species

Some areas of core habitat Yes: Core habitat designation

23. Designated by the DEP as Wetlands?

Barrier beach, et al. No No No

24. Designated by the Massachusetts Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area (IBA)?

No No No No, though the Mass Military Reservation IBA is nearby to the west.

25. Is the site a current or former land-fill? (RERL does not install met towers on landfills)

No Yes

Preferred site for a wind turbine may be next to (not on top) of the landfill

formation, due to expense of a foundation penetrating the cap

No No

26. Other land-use restrictions, e.g. Article 97 †

In DCR parcel level of open space protection: in perpetuity

Along Mashpee River on the west edge of this parcel: level of open space

protection: in perpetuity

Level of open space protection: limited for schools

level of open space protection: limited , for recreation area, but not across the

street to the south

Other permitting

27. Distance to airport(s) (nautical miles)

Otis: ~5.5 nm

Falmouth Airpark ~2.7 nm

Otis: ~2 nm

Falmouth Airpark ~3.6 nm

Falmouth Airpark : ~2.6 nm

Otis ~2.7 nm

ASI study for High school: 316’ limit to avoid operational impact.

Otis: <1 nm and directly aligned with the runway

Falmouth Airpark ~4 nm



Wind Turbine: Conclusions

28. Primary constraint(s): If this site is of interest for a utility-scale wind turbine, what factors will most affect feasibility and/or micrositing?

Land use restrictions and park status

Possible FAA limits on turbine size

Lack of local electric load

Not ideal wind speeds

Nearby residences may limit turbine size

Probable FAA limits on turbine size



FAA limits on turbine size


FAA restrictions


Nearby residences


29. Next step / To be determined To pursue wind power at this site, these items should be explored first (along with wind monitoring and public outreach):

Phase one avian impact study

FAA filing

Determine if DCR is interested in cooperating on neighboring state land.

Economic analysis including estimates of interconnection & transportation costs.

Economic analysis

FAA filing

Economic analysis

FAA filing

Economic analysis

FAA filing

30. Recommendation Should the city consider this site for a utility-scale wind turbine? See also the discussion section.

Possibly Possibly Possibly Not the preferred site

31. Multiple Turbines If the city is interested in installing more than one turbine, how many could fit at this site?

Yes.

Number is most likely a function of interest and economics

Possibly Possibly Possibly



Met Tower Siting Factors

32. Space availability & level terrain Parking area at beach is too narrow and neighboring land too fragile for anchors.

A parking area 1.3 km to the north, at N41.56361 W70.50489, could be large

enough if cleared. This site will be reviewed below:

No spot was identified during site visit. However, a cleared area behind the

dump was not toured. There may be a possible met tower location there,

though this would be on the lea side of the landfill formation.

Alternately, an area of land could be cleared to the west of the landfill.

Sufficient space in an area of unused ball fields

All the currently cleared area consists of playing fields.

Town requested consideration of wooded area on south side of Carleton

Drive. This area would have to be cleared.

33. Power lines or other obstructions to met tower. (Met tower must be set at least 1.5 x the tower height away from power lines.)

No Unknown No Power lines along road

34. Obstacles to wind Trees, houses Trees Landfill formation

Trees, ~30’ Trees, ~30’

35. Clearing requirements Center of area Unknown Possibly minor tree and brush clearing required. Some unused bleachers and a

scoreboard also.

The full area needed by the met tower would have to be cleared (see Appendix

B)

36. Soil quality – for met tower anchors

Sandy Unknown Not tested, but expected to be ok Not tested, but expected to be ok

37. Road Access – for met tower installation

Ok Ok Ok Ok

38. Security Public place Gated School yard

39. Existing towers on or near site None None known None known None known

40. Distance to AC power if lighting is required

-- -- -- --

41. Compatibility: If this site were chosen for a wind turbine but not a met tower, where else could wind be monitored? (i.e., which of the other sites are within about 1 mile and have similar terrain?)

--

The transfer station and the schools could possibly stand in for each other

--



Met Tower: Primary Constraint

42. What factors will most affect feasibility and/or siting of a met tower here?

Parking lot is in active use part of the year.

Need to clear

Lack of cleared space that is not on the landfill formation.

Need to clear

Met Tower Recommendation:

43. Recommended site: Possibly Possibly Yes Possibly

44. Recommended met tower height (meters)

50 m 50 m 50 m 50 m

Notes:

* Estimated Mean Annual Wind speeds, in m/s: based on the AWS-TrueWind computer models. For more information, see TrueWind Solutions, truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/

‡ Note that this will vary based on location, turbine size, terrain, ambient noise, etc.

** These items can have significant impacts on installation cost. The intention of this report is not to estimate the costs of these items, but only looks for indications of fatal flaw. However, if one appears to be an issue for the chosen site, it may be advisable to study it further relatively early in the project.

† Please note that this report is based on publicly available information and conversations with site owner representatives. There may, however, be other land-use restrictions, unregistered wetlands, etc. of which RERL is not aware. It is the city’s responsibility to ensure the environmental appropriateness of the chosen site.


Typical 6-foot-long utility screw-in anchor

A met tower base-plate sits directly on the ground.

An anchor, installed, with 2 guy wires attached

Appendix B: Wind-Monitoring Logistics Traditionally, wind is monitored for about a year with a met tower. Some sites may be suitable for other types of monitoring in addition to a met tower. This section will concentrate on the siting of a met tower. Figure 1 in Appendix C is a schematic of a met tower.

About met towers Most met towers are temporary structures that do not require a foundation and are supported by guy wires in 4 directions. Towers are usually 40 meters (131’) or 50 meters (164’) tall. In most cases, standard utility anchors are used to anchor the guy wires. The number and type of anchors required depends on the particular site. They will be proof-tested at installation to make sure they can hold enough load.

The tower is raised using a winch; no crane is required. The tower consists of a set of 6” diameter pipes that stack together; the whole set-up can be brought in on a pick-up truck.

The pictures on this page give an idea of what this equipment looks like.

In the process of raising a met tower, the “gin pole” gives the winch leverage to lift the tower.

Gin Pole

Met Tower

RERL’s truck loaded with the sections of a 50-meter met tower


Space required for a met tower Clearing is necessary both for met tower installation and to reduce ground effect disturbance during data collection. The cleared area is shaped like a circle for the guy wires, with an additional “wedge” in which the tower is assembled before raising. An additional buffer is then cleared around that area to leave some area to work. The minimum cleared areas for guyed towers are:

Tower Height D

(Guy Diam.)

L (Space to lay the tower down)

Approximate total envelope to be cleared

40 meter (131’) 160 feet 135 feet 240 x 190 feet

50 meter (164’) 240 feet 165 feet 310 x 270 feet

Dimensions of a football field, for comparison: 300 x 160 feet

In general, a larger cleared area reduces the disturbances seen by the instruments, and improves data quality. Therefore, a cleared area larger than the minimum size is preferred.

While it is not necessary to pull stumps, removing as much obstruction and underbrush as possible will facilitate the raising of the tower. Guy-wires will be pulled across this field, and any obstacles that entangle the wires make the job more difficult.

It is also essential that there not be any electric or telephone wires within 1.5 times the height of the tower, i.e. 200 feet of a 40 m tower, or 250 feet of a 50 m tower.

Trees must be cleared at least the height of the trees away from the anchors to eliminate the danger of a falling tree hitting the guys. For example, a 50-foot-tall tree within less than 50 feet of an anchor must be cut down.

Note that it is possible to use some of this cleared area after the met tower has been installed; in other words, after installation, the space is left largely open.

Met Tower Siting Considerations Generally speaking, wind speed and turbulence should be monitored at, or as close as possible to, the preferred wind turbine site. Met tower siting, however, involves certain additional considerations, and it may not always be possible to monitor wind at the proposed turbine site. This section provides an overview of the feasibility of placing a met tower at the Mashpee sites.

Space Availability at the Mashpee Sites (Line 32-34) Of the 4 sites under consideration, only the schools area has sufficient room for a 50-meter met tower without substantial clearing.

• South Cape Beach: The main beach parking area is too narrow, but a parking area to the north could be big enough with some clearing.

• Transfer Station: no met tower site was toured during the site visit. There may be a sufficiently clear & level met tower site to the north of the landfill; however, this would be somewhat shaded from the predominant winds by the landfill. A more appropriate place to monitoring would be on land to the west of the landfill; however, this would have to be cleared.


• Schools& Police/Fire Complex: there is an area of unused ball field that is large and level enough for a 50-meter met tower, if some fencing, a scoreboard, and a small amount of scrub oak were removed. See map below. An example of fencing around a met tower in a schoolyard near ball fields is shown in Appendix C.

• Heritage Park: the ball fields in this park nearly fill all the area already cleared; additional land would have to be cleared. An additional area may be cleared for future ball fields to the south of the road; if this area were cleared a year early, it could be used for wind monitoring for a year.

Clearing requirements (Line 35) See tables in Appendix A for notes on clearing required at individual sites.

Soil quality & anchor requirements (Line 36) The soils at the sites were not tested. Installing anchors will require some planning; longer or larger anchors may be required. The beach site in particular may require larger anchors and the use of a back-hoe for installation. The anchors would be tested at the time of installation.

Accessibility for met tower installation (Line 37) All of the sites have good accessibility for RERL’s pick-up truck.

Permitting: Local approval process Some local permits may be required for the temporary met tower, such as building permits, zoning variances, DigSafe, etc.

Nearby airports & FAA restrictions for met towers Most met towers are shorter than 200 feet and do not require registration with the FAA.

Lighting The FAA does not require met tower lighting at these sites.

Proximity of anemometry & turbine (Line 41) While wind resource assessment directly on the proposed wind turbine site is preferred, it is not required. If wind data are collected in one spot, but a site for a wind turbine is later chosen in another nearby location, then a computer model that considers the wind data and terrain can be used to extrapolate the data from one location to the other. As the two sites become farther apart, however, the level of certainty in the data goes down, and thus the amount of risk in the investment goes up. It is difficult to predict the rate at which the certainty changes with distance; this can only be estimated on a site-specific basis.

If the proposed turbine and met tower sites are close enough, measurements at one site could be used to evaluate the feasibility of a turbine at the other. Thus, an understanding of preferred turbine spots is necessary in choosing a met tower site.

See tables in Appendix A for notes on compatibility of sites.


Met tower size recommendation (Line 43-44) There are typically two size options for met towers: 40-meter and 50-meter. The choice of a met tower depends on the site.

If wind monitoring is pursued, a 50-meter met tower is recommended for these sites.

Conclusion: met tower siting recommendations Wind-monitoring options should be discussed further depending on the turbine size considered and the allowable uncertainty associated with the project. If the town is interested in installing a utility-scale wind turbine at either site, then wind monitoring is recommended for that site. If a medium-scale wind turbine is considered, wind monitoring is not essential, but would improve the level of certainty in the success of the project.

If the town decides to monitor the wind resource, then it is recommended that a 50-meter met tower be installed at the site of interest.

The preferred resource assessment method depends on the chosen turbine site:

1. South Cape Beach: in the parking lot to the north

2. Transfer Station: clear an area to the west if possible

3. Schools & Police/Fire Complex: the unused playing field area

4. Heritage Park: clear an area to the south of the road.

Appendix C: Maps, Photos, and Figures Refer to the report “Wind Power in Mashpee: Siting Considerations for a Wind Turbine” for a discussion of these maps, photos, and figures.

Source for base maps: Ortho (aerial) photographs are from the MassGIS website, www.mass.gov/mgis/dwn-imgs.htm. The entire Commonwealth was photographed in April 2005, when deciduous trees were mostly bare and the ground was generally free of snow.

Topographic maps, roads, and town boundaries are also from MassGIS.

Mean wind speeds are AWS-Truewind’s estimates for New England, 2003. For more information, see TrueWind Solutions, truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/.

http://www.mass.gov/mgis/dwn-imgs.htm


Map 1: Estimated mean wind speeds at 70-meters height at the Mashpee sites, based on AWS-TrueWind models. The sites under consideration for a wind power project that are discussed in this report are marked in pink stars and labeled. For more information on these wind estimates, see TrueWind Solutions, truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/


Map 2: Orthographic (aerial) photo of site 1: South Cape Beach, showing state and town parcel lines.

Map 3: Orthographic (aerial) photo of site 2: Transfer station, showing parcel lines, and open space protection of the Mashpee River Reservation across the road to the west.


Map 4: Orthophotograph of the schools and the safety complex

Map 5: Orthophotograph showing the Coombs school’s unused playing fields


Map 6: Orthophotograph of Heritage park, showing town and federal parcel boundaries and the proximity of Otis Air Base’s runway


Photo 1: South Cape Beach parking lot

Photo 2: Parking lot to the north of South Cape Beach; proposed as possible location for a met tower.


Photo 3: Retention Pond on the south side of the High School

Photo 4: town parcel across the street from Heritage Park


Photo 5: Example of a met tower near school ball fields (Rockport, MA)

Photo 6: Example: Marking met tower guy lines and anchors near school ball fields (Rockport, MA)


Figure 1. Guy line layout for a 50-meter met tower from Second Wind, Inc.

APPENDIX B

RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE

~ = TC N 55 eM55~N _I11III0

Dale: SEP 25 2009

To: Johanna Nagle

Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.

5 Centennial Drive

Peabody, MA 01960

ASI#: 09-0-0632.007

Client Site 10: Mashpee MA

FAA#:

We are sending you herewith the following via:

(;'I US Mail 0 Overnight 0 Fax 0' Email o 2nd Day

(;'I ASI FAR Part 77 Airspace Obstruction Report

D Search Area Study Report

(;'I Copies of our filing(s) with FAA and/or State

D Responses from FAA and/or State

D ASI Opinion Letter

(;'I Quad Chart

(;'I See attachments for Airport Runway data and/or AM Stations(s)

D Certified Survey

Comments:

Sincerely,

2510 W. 237'" Street· Suite 210 • Torrance, CA 90505 Tel: 310.530.3188. Fax: 310.530.3850 • email: [email protected] • www.aviationsystems.com

' =9

''''';.;,' J~~ TeON 53TE: 53 ~NC:o

Date:

To: Air Traffic Division, ANE-530

New England Regional Office

12 New England Executive Park

Burlington, MA 01803-5299

ASI#: 09-0-0632.007

Client Site ID: Mashpee MA

FAA#:

We are sending you herewith the following via:

DUS Mail o Overnight o Fax 0" Email o 2nd Day

Ii'! Copy of Notice of Proposed Construction (7460-1)

Ii'! Quad Chart depiction and supporting data

D Our comments to your Aeronautical Circular or your communication regarding the referenced study number.

Comments:

D Side mounted, not to exceed existing structure.

o The height requested exceeds the FAR 77 filing requirements.

[;'] The height requested does I!'T does not Dexceed FAR 77 obstruction standards.

D The obstruction standards exceeded, if any, wouid not be a hazard to air navigation.

o If FAA determines that further aeronautical study is required, by this Transmittal we hereby request such study.

D Proponent requests dual marking & lighting in compliance with AC 70/7460-1 K, Change 1.

D Frequency Filing Only

Notes:

Thank you.

Sincereiy,

Aviatj9~ nco

By(

2510 W. 237\h Street. Suite 210 • Torrance, CA 90505 Tel: 310.530.3188· Fax: 310,530.3850 • email: asi@aviationsystemscom • www.aviationsystems.com

AVIATION SYSTEMS, iNC.

Phone: 310-530-3188 Fax: 310-530-3850

[email protected] www.aviationsystems.com

FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION REPORT

To: Date: September 25, 2009 Johanna Nagle

Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc 5 Centennial Drive

Peabody, MA 01960

Location: Mashpee. MA

Ciient Case No: Mashpee MA

ASi Case No: 09-0-0632 007

SUMMARY OF FINDiNGS:

At this location any structure over 185 feet AGL will have to be filed with the FAA A structure up to 270 feet AGL should receive a routine approval A structure from 270 to 319 feet AGL should be approvable but require extended study. Refer to Findings and Comment Section for additional information.

SITE DATA:

Structure: Wind Turbine

Coordinates: 41 '-36'-3960" / 070'-30'-2489" [iliAD 27]

41 0 -36'-4000" / 070'-30'-2300" [NAD 83]

Site Ground Elevation: 61 • [AMSL]

Studied Structure Height (With Appurtenances): 319' [AGL]

r otal Overall Height: 380' [AMSL]

SEARCH RESULTS:

The nearest public use or military air facility subject to FAR Part 77 is Falmouth Airpark Airport.

The studied structure is located 1.97 NM /11,988 feet NorthEast (044 0 True) of the Falmouth Airpark Airport Runway 25.

. Q!b5'r public or private airports or helipgrts within 3 NM: I:J. None 0 Printout attached ... _---_.

. AM radio stationL?1 within 3NM: o None D PrintouLaltached

Highlighted AM stations on printout reqUire notice under FCC Rules and Policy (Ref.: 47 CFR 73.1692).

ASI Case No: 09-0-0632007 FINDINGS

FAA Notice (Ret: FAR 77.13 (a)(1); FAR 77.13 (a}/21 i, ii, iii):

o Not required at stUdied heioht.

[;') Required at studied heiqht.

[;') The No Notice Maximum height is 185 feet AGL.

IMPORTANT: Our report is intended as a planning tool. If notice is required, actual site construction

activities are not advisable until an FAA Final Determination of No Hazard is issued.

Obstruction Standards of FAR Part 77 (Ref.: FAR 77.23 (a}(1),(2),(3),(4I,(5)):

o Not exceeded at studied heiqht.

[;') Exceeded at studied height and Extended Study may be reqUired.

[;') Maximum nonexceedance heiqht is 270 feet AGL.

. Marking and lighting (Ret: AC 70/74S0-1K, Change 1):

o Will not be required [;') Will be required at studied heiaht. if structure exceeds:

[;') 200 feet AGL

[;') Obstruction Standard

• Operational Procedures (Ref.: FAR 77.23Ia)(3), (4); FAA Order 7400.2; FAA Order 8260.38):

o Not affected at studied height (FAA should issue a Determination of No Hazard.)

o Affected at studied height and the FAA will consider the studied structure to be a hazard to air navigation.

[;') Maximum height that would not affect operational procedures is 319 feet AGU 380 feet AMSL.

Conclusions/Comments

FAA may require a 2C site surveyor lower maximum allowable height - This proposed site does fall within the airspace defined by MGL RegUlation Chapter 90 Section 358 and will require a Permit from the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission. - There is a medium-level impact potential on Air Defense and Homeland Security radars. Further study maybe advisable. - There is minimal to no impact expected on weather surveillance radar. Further study is not necessary.

Actions:

ASI will file with ANE FAA Region and State [;') Yes o No

NotIce ot l'roposed ConstructIon or Alterallon - Utt AIrport

Federal Aviation Admin!S!ration

l'age j ot 1.

Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport

Project Name: WESTO-000130064-09 Sponsor: Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc

Details for Case: Mashpee MA

Show Project Summary

Case status

2009-WTE-9272-0E Date Accepted: 09/25/2009

Status: Accepted Date Determined:

letters: None

Documents: None

Construction I Alteration Information Structure Summary

Notice Of: Construction Structure Type: Wind Turbine

Duration: Permanent Str'l.u::ture Name: Mashpee MA

if Temporary: Months: Days: FCC Number:

Work Schedule - Start: Prior ASN:

Work Schedule - End:

State Filing: Not flied with State

Structure Details Common Frequencv Bands

Low IFreq High Freq Freq Unit ERP ERP UnitLatitude: 41 0 36' 40.00" N

Longitude: 70° 30' 23.00" W Specific Frequencies

Horizontal Datum: NAD83

Site Elevation (SE): 61 (nearest foot)

Structure Height (AGl): 319 (nearest foot)

Requested Marking/lighting: Dual-red and medium intensity

Other:

Recommended Marking/Lighting:

Current Marking/Lighting: N/A New Structure

Other:

Nearest City: Mashpee

Nearest State: Massachusetts

Description of Location: Mashpee High School

Description of Proposal: Wind Turbine

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/externalleFilingllocationAction.jsp?action~sho\VLocationForm...9/25/2009

Data use sUbject to license.

XMap®6

=~~::~scale1 . 24,OOG,_~~__ © Delorme. XMap® 6. M'l (,~.1·1'.01 Joo-i l~ 1]°;00 -.I'W;",~_24~="

-,jWNW delorme. com 1" - 2,000.0 ft Data Zoom 13-0

Search Latitude: 41-36-40 Seal'ch Radius: 3Airports with Runways Search LOl/gitude: 070-30-23 Height (MSL):

ID Nallw City St"te ARP Lal ARP LOllg Type Rways Primary RHTLlII RH-'yLolIg Wev, lJisllNM Dist/[eef Bear

FMH

FMH

6MA6

,CAPE COD COAST GUARD AIR STATION

CAPE COD COAST GUARD AIR STATiON

COTUIT

FALMOUTHMA

FALMOUTHMA

COTUIT MA

41-38-30.6000f'DiO-31-17.4000W

41-39·30.6000NJ70-31-17,4000W

41-37-o1.3950N:l70-26-35.0930Vv

ML

ML

PR

14/32

05/23

32

05

41·3B·47.3900N J70-30·39.1000W

41-38-40.3S90N J70-31-48.1 020W

117.0

117.0

2.13

2.26

2.87

12,917

13,753

17,418

354.61

332.07

82.99

41MA HANEY MASHPEE MA 41-35-24.9600NJ70-2B-Z8, 31 DOW PR 1.91 11,633 131.'12

,

IVerJl1esday, September 23, 2(}()9 . Page I ~fl

- --------

-------

For Office Use OnlyThe Commonwealth ofMassachusetts I Airspace Analysis _

lmualsAERONAUTICS COMMISSION Comments Received

L, AIMS Updated REQUEST FOR AIRSPACE REVIEW MAC File No.: FAA File No.: ______________ (For reference only)

Notice is required by 780 CMR (Code of~1assachusetts Regulations) 111.7, HazardS' to air navigation. Pursuant to Massachusetts Genera! Laws (MGL) Chapter 90, Section 358, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC) agrees to perform an AIRSPACE ANALYSIS and render a determination for the project listed below. Il\rlPORTANT: All shaded areas must be completed.

:)P-.i1rL~9r (include name, address & telephone number): Sponsor's Representative (same data if applical2k.l:. lGary M. Allen ... -- ...-..---.---,

Johanna Nagle Weston & Sampson Engineers. Inc. IAviation Systems. Inc. 5 Centennial Drive 12510 W. 237th Street, Suite 210 Peabody. MA 01960 i Torrance, CA 90505

: (978)532-1900 1(310) 530:3188 _FaxQ.I0) 530-3850

Project Description (please type or print clearly): Location. Height & Elevation Data:

319' AGL Wind Turbine located at Mashpee High School Nearest City, State: Mashpee, MA

Degrees Minutes Seconds Latitude .--- 4"CI-'-- 36--1 40.00

Longitude 070 30.1 23..c_00__ Datum 0 NAD 83 or 0 NAD 27

Site elevation above MSL (ft.): 61 MSL

Maximum height above ground (ft.): 319 AGL ~ RI:QUIRED -\£iach 8", x II inch llIap (e g USC,S Quad sheet) ~hO\Hilg !ocatHll1 ofproJecl Maximum elevation above MSL (ft.): 380 MSL

Nearest Public-Use Aviation Facility: Falmouth Airpark Airport ._- -_ _ _. ----------

--- -- -- ----_._---- -----

Print or type. belol',:, the n:lme ofperson filing this request for re'....iew Slgna9-lrE' tLt ' "' Date

Gary M. Allen, DireClor of Regulalory Affairs i ~//1} J J / (# ) Aviatwn Systems. Inc. . .... . 1~~U.:,~ /.d--/1 __ [.t( r-L- ""'~J;l.sjC~

**uH***.. **..* DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - F9R lAC gfflCE USE ONLY ",.. , .... f ....,/ ~

MAC's AIRSPACE ANALYSIS concludes the following:

Closest Runway: Distance from RW end: Offset from RW CL: _ Left -.J Right

Project violates MGL Ch. 90. §35B by ___ ft. IRum'iay Horizontal Plane - 3,000' x 2 Statute t\files]

Project violates MGL Ch. 90, §35B by ___ ft. [Runway Approach Plane - 3,000' x 3,000' @20:1 slope]

Project violates 702 CMR. §5.03(l)(a) by ___ ft. [Runway Approacb Plane / Land - 500' x 10,000' @ 20: I slope]

Project violates 702 CMR, §5.03(2)(a) by ___ ft. [Runway Approacb Plane / Water - 500' x 10,000' @20:1 slope]

Project does not violate MAC Airspace La\\'s or Regs.

MAC hereby issnes the following DETERMINATION:

.-- Permit is required*" pursuant to MGL Ch.90, §35B, for: ~ Runway Horizontal Plane [J Runway Approach Plane

* Sponsor must submit a separate written request for a MAC Airspace Permit. Request should be addressed to MAC Chief Legal Counsel, Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, 10 Park Plaza, Room 6620, Boston, MA 02116-3966

-.J Permit is not required pursuant to ~lGL Ch.90, §35B j No violation of Laws or Regs [J Ch.90 Violation ~ 30' agl

_ MAC has the following additional concerns:

FAA Standards L Noise

Traffic Pattern L Wildlife

VFR Route Other

This determination is based on the foregoing description ofthe proposed project including the location, height and elevation data provided by the Sponsor. Any change in the data provided to the MAC from that which is shown herein will render this determination null and void and will necessitate a new request for review.

Mgr. ofAirport Engineering, \.1as~acbu~ett$ Aeronautics Commission Date

-\

Data use subject to license

© Delorme, XMao® 6.

wwv-l,deIOime,com

M"l 11$ FWI ,. "............. .;J20' '"X,,_~

~-----"---~ - -1" = 2,000.0 IT

XMap® 6

___ I

APPENDIX C

MASHPEE ELECTRIC BILLS

APPENDIX D

USFWS INFORMATION

USFWS Impact Evaluation Criteria The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has developed general impact evaluation criteria used in this preliminary assessment. These eight criteria, listed below, serve to highlight the critical information needed to make an accurate impact assessment on the avian community. Assessment of each of the evaluation criteria was conducted included in conjunction with consultation with federal and state agencies, landscape analysis, GIS screening, species listings and reviewing special site considerations were employed to gather the necessary information to address each of the impact evaluation criteria presented in this section and are addressed individually below:

1. Are the potential locations of turbines located within one mile of documented locations of any rare species of wildlife or plants?

NHESP databases list twelve species on Moon Island. Site layout and natural community buffering appears to preclude the frequent presence of rare species on the developed portion of the site, but more detailed survey would be required to confirm.

2. Are the potential turbine locations in known local bird migratory pathways or in

areas where birds are highly concentrated (e.g. wetlands, wildlife refuges, landfills, rookeries, etc…)?

The site is located within the path of a documented North Atlantic Flyway. In general the flyway concept is often misconstrued and must be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism when applied directly to real-life applications. There are a number of limitations within the flyway concept. Most notably birds migrate in general north-south direction, but with an equally important east-west component (Bakken et al, 2003). Birds therefore migrate over a broad range, and as such this element is not always well captured in the traditional flyway models.

3. Are potential turbine locations in known daily movement flyways (e.g. nesting and

feeding/foraging areas) and areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, or low visibility?

Although a more detailed survey would be required to accurately assess the daily movement patterns of wildlife in the area, the presence of NHESP priority habitats surrounding the facility make the daily migration to feeding/foraging areas likely. However, birds moving in a localized manner between feeding points are not likely to fly into the swept area of a wind turbine.

4. Are potential turbine locations in areas or features of the landscape known to

attract raptors?

There is the potential for forest raptors to nest in the forested areas surrounding the site.

5. Are potential turbine locations near known bat hibernation, breeding, and

maternity/nursery colonies, in migration corridors, or in flight paths between colonies and feeding areas?

Accurate assessment of the bat population would require a more detailed study of the project area. At this time there are no known bat hibernacula in the area of the proposed turbine location. Further assessment would be required to determine bat populations, since landscape features or site development does not avert the presence of significant bat populations.

6. Do potential turbine locations fragment large, contiguous tracts of wildlife

habitat?

No, habitat fragmentation is considered negligible.

7. Are turbines being proposed in habitat known to be occupied by species that exhibit extreme avoidance of vertical features and/or structural habitat fragmentation?

There are no species in the proposed area of the project that have been known to exhibit extreme avoidance to vertical features. The extent of structural habitat fragmentation existing currently on the site implies that further developmental effects would be negligible.

8. Do any significant ecological events occur in the region associated with the

proposed development?

The occurrence of significant ecological events in the area of the site is unknown. However; a more detailed review of the conditions and observation of the avian community during the annual migration period would be required to determine if there are any significant ecological effects that would interrupted by construction of a wind turbine.

Research by the National Wind Coordinating Committee has determined that roughly 200 to 500 million-bird collisions occur annually. Of these, roughly 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the collisions are attributed to wind turbines in comparison to the 1 to 2 percent from communication towers, 25 to 50 percent from windows/buildings, and 15 to 30 percent from vehicle collision incidents. Therefore, avian impacts from the construction of one wind turbine in an area that is already developed would likely be minimal in comparison to annual bird mortality rates. Research conducted at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, located in Bourne, MA where a 660 kW wind turbine was installed, indicates that during a post-construction mortality survey, no bird kills were attributed to the wind turbine. Research has demonstrated that frequency of bird sightings in the vicinity of the turbine actually

decreases when the wind turbine is operating. This suggests that birds may actually alter their flight patterns making it even less likely for them to pass through the rotors swept area. If a wind turbine is to be installed, monitoring for avian mortality could be included as part of the normal operation and maintenance of the wind turbine. This would add valuable data to monitor actual affects of wind turbines on avian species. Most conservation groups generally support the development of wind energy in the United States as an alternative to fossil and nuclear-fueled power plants to meet growing demand for electrical energy. However, concerns have surfaced over the potential threat to birds, bats, and other wildlife from the construction and operation of wind turbine facilities, as well as other “Not In My Back Yard” or NIMBY-related issues, due to the sight and sounds produced by a wind turbine. In 2003, representatives of the wind industry, environmental community, and biological research community agreed that it would be useful to convene a meeting to examine the most current and best data on wind energy impacts to birds and bats; and examine the measures that are and could be employed to minimize or prevent such impacts. The Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts held in Washington, DC on May 18-19, 2004, were reviewed investigating the potential impacts on birds and bats as part of this feasibility study. The event was co-sponsored by The American Wind Energy Association and The American Bird Conservancy.

In summary, the workshop proceedings provided an overview of the current state of the wind industry regarding technology, siting considerations, and environmental assessment standards, and also included background on research methods and results of bird and bat impacts, and wind energy regulation. Excerpts of the aforementioned proceedings are included by reference herein.

A wide variety of bird species have been killed at wind turbine sites. Fatality searches at various wind projects have yielded fatalities of a number of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, including particular species of owls, hawks, and other raptors, sparrows, wrens, warblers, and others. At communication towers (not wind turbines) over 90% of all bird species killed are neo-tropical migrants, with 230 species documented as being killed at such towers. Sixty-four of those neo-tropical migrant species are on the USFWS Birds of Management Concern List. Without management measures they may be listed under the Endangered Species Act in the future. In addition, some endangered bird species have been killed.

Wind energy production may affect birds in three ways: First and the most widely noted, are fatalities resulting from collisions with rotors, towers, power lines, or with other related structures. Electrocution on power lines is also possible. Second, birds may avoid wind turbines and the habitat surrounding them. Third, the direct impacts on bird habitat from the footprint of turbines, roads, power lines, and auxiliary buildings.

Annual per-turbine mortality rates average 1.825 outside the State of California (and the highest recorded per turbine mortality was 7.5 at Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee). There are a number of environmental concerns. One of the key concerns is mortality or other effects on ESA-listed species or Birds of Conservation Concern. Cumulative impacts on species at national and regional scales as well around individual projects, especially large ones, are of concern. One concern regarding research to date is that most of the wind projects that have been monitored for bird impacts are in the West. In the eastern US, locating wind turbines along ridge tops and potentially off-shore are both of concern. Finally, growth in the number of wind turbines and their increasing height, have the potential for more avian impacts.

According to Mr. Gerald Winegrad, with the American Bird Conservancy, the use of guy wires should be avoided, if possible. Transmission lines should be placed underground to minimize project footprint and lighting should be minimized. Implementation of these techniques shall be utilized to minimize the number of avian deaths. Bird deaths at the sites shall also be monitored, to add to the database of bird deaths at wind turbine sites, using scientifically rigorous methods. The number of bird mortalities, species, date and prevailing weather conditions shall be recorded as part of the operations and maintenance plan for the proposed wind turbine facility.

APPENDIX E

VISUAL SIMULATIONS

5

30

31

32

3334

3536

3738

39404142434445464748495051 52

5354

CLOSEST NON-RESIDENTIALSTRUCTURE: 594'

CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL

STRUCTURE: 1,618'

FF AA LL MM OO UU TT HH

MM AA SS HH PP EE EE

UV151

!(28

OLD BARNSTABLE ROAD

OLD

BARN

STAB

LE RO

AD

OLD

BR

ICK

YARD

RO

AD

FALM

OUT

H RO

AD



ALG

ON

QU

IN A

VEN

UE

CAPPAWACK ROAD

SASSACUS ROAD

LEIS

UR

E GR

EE

N DRIV

E

DOVER ROAD

LEAT

HER

LEA

F LA

NE

BOG

RIVER

BEND

SNEA

D

D RIV E

Sound Decibel Isoline Map0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Scale In Feet

³

Legend

5Proposed TurbineLocation

Building Footprint

Site BoundaryTown Boundary

Data Sources:- Town of Mashpee, MA- Weston & Sampson, Inc.- Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs



Noise> 30 dB> 35 dB

> 45 dB> 50 dB> 55 dB> 60 dB

> 40 dB

\\Gisd

s\gis\

DataS

tore\U

nited

State

s\New

Engla

nd\M

A\Ba

rnsta

ble\M

ashp

ee\P

rojec

t\Ren

ewab

le En

ergy

\Figu

re8_

Decib

elMap

.mxd

12/5

/2009

1:05

:11 P

M d

uijve

so

5

5

5

10

250

150

100

5020

5

5

510

20

20

10 50

10

20

10

FF AA LL MM OO UU TT HH

MM AA SS HH PP EE EE

UV151

!(28

!(28

!(28OLD

BARN

STAB

LE RO

ADNIN

IGRET AVE

NU

E

LOWELL ROAD

MOHAWK ROAD

BANK STREET

CAPPAWACK ROAD

JOBS FISHING ROAD

SASSACUS ROAD

LEAT

HER

LEAF

LAN

E

COM

ME

RC

IAL

STRE

ET

CASH'S TRAIL


FALMOUTH

ROAD

ALG

ON

QU

IN A

VE

NU

E

CAYU

GA AV

ENUE

JAMES CIRCLE

INDUSTRIAL DRIVE

MAR

KET

STRE

ET

OLD

B RIC

KYAR

D RO

AD

NEW

BACK

RO

AD

BATE

S ROADH

URO

N AV

ENUE

SOU

TH ST

REE

T

P

ALMER DRIVE

Shadow Flicker Map0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000

Scale In Feet

³

Legend


Site BoundaryTown Boundary

Data Sources:- Weston & Sampson, Inc.- Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs



Shadow Flicker Hours

High : 315.3

Low : 0

Explanation of Data:

This shadow flicker map represents thetotal shadow flicker hours per year,based on a worst case scenario, whichunrealistically assumes the sun alwaysshining from sunrise to sunset (no cloudcover), the turbine always running, andthe rotor oriented perpendicular toviewpoint (maximum shadow cast). Areal case scenario will therefore showless shadow flicker hours per year.

\\Gisd

s\gis\

DataS

tore\U

nited

State

s\New

Engla

nd\M

A\Ba

rnsta

ble\M

ashp

ee\P

rojec

t\Ren

ewab

le En

ergy

\Figu

re9_

Shad

owFli

cker

Map_

revis

ed01

1910

.mxd

2/9/

2010

9:52

:00 A

M d

uijve

so

!

FALLZONE: 318.2' DIA.

PROPOSED NORDIC N-1000 WINDTURBINE WITH 70m HUB HEIGHT

PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD

PROPOSED 40' x 40'CRANE PAD WITHFENCE AND GATE

ROTOR DIA.: 177.1'

NEW PAD-MOUNTTRANSFORMER

PROPOSED UNDERGROUNDELECTRICAL DUCTBANK

PROPOSED POINT OF ELECTRICALINTERCONNECTION AT POLE 34/21

477.3' (1.5x STRUCTUREHEIGHT) OFFSET FROMPOWER LINE EASEMENT

POWER LINE EASEMENT

49

49

4 9

49

49

49

49

49

UV151

LEISURE GREEN DRIVE

AMOS CIRCLE

ATLANTIC COURTSOUTHPORT DRIVE

OLD BA

RNST

ABLE

ROAD


FIGURE 10MASHPEE HIGH SCHOOL - MASHPEE, MA

WIND ENERGY FACILITY

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANJANUARY 2010 SCALE: NOTED

³

300 0 300

Scale In Feet

Legend10' ContoursOffset from Power Line EasementBuildings

Paved RoadUnpaved RoadParking area

\\Gisd

s\gis\D

ataSto

re\Un

itedSta

tes\Ne

wEngl

and\MA

\Barns

table\M

ashpee

\Proje

ct\Rene

wable

Energ

y\Figu

re10_C

oncep

tual_S

ite_Pla

n.mxd

1/21

/2010

9:56:1

3 AM

duijve

so

Data Sources:- Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs- Town of Mashpee- Weston & Sampson

5

55

10

1B

1A

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UV151

UV151

!(28

!(28

!(28

GRE

ENE

STRE

ETOAK

STRE

ET

BANK STREET

RIV

ER

RUN

SASSACUS ROAD

WAGS ROAD

FERNGULLY PASS

SACHEM ROAD

NORTH STREET

DONNAS LANE

AMO

S CIRCLE

ALG

ON

QU

IN A

VE

NU

E

ATLANTIC COURT

CORBITANT ROAD

FOUNTAIN STREET

SAGAMORE ROAD

WA

MP

AN

OA

G A

VE

NU

EMA

SS

AS

OI T

AV

EN

UE

MO

HIC

AN

AV

ENU

E

OLD

BR

ICK

YA

RD

RO

AD

LEIS

URE

GREEN

DRIVE

MILLER FARM ROAD

HO

GA

N D

RIVE

CAPPAWACK ROAD

NOHONO ROAD FRANK E HICKS DRIVE

NINIGRET AVENUE

MAR

KET

STRE

ET

QU

ASHNET W

OO

DS DRIVE

JOBS FISHING ROAD

HOBOMOCK ROAD

BATES ROAD

PINE HILL BOULEVARD

SOU

TH ST

REE

T

GR

ANT

BREE

N DR

IVE

BOG RIVER BEND

SNEA

D DRIVE

STEEPLE STREET

SOUTHPORT DRIVE

WAMPANOAG

DRIVE

LEAT

HER

LEA

F LA

NE

RYANS W

AY

SHELLBA

CK W

AYFA

LMO

UTH

ROAD

OLD BARNSTABLE ROAD

COMMERCIAL STREET


600 0 600

Scale In Feet

TOWN OF MASHPEE, MAWIND ENERGY FACILITY

PHOTOGRAPHY KEY MAP

DECEMBER 2009 SCALE: NOTED

\\Gisds\gis\DataStore\UnitedStates\NewEngland\MA\Barnstable\Mashpee\Project\Renewable Energy\Photography Key Map_11x17_revised.mxd 1/26/2010 4:38:16 PM duijveso

Location Number Location Description Camera Distance to WTG (Feet) WTG Visible?1A View from the north end of the H.S. football field 1,027 Yes1B View from the north end of the H.S. tennis courts 818 Yes2 View from Deer Crossing between buildings Q and R 2,745 No3 View from the northwest corner of Old Barnstable Rd. and Rt. 151 2,118 No4 View from west side of Old Barnstable Rd. across from #570 1,689 No5 View from the Southport Clubhouse parking lot 3,390 No6 View from the north side of Pine Hill Blvd. across from Pacific Ave. 3,523 No7 View from Christ the King parking lot 3,826 No8 View from intersection of Bog River Bend and Fern Gully Pass 3,164 No9 View from intersection of Bog River Bend and Miller Farm Rd. 3,131 No10 View from Leather Leaf Lane looking east on NStar electric easement 3,366 Yes

Vantage Point 1A - Fully RenderedView from the north end of the high school football field

Vantage Point 1B - Fully RenderedView from north end of the high school tennis courts

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 1A - Fully RenderedView from the north end of the high school football field

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 1B - Fully RenderedView from north end of the high school tennis courts

Vantage Point 2 - WireframeView from Deer Crossing between buildings Q and R

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 3 - WireframeView from the northwest corner of Old Barnstable Road and Rt. 151

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 4 - WireframeView from west side of Old Barnstable Road across from #570

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 5 - WireframeView from the Southport Clubhouse parking lot

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 6 - WireframeView from the north side of Pine Hill Blvd. across from Pacific Ave.

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 7 - WireframeView from Christ the King parking lot

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 8 - WireframeView from intersection of Bog River Bend and Fern Gully Pass

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 9 - WireframeView from intersection of Bog River Bend and Miller Farm Road

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 10 - Fully RenderedView from Leather Leaf Lane looking east on NStar electric easement

Visual Simulation

Vantage Point 10 - WireframeView from Leather Leaf Lane looking east on NStar electric easement

APPENDIX F

SELECTED TURBINE SPECIFICATIONS

Home | Careers | Media | Photo Gallery | Contact us

Company Profile History Philosophy CMD's Brief Biography CMD's Desk Awards Vision Reflections Strengths Certificates Goal

Concept : Principle & Mechanism Advantages Long Term Energy Sustainability & Security Wind Power Development in India Wind Resources & Potential in India

Pawan Shakthi PS-600 kW Clean Development Mechanism

Purpose Objective Procedure for establishing a Wind Farm Project Planning Project Execution as per standard specifications

Policies Wallpapers

Pawan Shakthi PS-600 kW

Technical Data

Schematic Diagram

Power Curve

Clean Development Mechanism

Contact Us

Name

Company Name

Question / Comments


Proven Performance At RRB Energy Limited (RRBEL) we spend a lot of time on testing and documenting the performance of our Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) in order to ensure that our WEGs meet the very highest requirement with regard to energy production, availability factor, power quality and sound levels.

We prove what we claim RRBEL has repeatedly demonstrated that its wind turbines are matchless and are in a class of their own. RRBEL turbines are based on the world's best, most modern and proven technology in the field of Wind Energy. Repeat orders of customers, based on our proven performance, espouses their confidence in us. When you buy a RRBEL Wind Turbine you surely feel proud to own one of the World's best engineered Wind Electric Generator.

Features & Benefits

Home | Careers | Media | Photo Gallery | Contact us

Company Profile History Philosophy CMD's Brief Biography CMD's Desk Awards Vision Reflections Strengths Certificates Goal

Concept : Principle & Mechanism Advantages Long Term Energy Sustainability & Security Wind Power Development in India Wind Resources & Potential in India

Pawan Shakthi PS-600 kW Clean Development Mechanism

Purpose Objective Procedure for establishing a Wind Farm Project Planning Project Execution as per standard specifications

Policies Wallpapers


Technical Data

Schematic Diagram

Power Curve

Clean Development Mechanism

Contact Us

Name

Company Name

Question / Comments

Technical Data Details Pawan Shakthi-600 kW

Overall Data

Cut in wind speed 4 m/s

Cut out wind speed 25 m/s

Survival wind speed 70 m/s

Tip speed 64 m/s

Rotor speed 26.2 rpm

Hub height 50 m / 65 m

Nacelle tilt angle 5º

Regulation Pitch

Gearbox Type Planetary / Helical

Gear Ratio 1 : 58.2

No of steps 3

Generator Rated power output 600 kW

Type Single Wound Asynchronous

Voltage 690 V

Revolutions 1527 rpm

Frequency 50 Hz

Tower Type Lattice

Height (Optional) 48.1 m / 63.1 m

Material Steel

Sections 6/9

Nacelle Cover Fiber glass

Reinforced Polyester

Rotor No of blades 3

Diameter 47m

Swept area 1735 m2

Power regulation Pitch regulated Brake System Aerodynamics Full feathering of blade

Mechanical Disc Brake

Yaw System Slewing system with gear motors yawing

Controls Microprocessor based

Copyright RRB Energy Limited. All rights reserved. Numbers of visitors : 10791 Updated as on: 1 October 2009.

750kW Wind Turbine

225kW Wind Turbine

Contact Info.

About Norwin NA

Press Releases

Downloads

Pictures

Videos

Home

Turbine Wind Power

Pictures

Links http://www.norwin.dk/ http://www.awea.org/

NORWIN 46/47-ASR-600 kW/750 kW

MAIN FEATURES OF DESIGN

Norwin 46/47-ASR-600/750 is an ASR regulated wind turbine with a rotor diameter of 46 or 47 m. The turbine uses LM 21.0P blades, which is the latest technological development from LM Glasfiber. The blades can be feathered to obtain optimal operational conditions at both at low and high wind speed. This system together with our intelligent control we call ASR - Active Stall Regulation.

ASR - Active Stall Regulation

The ASR wind turbines utilize the best things from both the stall- and the pitch regulated wind turbines. The ASR turbine has the same regulation possibilities as the pitch regulated turbine, but by using the stall properties of the blades the large load and power fluctuations that are typical for a pitch regulated machine is avoided.

Why ASR? By using ASR a lot of advantages are gained that a normal stall regulated wind turbine cannot offer:

• ASR will generally give a higher production because the blade angle is optimized according to the actual wind speed.

• At high wind speed the power is stabilized because problems with air density changes, double-stall and change in grid frequency are eliminated. This means that stand still due to overproduction is avoided, and that the loads on individual components, i.e. gearbox and generator is minimized, resulting in a longer lifetime.

• The possibility of feathering the blades at extreme wind speeds means that the characteristic extreme loads are decreased compared to a normal stall regulated turbine.

• It is possible for the turbine to down-regulate the produced power if the local grid has high loading. However, this demands a special unit for grid surveillance.

• With blade regulation it is possible to make a much smoother cut-in to the grid at startup, and cut-out at shut down. This will give much less noise on the grid in these situations and at the same time extend the lifetime of the turbine.

• The possibility of reducing the power by feathering of the blades

means that the switch over between the small and the large generator is taking place in a quiet and gentle manner.

The ASR system is under constant development and optimization i.e. through R&D activities supported by The Danish Energy Agency and the European Commission.

ASR and the future! The wind turbine manufacturers know that the future in design of more efficient and more reliable wind turbines lies in the development of better control strategies and more effective blades. Using ASR the NORWIN turbine is in front in both areas - today and in the future. With the wind turbine as the centre, a long-term research and development program on the ASR controller is being conducted. Some of this work is made with co-financial support from the European Commission's R&D programmes. It is worth noting that not only the next generations of NORWIN turbines will benefit from this work. The wind turbines produced today can be upgraded with newer versions of 'intelligence'. Brief descriptions of development work:

Power Optimisation: The controller is developed to self-optimise the blade angle control for wind speeds below rated power. The main benefits are that no costly work and interference from personnel is needed during the process of pitch angle optimisation and that it is ensured that the turbine runs in the most optimal configuration. Practical tests have shown an energy production increase of more than 1%, after running a test version of the power optimisation system.

Load control: The load on a wind turbine can vary a lot from site to site and development work is being conducted to develop a Load Control system where the turbine is not only controlled to reach the nominal power, but also is controlled according to the loading history. The objective of using such a system is to ensure the projected lifetime of major components or to enable us to use these to a maximum within the projected lifetime. The first phase of this work has been finalised, with the development of the fundamental control scheme for gearbox load control.

Laser Wind Measurements: In co-operation with the National Institute of Risø and others, the development of a laser-based device for measuring of the wind speed before it reaches the wind turbine and a control strategy to utilise this knowledge is being conducted. The potential of the system is to increase the turbine efficiency and reduce the loading by taking advantage of the knowledge about the incoming wind. Further the system could make it easier to make power curve measurements.

We do not stop here! The blades have a crucial influence on the wind turbine performance and despite the fact we use some of the most modern and optimised blades we would like to do it even better in the future. For this reason NORWIN is participating in a project developing a blade especially made for optimal performance with the ASR control strategy. This means that the basic principles of ASR were taken into consideration when designing the blade. The first test set is now running on a NORWIN turbine. The work is supported by The Danish Energy Agency funds for Developing Renewable Energy.

Not all is new!

By using standard components both we and our customers gain two great advantages: You are guaranteed to get a well tested product and the customer is assured that spare parts will be available in 15 years, if it should be necessary. Examples on relatively standardised parts are: Gear, generator, main bearing, blade bearings, yaw bearing, yaw gearing, control modules and so on. It takes experience and knowledge about wind turbine technology to choose the right components and to combine these with the specially designed parts that a modern wind turbine also consists of in a way to achieve a product of high quality. That is why the 19 years of experience in construction and maintenance of wind turbines has been used in the development of the NORWIN 46-ASR-600 kW / 750 kW wind turbines.

Features of Design

Rotor: The blades are made by LM Glasfiber A/S. Each blade is mounted on an extender, - mounted on a four-point ball bearing,- mounted on the hub. Each blade has stays connected to the pitch mechanism inside the hub so that all three blades acts simultaneously when pitching. The pitch actuator is a hydraulic cylinder placed inside the hub. The hub is mounted to the forged flange of the main shaft with bolts.

Main frame: The main frame is a relatively flat welded design, which provides access from the tower to the nacelle directly through a manhole in the frame.

Shaft, bearing and gearbox arrangement: The rotor, shaft and gearbox arrangement is designed to be highly flexible for movements in the yaw and tilt directions. The main shaft is connected to the main frame at the front with a roller bearing and a bearing truss. The main bearing absorbs the axial loads of the rotor. The rear bearing is integrated in the gearbox, which is connected on both sides to the main frame with a support including a rubber element. In this way the system is supported at 3 places, making the forces run smoothly from the rotor and into the tower. A large cooler with external fan cools the gear oil while the oil is passing through a 10 micron filtering unit.

Generator arrangement: The generator is mounted to the main frame behind the gear opposite to the main shaft and connected to the gear via a flexible coupling. The standard generator is an asynchronous double-wound, induction generator. Casing IP54. The isolation is in accordance with classification F, utilization with classification B.

Blade turning system: The blade turning mechanism is placed inside the hub. The actuator is a hydraulic cylinder, supplied by either a hydraulic power package, including a proportional valve, placed in the nacelle for normal operation, or a accumulator system placed in the hub, for emergency operations. The position transducer is placed in the hub parallel to the cylinder. The power and control package has been placed in the hub, to insure that the system is easy to adjust and service. The hydraulic control lines from the power package to the hub, is transferred through a rotating union placed on the back of the gearbox. The necessary electrical control lines are transmitted through slip-rings also placed on the back of the gearbox. In an emergency situation, the primary supply of hydraulic pressure will come from hydraulic accumulators placed inside the hub. Placed here, the system is well protected against a fire in the nacelle, and the system will also work in case of a complete pressure drop in the

power package. The power package including separate accumulator will serve as a secondary safety system.

Braking system: The mechanical safety brake is mounted on the high-speed shaft of the gearbox. The ‘fail safe’ spring type disk brake is activated instantly in an emergency situation. In the normal situation the mechanical brake is only used to hold the rotor, after the blades have brought it to stop. Hereby, heavy loads on the gearbox are avoided during braking. Activating the pitch system allows aerodynamic braking. At normal braking the blades are pitched to 20° to take the power from the rotor and slowly decrease the rotational speed. A while after the rotor has stopped the blades will return to the nominal position, to be ready for operation. During emergency braking the blades are feathered, to make it impossible for the rotor to catch speed even in an extreme wind situation, and at the same time to decrease the thrust on the rotor. When the blades are pitched to -85° the mechanical brake is retracted so that the rotor is able to run free. This is done to prevent high loads in the transmission system at extreme wind situations. Running free in the emergency pitch angle position the rotor will rotate slowly with a speed of up to 2 rpm.

Yaw system: The yaw system is a combined yaw brake and active yawing system designed in a very flexible manner so that it is possible to add additional yaw brakes or motors if the turbine is to be erected on a very rough site. The connection between the nacelle and the tower is through a four-point ball bearing. The yaw drives are electrical driven standard units consisting of an electrical motor with brake included, a helical and a planetary gear. The number of yaw drives can be determined by the conditions on the site but is normally 4. Apart from the brakes in the yaw drives, a hydraulic actuated disk brake system with a number of positive brake caliber's is used. This system has a separate warning system for leakage. The yaw drives are actuated through soft starters, to equalize the torque between the motors, and to prevent a high peak torque in the starting situation.

Nacelle and cooling: The nacelle is made of glass fiber with steel reinforcements, and mounted to the main frame with steel supports through rubber dampers. The nacelle will provide standing height so that servicing may take place in protected surroundings. Noise reducing ventilating ducts are integrated. Cooling and ventilation are controlled for nacelle, gearbox, and generator. Through control of the cooling air to and from the gear and the generator, the nacelle temperature will generally be kept at a minimum of 7°C above outside temperature, thus preventing condensation and thereby corrosion.

Tower: The tower is a closed, conical tube tower fabricated in steel with a door at the bottom of the tower, and internal ladder and platforms at the tower connections to ease service at the connections points.

Controller: The main control panel is placed at the bottom of the tower. With the possibility of adjusting selected parameters, authorized personnel can change operational limits of the turbine directly on the front panel. A stationary or portable additional control panel can be mounted

and connected to the top box in the nacelle for manual control of the turbine, when servicing. A battery back up system supplies the emergency light. Safety surveillance will monitor possible faults in the turbine and, if necessary, bring the turbine to a standstill. Should the turbine come to a standstill due to some unacceptable conditions, it will start up automatically when proper conditions have been restored, e.g., after grid failure. When faults require service, the turbine will not be able to start up again until the fault has been corrected. One of the special features of the turbine is that it has a number of back-up functions built in, and that the controller utilizes the possibility to operate the turbine even if a secondary system has broken down. This system increases the availability and makes it easier to schedule service of the turbine. If such an error appears a message will appear on the screen and on a remote monitoring device. The turbine is equipped with an external emergency system, working independently from the electronic control system supervising speed of rotor, nacelle vibrations and manual emergency push buttons. A circuit breaker is installed in the power section, disconnecting the turbine from the grid in case of overload current or short circuit current.

Noise: According to experience, the high-speed shaft of the gearbox and the rotor itself are the sources of eventual noise problems from wind turbines. The rotor is the main source for broad-spectrum noise, where the main problem with the gear is pure tones. The gears used in the turbine are designed from state of the art knowledge about how to build low noise gears, and further, each gear is tested for noise and vibration before accepted and installed into the turbine. Ventilation air through the nacelle will go through noise damped ducts, damping the air borne noise. 1. Rotor system 2. Transmission 3. Yaw system and mainframe 4. Nacelle cover 5. Tower 6. Hydraulic station (not shown) 7. Generator 8. Pitch system

NORWIN 47-ASR-750 kWPower Curve and Energy Production, ro = 1.225

The power curve is for our 750 kW turbine, with a rotor diameter of 47, double generator and featuringActive Stall Regulation. A system that among others compensate for the natural variations of the stalllevel due to variations in air density and pollution of the blades.The power curve is valid for: 1.225 kg/m3 air density, clean blades and undisturbed horizontal indflow.

Wind speed [m/s]

Elect. power [kW]

3 44 245 526 917 1528 2349 33210 44011 54012 63513 71414 74015 75016 75017 75018 75019 75020 75021 75022 750

The annual energy production is calculated for different annual mean wind 23 750speed in hub height. 24 750A Rayleigh wind speed distribution and 100 % availability is assumed 25 750


0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Wind Speed [m/s]

Elec

trica

l pow

er [k

W]

471

901

1419

1959

2472

2921

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

4 5 6 7 8 9Annual mean wind speed [m/s]

Ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n [M

Wh]

NORWIN 47-ASR-750 kWPower Curve and Energy Production, ro = 1.225

The power curve is for our 750 kW turbine, with a rotor diameter of 47, double generator and featuringActive Stall Regulation. A system that among others compensate for the natural variations of the stalllevel due to variations in air density and pollution of the blades.The power curve is valid for: 1.225 kg/m3 air density, clean blades and undisturbed horizontal indflow.

Wind speed [mph]

Elect. power [kW]

7 68 159 2410 3611 5012 6513 8214 10515 13216 16417 19918 23819 28020 32621 37322 42123 46824 51325 55726 600

The annual energy production is calculated for different annual mean wind 27 641speed in hub height. 28 679A Rayleigh wind speed distribution and 100 % availability is assumed 29 711

30 72931 73732 74433 74834 75035 75036 75037 75038 75039 75040 75041 750. .. .

56 750


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56

Wind Speed [mph]

Elec

trica

l pow

er [k

W]

471

901

1419

1959

2472

2921

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

8.95 11.18 13.42 15.66 17.90 20.13Annual mean wind speed [mph]

Ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n [M

Wh]

© Copyright 2008, Nordic Windpower Ltd.

N1000 Technical Data

Air brake Turnable blade tipsActivation/deactivation Centrifugal force/hydraulics

Mechanical brake Disc brake with two calipersActivation/deactivation Springs/hydraulic pressure

Type 2 planetary & 1 stage helical,integrated turbine bearings

Gear ratio 1:87Cooling Heat exchanger

Type of bearing Rolling bearingDrive Hydraulic motors with

planetary gearboxes

Type Welded steel tube, paintedHub height 70 m standard Diameter top/bottom 1.9/3.0 m

Distributed control systemIEC 61131-3 compliant turbine controllerSCADA system

Nominal power 1,000 kWRated wind speed 16 m/sOperational range 4-25 m/s, 4-22 m/s Extreme wind speed 55 m/s (standard)Control principle Stall

Turbine diameter 54 m, 59 mOrientation UpwindRotational speed 25 rpm, 1.5 rpmBlade tip speed 71 m/s, 66 m/sBlade material GRP / CarbonType of hub TeeterTeeter bearing ElastomericMaximum teeter ±2°

Type of generator 4-pole inductionRating 1,000 kW Voltage 600 V / 690 V Protection NEMA3 / IP54 Cooling Liquid (glycol-water)Power factor 0.98 at 100% power

WIND TURBINE

GENERAL

GENERATOR - 600V & NEMA 3 are options

BRAKING SYSTEM

GEARBOX

TOWER

CONTROL SYSTEM

YAW SYSTEM

Light & Flexible Design

Greater Reliability

& Lower Cost

N1000 1-MW TURBINES

North American headquarters:125 University Avenue, Second Floor,Berkeley, CA 94710, USAtel: +1 510 665 9463 fax: +1 510 665 9466

US assembly plant:Building 36, 669 W. Quinn Road, Pocatello, ID 83201

UK technology office:2430 The Quadrant, Azrec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4AQ, United Kingdom

Registered office:100 New Bridge Street,London EC4V 6JA, United Kingdom

email: [email protected]

www.nordicwindpower.com

Simple light-weight design: Low capital cost

Demonstratedreliability:

Easy, inexpensivemaintenance

Low drive trainloading:

Exceptionallyhigh reliability

DNV certification,strong track record:

Lender & investoracceptance

Reduced weight &crane time, ground-based assembly:

Inexpensiveinstallation

The N1000 1-MW turbine implements a lighter, sim-pler design than traditional wind turbines, providing a lower overall cost of energy and greater reliability.

In traditional turbine design, the amount of construc-tion material is proportional to the anticipated wind loads. The N1000’s revolutionary “flexible design” evens out the impact of turbulence and wind shear without adding material and weight. This patented design approach is based on precise calculations of the eigenfrequency oscillations of the entire system and configures the turbine so that high component loads never occur.

The result is a turbine that is both lighter and more reliable. In fact, Nordic’s turbines have performed at 98% reliability, with no major component failures, for up to ten years. They have provided more than 100,000 hours of trouble-free operation in normal and extreme wind conditions.

Principle Ideas of Design

The two-blade design greatlysimplifies construction. Unlike three-blade turbines, the two blades are attached before lifting the nacelle. In addition, ground assembly is much

safer, faster, and easier to QA. And with the rotor attached, the nacelle can be lifted at higher wind speeds, reducing weather delays.

Reduced component complexity and a roomy nacelle interior (.8-meter wide passage around the machinery)make service and maintenance much easier.

Easy to Install& Service

BladesA two-blade system minimizes loads and costs. Two blades allow the use of a damped teeter hub to dissipate wind loads on the gearbox and drive-train, virtually eliminating fatigue issues and providing significantly longer service life and trouble-free operation.

Because of reduced fatigue loading, the design can focus on extreme conditions. Stall control for limiting power in high wind reduces drive train loads and lowers system cost. For shutdown, unique tip brakes pivot the tip of the blade. And as an added safety feature, the hydraulic system activates passively.

Yaw System The N1000 passively orients to the wind without using the yaw drives, something that 3-bladed turbines do not do. By using the whole swept area to determine wind direction, the N1000 achieves truer instantaneous orientation than conventional turbines. The hydraulic yaw motors provide damping for smooth opera-tion and for reducing tower loads and oscillations. The system needs no expensive yaw brakes.

Gearbox and Drive train A key component of turbine reliability is gearbox survivability. N1000 gearboxes show exceptionally low wear, even after many years of operation. Many design features reduce gearbox loading:

The reduced hub weight reduces load on the drive train.

The teeter-hub dissipates loads harmlessly before they reach the gearbox.

The main drive-shaft bearings are integrated into the proprietary gearbox design for greater strength.

An integrated cylindrical machinery housing locks the gearbox, drive shaft and generator into one lightweight, robust load-absorbing unit.

Tower Because of the flexible, lightweight turbine design,the tower is lighter than those needed for heavier turbines. Overall, the N1000—including tower, nacelle and blades—is up to 40% lighter than other turbines with the same output.

© Copyright 2008, Nordic Windpower Ltd.

N1000 Technical Data

Air brake Turnable blade tipsActivation/deactivation Centrifugal force/hydraulics

Mechanical brake Disc brake with two calipersActivation/deactivation Springs/hydraulic pressure

Type 2 planetary & 1 stage helical,integrated turbine bearings

Gear ratio 1:87Cooling Heat exchanger

Type of bearing Rolling bearingDrive Hydraulic motors with

planetary gearboxes

Type Welded steel tube, paintedHub height 70 m standard Diameter top/bottom 1.9/3.0 m

Distributed control systemIEC 61131-3 compliant turbine controllerSCADA system

Nominal power 1,000 kWRated wind speed 16 m/sOperational range 4-25 m/s, 4-22 m/s Extreme wind speed 55 m/s (standard)Control principle Stall

Turbine diameter 54 m, 59 mOrientation UpwindRotational speed 25 rpm, 1.5 rpmBlade tip speed 71 m/s, 66 m/sBlade material GRP / CarbonType of hub TeeterTeeter bearing ElastomericMaximum teeter ±2°

Type of generator 4-pole inductionRating 1,000 kW Voltage 600 V / 690 V Protection NEMA3 / IP54 Cooling Liquid (glycol-water)Power factor 0.98 at 100% power

WIND TURBINE

GENERAL

GENERATOR - 600V & NEMA 3 are options

BRAKING SYSTEM

GEARBOX

TOWER

CONTROL SYSTEM

YAW SYSTEM

Light & Flexible Design

Greater Reliability

& Lower Cost

N1000 1-MW TURBINES

North American headquarters:125 University Avenue, Second Floor,Berkeley, CA 94710, USAtel: +1 510 665 9463 fax: +1 510 665 9466

US assembly plant:Building 36, 669 W. Quinn Road, Pocatello, ID 83201

UK technology office:2430 The Quadrant, Azrec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4AQ, United Kingdom

Registered office:100 New Bridge Street,London EC4V 6JA, United Kingdom

email: [email protected]

www.nordicwindpower.com

2.500 kW - 1.500 kW

FL 2500 FL 1500 FL MD 70/77

www.friendly-energy.de

Englisch

Fuhrländer wind turbines

Fuhrländer AG established itself a long time ago as inter-

national partner for the realisation of turnkey wind parks

including grid connection via a substation. We are happy to

make our experience from a multitude of different projects

available to our customers.

Each location makes different demands to a wind park

planner. Legal regulations, specifics of grid connection, feed

options, financing and much more must be coordinated.

High flexibility and individual handling from planning to

construction to the start up of operation of the turbines

characterise our activities and lead to optimum results.

Turnkey wind parks

Wind turbines are technically complex systems made

up of a variety of mechanical, electrical, electronic and

hydraulic components. Fuhrländer developed FLAGserv as

an Internet based communications platform, which also

functions independently from manufacturers, to maximize

the technical availability of our robust wind turbines and to

recognise potential faults in the preliminary stages. Further-

more the FL system provides the best possible conditions for

documenting data for operation managers, investors and

manufacturers.

If faults occur, the wind turbines automatically generate a

message to the Fuhrländer data server which informs our

FLAGserv for maximum operational safety

service team online. This allows rapid response and target

orientated service activity which puts the wind turbine back

on the grid as fast as possible. This condition monitoring

allows maintenance with foresight and contributes to the

value creation of the turbines.

This means a gain in availability and profitability of the

turbine for the investor. The type specific insurance of the

reliable FL turbines also supports this concept.

As a pioneer of wind energy utilisation in

Germany and a group-independent manufacturer

of wind turbines, Fuhrländer has focused

its operations towards robust system concepts

for more than 15 years. At present turbines range

from 30 kW to 2,5 MW. We are constantly

Friendly EnergyFriendly World

gaining valuable experience due to the close links between

development, manufacturing and service. Our customers

benefit from sound investments in wind turbines with a high

technical availability. Even at difficult locations our wind

farms demonstrate their strengths, in reliability and

operational safety. People are the focus of our actions in

dealing with customers, suppliers and partners. Support

instead of dominance – that is our motto.

Friendly energy is more than merely utilising environmentally

compatible energy. It means hope and a future characterised

by training, work and added value on site.

FL 2500

1

2

356

7

4

The new 2,5-MW turbine with variable speeds sets

benchmarks: due to the possible rotor blade sizes of

80, 90 und 100 m it can be harmonized with all

locations and wind conditions in the best possible way.

Tubular towers of 65, 85 and 100 m as well as lattice

towers of up to 160 m create the prerequisite for

a high economic efficiency and reliability as to the

production of wind power. Thanks to the high hub

heights inland locations, e.g. in woodlands, can also be

developed even more economically.

The innovative driving conception with the large roller

bearing, the shaft coupling and the compact gear unit

provides for more safety and a longer life. The same

applies to the especially designed hub with its closed

operating room.

Thanks to the crane concept permitting the replace-

ment of all main components without an expensive

truck-mounted crane the mounting and operating

cost can be reduced.

Power: 2.5 MW

Rotor: Ø 80/90/100 m

Tower heights:

65*/ 85* m (with 80 m Rotor, IEC Ia)

85*/100*/117**/141**/160** m (with 90 m Rotor, IEC IIa)

85*/100*/117**/141**/160** m (with 100 m Rotor, IEC IIIa)

* tubular tower ** lattice tower

FL 2500: Even more economic efficiency

3 Direct passageway between nacelle and hub

1 Adjustment of individual blades by means of lithium ion accumulators

7 Underfloor area for lubricating and cooling systems

5 Silicone oil transformer in the nacelle

2 Large roller bearings to avoid the effects of axial and radial forces on the gear unit

4 Crane system for the replace-ment of all main components

Subj

ect t

o te

chni

cal a

ltera

tions

. Dat

a ca

n va

ry d

epen

ding

on

com

pone

nts.

Subject to technical alterations. Data can vary depending on components.

6 Fire detection and fire extinguishing system

10 10’733’000 11’918’0009.5 10’083’000 11’289’0009.0 9’363’000 10’581’000 11’900’0008.5 8’580’000 9’800’000 11’144’0008.0 7’745’000 8’950’000 10’307’0007.5 6’868’000 8,039’000 9’393’0007.0 5’964’000 7’081’000 8’409’0006.5 5’052’000 6’088’000 7’365’0006.0 4’154’000 5’083’000 6’277’0005.5 3’295’000 4’093’000 5’170’0005.0 2’502’000 3’150’000 4’080’000

Medium wind speed at hub height [m/s]

80 m Rotor Annual yield

[kWh]


[kWh]


[kWh]

Yields calculated to IEC 61400-12

Wind speed [m/s]

Output [kW]

Power curve FL 2500 (theoretical)

80 m Rotor

90 m Rotor

100 m Rotor

Diameter 80/90/100 m

Surface area 5‘027 / 6‘362 / 7‘854 m2

No. of blades 3

Speed 11.7 ... 20.4 / 10.4 ... 18.1 / 9.4 ... 17.1 min-1

Power control pitch

Rotor

Design Combined spur wheel/planet

Stages 3

Multiplication 1:64.3 / 1:72.3 / 1:79.6 (50 Hz)

Hub height 65*/85*/100*/117**/141**/160**m

Design *tubular tower**lattice tower*

Sound output level(theoretical)

80 m Rotor (on request)90 m Rotor 104.6*/104.11**dB (A)100 m Rotor 105.1*/ 104.6** dB (A) (*tubular tower, **lattice tower)

Speed control Electrical pitch system

Yawing control 4 gear motors

Main brake independant triple pitch system

2nd Brake system Hydraulic disk brake

Monitoring Fixed network/radio/Vabera

Rotor 48‘000 / 50‘000 kg

Nacelle 96‘000 kg

Tower 170‘000 kg ... 350‘000 kg

Rated output 2,500 kW

at 14.5 m/s; 13 m/s; 11.5 m/sStart wind 3.5 ... 4 m/s

Stop wind 25 m/s

Survival speed (3-seconds mean)

70 / 59.5 / 52.5 m/s

Power

Weights

Control

Sound

Tower

Gear

Design Asynchronous machine with slip ring motor

Speed 750 ... 1310 min-1 (50 Hz)

Voltage (frequency)Converter system

690 V (50/60 Hz)Indirect converter with DC vol-tage intermediate circuit

Generator

FL 1500

1

2 3

56

4

Fuhrländer expanded its megawatt class by a

compact, pitch controlled turbine, the FL 1500. The

turbine adapts to coastal and interior locations due to

its different hub heights and two different rotor sizes.

Its individual blade adjustment via maintenance-free

AC-motors and the integrated free running provide

high operational safety. The intelligent torque control

ensures a constantly high release of power to the long

live, double-fed three phase generator.

Power: 1.5 MW

Rotor: Ø 70/77 m

Tower heights:

65 / 100 m (mit 70 m Rotor)

61,5 / 100 m (mit 77 m Rotor)

FL 1500: The compact turbine for all situations

Subj

ect t

o te

chni

cal a

ltera

tions

. Dat

a ca

n va

ry d

epen

ding

on

com

pone

nts.


4 Variable speed, double-fed asynchronous generator for high profitability

5 Robust and compact machine support with sound decoupling for the main components

6 Four azimuth driving motors for safe and stable wind direction tracking

3 Disk brake as 2nd safety system

2 Combined planet spur wheel gear for high effec-tiveness

1 High security due to individual blade adjustment

Wind speed [m/s]

Output [kW]

Power curve FL 1500 (70 m measured / 77 m theoretical)

77 m Rotor

70 m Rotor

8.5 6’195’0008.0 5’699’0007.5 5’122’500 5’296’0007.0 4’546’000 4’735’0006.5 3’919’500 4’131’0006.0 3’293’000 3’502’0005.5 2’675’500 2’867’0005.0 2’058’000 2’251’0004.5 1’542’500 1’683’0004 1’027’000 1’188’000


70 m RotorAnnual yield

[kWh]

77 m RotorAnnual yield

[kWh]

Diameter 70 m / 77 m

Surface area 3‘848 m2 / 4‘657 m2

No. of blades 3

Speed 11-22 / 9.7-19 min-1

Power control pitch

Rotor


Stages 3

Multiplication 1:90.038 / 1:104.125

Hub height 61.5/65/100/114.5 m

Design tubular tower

Sound output level 103.3 / 104 dB (A)Measurement of 02.07.03

Speed control Microprocessors


Main brake Blade angle adjustment

2nd brake system Disk brake


Rotor 32‘500 / 34‘000 kg

Nacelle 51‘000 kg

Tower 93‘000...260‘000 kg


at 12 / 11 m/sStart wind 3.0 m/s

Stop wind 25 / 20 m/s

Survival speed 59.5 / 52.5 m/s

Power

Weights

Control

Sound

Tower

Gear

Design Double-fed three-phase asynchronous machine

Speed 1000...1800 min-1


690 V (50/60 Hz)Puls-width modulated IGBT

Generator

FL MD 70/77

1

23

56

4

The field-proven concept of the FL MD 70/77 with

individual blade adjustment and double-fed

asynchronous generator as well as its large rotor

stands side by side with the 2 MW-class. Rotors with

70 and 77 m diameters and different tower heights

up to more than 100 m allow the optimum adapta-

tion to each location. Robust machine construction in

combination with the latest control technology and

experienced engineering set standards in this class in

terms of profitability and reliability.

Therefore, more and more investors are enthusiastic

about the FL MD 70/77, which Fuhrländer already

exported to countries such as Portugal, Hungary and

Japan, also in a 60-Hz version.

Power: 1.5 MW

Rotor: Ø 70 m

Tower heights: 65*/ 80*/ 85*/ 114,5**m

Rotor: Ø 77 m

Tower heights: 61,5*/ 85*/ 100*/ 111,5** m

*tubular tower **lattice tower

FL MD 70/77: A concept sets standards

Subj

ect t

o te

chni

cal a

ltera

tions

. Dat

a ca

n va

ry d

epen

ding

on

com

pone

nts.


4 Variable speed, double-fed asynchronous generator for high profitability

5 Robust and compact machine support with sound decoupling for the main components

6 Four azimuth driving motorsfor safe and stable wind direction tracking

3 Large disk brake as 2nd safety system

2 Combined planet spur wheel gear for high effectiveness

1 High security due to individual blade adjust-ment

FL MD 70

FL MD 77

Wind speed [m/s]

Output [kW]

Power curve FL MD 70/77 (measured)

8.5 5’727’0008.0 5’232’0007.5 4’669’000 5’351’0007.0 4’105’000 4’820’0006.5 3’508’000 4’205’0006.0 2’910’000 3’589’0005.5 2’341’000 2’956’0005.0 1’771’000 2’324’000


FL MD 70Annual yield

[kWh]

FL MD 77Annual yield

[kWh]

Diameter 70 m / 77 m

Surface area 3‘848 m2 / 4‘657 m2

No. of blades 3

Speed 10-21 / 10-19 min-1

Power control pitch

Rotor


Stages 3

Multiplication 1:94.7 / 1:104

Hub height MD 70 65*/80*/85*/114,5**mMD 77 61,5*/85*/100*/111,5**m

Design *tubular tower**lattice tower

Sound output level 103.3 / 104 dB (A)Measurement of 25.08.98 / 13.08.02

Speed control Microprocessors


Main brake Blade angle adjustment

2nd brake system Disk brake


Rotor 31‘000 / 33‘400 kg

Nacelle 56‘000 kg

Tower 93‘000...260‘000 kg


at 11.6 / 13 m/sStart wind 3.0 m/s

Stop wind 25 / 20 m/s

Survival speed 56 / 50.1 m/s

Power

Weights

Control

Sound

Tower

Gear

Design Double-fed three-phase asynchronous machine

Speed 1000...1800 min-1


690 V (50/60 Hz)Puls-width modulated IGBT

Generator

The vast FL turbine rangeSalt water desalination and drinking water treatmentFuhrländer has developed a technology that utilises wind

energy to operate filtration plants in particular in regions

with an insufficient supply of energy and water. This

combination enables drinking water to be extracted very

efficiently and independent of raw materials, for example by

way of salt water desalination or brackish water treatment.

The wind energy created via a FL 250 could produce

more than 100,000 m³ of potable water each year and

consequently supply several thousand people. Furthermore

the surplus wind energy can stabilise the regional power

output supply.

Stand-alone-systeme and Wind-Diesel-combinationsRegional and energy supplies can be realised or stabilised at

international locations where there is no electricity supply by

way of small and medium-sized wind turbines combined with

a small diesel generator. For example the robust FL 100 and

FL 250 are ideally suited for supplying self-sufficient units and

for use in extreme conditions. The diesel generator merely

provides a reference frequency of 50/60 Hz and the energy

supply during low wind periods. The wind turbine supplies

more than 70 % of the energy created via this fuel safe

system.

Tower heights [m]

Power [kW]

50 100 150

FL 30FL 100

FL 250

FL 600

FL 1250

FL 1500FL MD 70/77

FL 2500

Auf der Höhe 4

D-56477 Waigandshain

Fon +49 (0) 26 64.99 66-0

Fax +49 (0) 26 64.99 66-33

[email protected]

www.fuhrlaender.de

www.friendly-energy.de

© F

uhrl

änd

er A

G 2

/20

07

FL 2500 – FL 1500 – FL MD 70/77

APPENDIX G

WINDPRO MODEL OUTPUT DATA

WindPRO version 2.6.1.252 Jan 2009

WindPRO is developed by EMD International A/S, Niels Jernesvej 10, DK-9220 Aalborg Ø, Tlf. +45 96 35 44 44, Fax +45 96 35 44 46, e-mail: [email protected]

Project:

Mashpee Wind Feasibility StudyPrinted/Page

11/23/2009 4:19 PM / 1Licensed user:

Weston & Sampson Engineers Inc. Five Centennial Drive US-PEABODY, MA 01960+1 978 532 1900

Calculated:

11/23/2009 4:16 PM/2.6.1.252

METEO -Calculation: AWS wind speed

WindPRO version 2.6.1.252 Jan 2009


Project:


11/23/2009 4:19 PM / 1Licensed user:

Weston & Sampson Engineers Inc. Five Centennial Drive US-PEABODY, MA 01960+1 978 532 1900

Calculated:

11/23/2009 4:16 PM/2.6.1.252

METEO - Main ResultCalculation: AWS wind speed Name AWS wind speedsSite CoordinatesUTM NAD 83 Zone: 19 East: 374,475.36 North: 4,607,735.51

Air density calculation mode Individual per WTG Result for WTG at hub altitude 1.215 kg/m3 to 1.215 kg/m3 Hub altitude above sea level (asl) 83.0 m to 88.0 m Annual mean temperature at hub alt. 14.4 °C to 14.4 °C Pressure at WTGs 1,002.7 hPa to 1,003.3 hPa

Calculation is based on "AWS wind speeds", giving the Weibull distributionfor the wind speed on the site.Using the selected power curve, the expected annual energy production iscalculated.

Scale 1:25,000Meteorological Data

Weibull data 70 m above ground levelSector A- parameter Wind speed k- parameter Frequency Wind gradient exponent

[m/s] [m/s] [%] 0 0 7.16 6.34 2.000 100.0 0.350All 7.16 6.34 2.000 100.0

Calculation ResultsKey results for height 50.0 m above ground level Wind energy: 2,006 kWh/m2; Mean wind speed: 5.7 m/s; Key results for height 65.0 m above ground level Wind energy: 2,450 kWh/m2; Mean wind speed: 6.2 m/s;

Calculated Annual EnergyWTG type Power curve Annual EnergyValid Manufact. Type-generator Power, Rotor Hub Creator Name Result Result-10.0% Mean Capacity

rated diameter height wind Factorspeed

[kW] [m] [m] [MWh] [MWh] [m/s] [%]Yes RRB Energy Ltd. PS-600-600 600 47.0 65.0 USER RRB PS-600 Power Curve 1,303.5 1,173 6.2 24.8Yes NORWIN NW47-ASR-750-750/180 750 47.0 65.0 USER Default Power curve (April 2009) 1,531.6 1,378 6.2 23.3Yes NORDIC 1000/54-1,000 1,000 54.0 70.0 EMD Level 0 - calculated - - 03-2001 1,924.9 1,732 6.3 22.0

WindPRO version 2.7.419 Beta Dec 2009


Project:


3/1/2010 3:35 PM / 1Licensed user:

TEST LICENSE Time limited until March 1, 2010

Olle Duijvesteijn, [email protected]:

3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419

Loss&Uncertainty - Main resultCalculation: Park calculation - Fuhrlander

Main data for PARKPARK calculation 2.7.419: Park calculation - FuhrlanderCount 1Rated power 1.5 MWMean wind speed 6.1 m/s at hub heightSensitivity 2.2 %AEP / %Mean Wind SpeedExpected lifetime 20 Years

RESULTSP50 P84 P90

NET AEP [MWh/y] 2,974 2,775 2,718Capacity factor [%] 22.6 21 21Full load hours [h/y] 1,983 1,850 1,812

Scale: 25,000

Assumptions: Uncertainty and percentiles (PXX values) are calculated for the expected lifetime*) Calculated Annual Energy Production before any bias or loss corrections

Loss: 13.7 %

1. Wake effects 0.0 % 2. Availability 5.0 %3. Turbine performance 3.0 % 4. Electrical 2.5 %5. Environmental 3.0 % 6. Curtailment 0.0 %7. Other 1.0 %

Uncertainty: 6.7 %

A. Wind data 6.6 % B. Wind model 0.7 %C. Power conversion 1.0 % D. BIAS 0.0 %E. LOSS 0.0 %

Result details

P50 UncertaintyGROSS AEP *) 3,446 MWh/y 6.7 %Bias correction 0 MWh/y 0.0 % 0.0 %Loss correction -471 MWh/y -13.7 % 0.0 % Wake loss 0.0 % Other losses -13.7 %NET AEP 2,974 MWh/y 6.7 %

AEP [MWh/y]3,4003,3003,2003,1003,0002,9002,8002,7002,600

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

EXC

EED

ANC

E [%

]

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0



Project:





3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419

Loss&Uncertainty - Assumptions and resultsCalculation: Park calculation - FuhrlanderASSUMPTIONS

LOSS Loss Uncertainty, std devMethod *) AEP AEP on AEP Comment

[%] [MWh/y] [%]1. Wake effects

Wake effects, all WTGs Calculation 0.0 0 0.02. Availability

Turbine availability Estimate 5.0 172 0.0 Conservative availability: 95%3. Turbine performance

Wind flow Estimate 2.0 69 0.0 Turbulence effectsOther turbine performance Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Controls

4. ElectricalElectrical losses Estimate 2.5 86 0.0 Line losses

5. EnvironmentalPerformance degradation not due to icing Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Expected wear on bladesPerformance degradation due to icing Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Expected performance degradation due to icing on bladesShutdown due to icing, lightning, hail, etc. Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 Expected icing events causing turbine shutdown

6. Curtailment No input7. Other

Other loss Estimate 1.0 34 0.0 MicrositingLOSS, total 13.7 471 0.0

UNCERTAINTY Std devMethod *) on wind speed on AEP Comment

[%] [%]A. Wind data

Wind measurement/Wind data Estimate 3.0 6.6Long term correctionYear-to-year variabilityFuture climateOther wind related

B. Wind modelVertical extrapolation Calculation 0.3 0.7Horizontal extrapolationOther wind model related

C. Power conversionPower curve uncertainty Calculation 1.0Metering uncertaintyOther AEP related uncertainties

D. BIAS, total uncertainty 0.0E. LOSS, total uncertainty 0.0

UNCERTAINTY, total (1y average) 6.7UNCERTAINTY, total (20y average) 6.7

VARIABILITYYears Variability Total

(std dev) std dev1 0.00 6.75 0.00 6.7

10 0.00 6.720 0.00 6.7

CommentTurbine availability

Conservative availability: 95%

Wind flowTurbulence effects



Project:





3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419

Loss&Uncertainty - Assumptions and resultsCalculation: Park calculation - Fuhrlander

Other turbine performanceControls

Electrical lossesLine losses

Performance degradation not due to icingExpected wear on blades

Performance degradation due to icingExpected performance degradation due to icing on blades

Shutdown due to icing, lightning, hail, etc.Expected icing events causing turbine shutdown

Other lossMicrositing

RESULTS

AEP versus exceedance level / time horizon PXX 1 y 5 y 10 y 20 y[%] [MWh/y] [MWh/y] [MWh/y] [MWh/y]

50 2,974 2,974 2,974 2,97475 2,839 2,839 2,839 2,83984 2,775 2,775 2,775 2,77590 2,718 2,718 2,718 2,71895 2,645 2,645 2,645 2,645

*) Calculation means that a calculation method available in the WindPRO software is used. This still typically involve a user judgement and user data where the quality of those decides the accuracy. Ifcalculation method is used, the values will often be different from turbine to turbine, here the average is shown, but at page "WTG results" the individual turbine results are shown.



Project:





3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419

Loss&Uncertainty - WTG resultsCalculation: Park calculation - Fuhrlander

Main data for PARKPARK calculation 2.7.419: Park calculation - FuhrlanderCount 1Rated power 1.5 MWMean wind speed 6.1 m/s at hub heightSensitivity 2.2 %AEP / %Mean Wind SpeedExpected lifetime 20 Years

Scale: 25,000

Expected AEP per WTG including bias, loss and uncertainty evaluation20 years averaging

Description Calculated GROSS*) Bias Loss Unc. P50 P84 P90[MWh/y] [%] [%] [%] [MWh/y] [MWh/y] [MWh/y]

1 FUHRLÄNDER FL 1500-70 1500 70.0 !O! hub: 60.0 m (4) 3,445.7 0.0 13.7 6.7 2,974.4 2,775.5 2,718.0PARK 3,445.7 0.0 13.7 6.7 2,974.4 2,775.5 2,718.0



Project:





3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419

Loss&Uncertainty - Vertical extrapolationCalculation: Park calculation - Fuhrlander

Vertical extrapolation uncertaintyWTG Uncertainty input Uncertainty input Measure Measure height Delta elevation Delta height Result (std dev

elevation measure height elevation AEP)difference difference[%/10m] [%/10m] [m a.s.l.] [m a.g.l.] [m] [m] [%]

Proposed Turbine - Fuhrlander FL1500 0.05 0.30 18.0 70.0 0.0 -10.0 0.7



Project:





3/1/2010 3:24 PM/2.7.419

Loss&Uncertainty - Power curve uncertaintyCalculation: Park calculation - FuhrlanderDescription Calculation type Input Unit Result

[%]FUHRLÄNDER FL 1500-70 1500 70.0 !O! hub: 60.0 m (4) Simple, constant-% 1.00 % 1.0

APPENDIX H

ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS

ECONOMIC SUMMARYWind Turbine Installation

Mashpee High SchoolMashpee, MA

Scenario 1: Equity Financing, No GrantTurbine Size, kW 600 750 1000 1500 1500 (P90)Project Cost 2,380,250$ 2,671,250$ 2,660,250$ 4,690,250$ 4,690,250$ Cost per kW 3,967$ 3,562$ 2,660$ 3,127$ 3,127$ Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.06%Hub Height, Meters 65 65 70 60 60Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $812,607 $939,195 $1,736,926 $3,236,613 $2,463,35420-Year Net Cash Flow $2,549,702 $2,905,463 $4,121,993 $7,534,784 $6,349,500Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.30 1.30 1.53 1.58 1.44IRR 7.35% 7.44% 10.13% 10.46% 9.01%Simple Payback, Years 11.99 11.92 9.52 9.31 10.42

Scenario 2: Equity Financing, With GrantTurbine Size, kW 600 750 1000 1500 1500 (P90)Project Cost 1,810,250$ 2,101,250$ 2,090,250$ 4,120,250$ 4,120,250$ Cost per kW 3,017$ 2,802$ 2,090$ 2,747$ 2,747$ Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.1%Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284 NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $1,360,684 $1,487,272 $2,285,003 $3,784,690 $3,011,43120-Year Net Cash Flow $3,119,702 $3,475,463 $4,691,993 $8,104,784 $6,919,500Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.62 1.58 1.83 1.75 1.59IRR 10.84% 10.48% 13.65% 12.31% 10.74%Simple Payback, Years 9.12 9.38 7.48 8.18 9.15

Scenario 3: Debt Financing, No GrantTurbine Size, kW 600 750 1000 1500 1500 (P90)Project Cost 2,380,250$ 2,671,250$ 2,660,250$ 4,690,250$ 4,690,250$ Cost per kW 3,967$ 3,562$ 2,660$ 3,127$ 3,127$ Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.1%Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284 NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $721,059 $836,455 $1,634,609 $3,056,219 $2,282,95920-Year Net Cash Flow $1,427,093 $1,645,608 $2,867,326 $5,322,698 $4,137,414Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.26 1.26 1.48 1.53 1.39IRR NA NA NA NA NASimple Payback, Years NA NA NA NA NA

Scenario 4: Debt Financing, With GrantTurbine Size, kW 600 750 1000 1500 1500 (P90)Project Cost 1,810,250$ 2,101,250$ 2,090,250$ 4,120,250$ 4,120,250$ Cost per kW 3,017$ 2,802$ 2,090$ 2,747$ 2,747$ Net Capacity Factor, % 22.3% 21.0% 19.8% 23.2% 21.1%Hub Height 65 65 70 60 60Annual Energy, MWh 1,173,139 1,377,729 1,734,480 3,051,108 2,767,284 NPV (Discount Rate of 4%) $1,291,059 $1,406,455 $2,204,609 $3,626,219 $2,852,95920-Year Net Cash Flow $2,265,925 $2,484,440 $3,706,158 $6,161,530 $4,976,246Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.57 1.53 1.78 1.69 1.55IRR NA NA NA NA NASimple Payback, Years NA NA NA NA NA

Scenario 1: Equity Financing, No GrantScenario 2: Equity Financing, With GrantScenario 3: Debt Financing, No GrantScenario 4: Debt Financing, With Grant

PROJECT COST ESTIMATEWind Turbine Installation


600 kW RRB Cost Quantity Rate AmountDesign and Permitting $150,000 1 1 $150,000Capital Equipment $1,090,000 1 1 $1,090,000General Construction $125,000 1 1 $125,000 Foundation installation $350,000 1 1 $350,000 Electrical interconnection $440,250 1 1 $440,250 Installation (crane) $150,000 1 1 $150,000 Commissioning/startup $75,000 1 1 $75,000

Subtotal $2,380,250Possible MTC Grant $570,000 1 -1 ($570,000)Total Cost with Grant $1,810,250

750 kW Norwin Cost Quantity Rate AmountDesign and Permitting $150,000 1 1 $150,000Capital Equipment $1,381,000 1 1 $1,381,000General Construction $125,000 1 1 $125,000 Foundation installation $350,000 1 1 $350,000 Electrical interconnection $440,250 1 1 $440,250 Installation (crane) $150,000 1 1 $150,000 Commissioning/startup $75,000 1 1 $75,000


1000 kW Nordic Cost Quantity Rate AmountDesign and Permitting $150,000 1 1 $150,000Capital Equipment $1,410,000 1 1 $1,410,000General Construction $125,000 1 1 $125,000 Foundation installation $335,000 1 1 $335,000 Electrical interconnection $440,250 1 1 $440,250 Installation (crane) $125,000 1 1 $125,000 Commissioning/startup $75,000 1 1 $75,000


1500 kW Fuhrlander Cost Quantity Rate AmountDesign and Permitting $200,000 1 1 $200,000Capital Equipment $3,200,000 1 1 $3,200,000General Construction $125,000 1 1 $125,000 Foundation installation $500,000 1 1 $500,000 Electrical interconnection $440,250 1 1 $440,250 Installation (crane) $125,000 1 1 $125,000 Commissioning/startup $100,000 1 1 $100,000


Design and construction incentive levels for per Commonwealth Wind Solicitation No. 2010-CWIPCS-01

PROJECT COST SUMMARYWind Turbine Installation


Description Amouunt Amouunt Amouunt AmouuntNameplate Rating, kW 600 750 1000 $1,500Design and Permitting $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $200,000Capital Equipment $1,090,000 $1,381,000 $1,410,000 $3,200,000General Construction $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Foundation Installation $350,000 $350,000 $335,000 $500,000 Electrical Interconnection $440,250 $440,250 $440,250 $440,250 Crane & Rigging $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 Commissioning/Startup $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $100,000Total $2,380,250 $2,671,250 $2,660,250 $4,690,250Possible MRET Grant $570,000 $570,000 $570,000 $570,000Total with Grant Incentive $1,810,250 $2,101,250 $2,090,250 $4,120,250

Cost per kW (No Grant) $3,967 $3,562 $2,660 $3,127Cost per kW (With Grant) $3,017 $2,802 $2,090 $2,747

Simple Payback, years (No Grant) 11.99 11.92 9.52 9.31Simple Payback, years (With Grant) 9.12 9.38 7.48 8.18

Net Capacity Factor Sensitivity AnalysesS-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5

Scenario 2: Equity, With Grant -20% -10% Base Case +10% +20%Turbine Size, kW 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Project Cost 2,101,250$ 2,101,250$ 2,101,250$ 2,101,250$ 2,101,250$ Cost per kW 2,101$ 2,101$ 2,101$ 2,101$ 2,101$ Net Capacity Factor, % 15.8% 17.8% 19.8% 21.8% 23.8%Hub Height 70 70 70 70 70Annual Energy, MWh 1,387,584 1,561,032 1,734,480 1,907,928 2,081,376 NPV (Discount Rate of 4.0%) ($380,398) $92,149 $564,696 $1,037,244 $1,509,79120-Year Net Cash Flow $1,720,812 $2,445,153 $3,169,493 $3,893,834 $4,618,174Benefit to Cost Ratio 0.92 1.02 1.12 1.22 1.32Estimated Simple Payback, years 19.29 16.72 14.75 13.20 11.94

Wind Turbine Pro FormaMashpee High School

Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine RRB 600 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 600 Tower Height 65 metersGross Capacity Factor 24.80% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 22.32% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,173,139 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.030$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.025$ Project Cost 2,380,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 1,810,250$ Net Present Value $812,607 Simple Payback 11.99 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $2,549,702 Simple Payback with Grant 9.12 yearsPresent Value Benefit $3,541,793 IRR 7.35% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $2,729,186 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.30 Cost of Energy $0.1302 kWh

Net Metering Excess Energy RECs Total Annual Cummulative Annual Annual Annual Annual Total Annual Net Annual CummulativeYear Credit Credit Revenue Revenue Revenue O&M Insurance Principal Interest Cost Cash Flow Cash Flow

1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 2,380,250$ $0 $2,385,500 ($2,385,500) ($2,385,500)2 $192,666 $0 $35,194 $227,860 $227,860 $24,000 $5,355 $0 $0 $29,355 $198,505 ($2,186,995)3 $196,519 $0 $35,194 $231,713 $459,573 $24,480 $5,462 $0 $0 $29,942 $201,771 ($1,985,224)4 $200,449 $0 $35,194 $235,644 $695,217 $24,970 $5,571 $0 $0 $30,541 $205,103 ($1,780,121)5 $204,458 $0 $35,194 $239,653 $934,869 $25,469 $5,683 $0 $0 $31,152 $208,501 ($1,571,621)6 $208,548 $0 $35,194 $243,742 $1,178,611 $25,978 $5,796 $0 $0 $31,775 $211,967 ($1,359,654)7 $212,718 $0 $35,194 $247,913 $1,426,523 $26,498 $5,912 $0 $0 $32,410 $215,502 ($1,144,151)8 $216,973 $0 $35,194 $252,167 $1,678,690 $27,028 $6,031 $0 $0 $33,058 $219,109 ($925,043)9 $221,312 $0 $35,194 $256,506 $1,935,197 $27,568 $6,151 $0 $0 $33,720 $222,787 ($702,256)

10 $225,739 $0 $35,194 $260,933 $2,196,130 $28,120 $6,274 $0 $0 $34,394 $226,539 ($475,717)11 $230,253 $0 $29,328 $259,582 $2,455,711 $28,682 $6,400 $0 $0 $35,082 $224,500 ($251,218)12 $234,858 $0 $29,328 $264,187 $2,719,898 $29,256 $6,528 $0 $0 $35,784 $228,403 ($22,814)13 $239,556 $0 $29,328 $268,884 $2,988,782 $29,841 $6,658 $0 $0 $36,499 $232,385 $209,57014 $244,347 $0 $29,328 $273,675 $3,262,458 $30,438 $6,791 $0 $0 $37,229 $236,446 $446,01615 $249,234 $0 $29,328 $278,562 $3,541,020 $31,047 $6,927 $0 $0 $37,974 $240,588 $686,60516 $254,218 $0 $29,328 $283,547 $3,824,566 $31,667 $7,066 $0 $0 $38,733 $244,813 $931,41817 $259,303 $0 $29,328 $288,631 $4,113,197 $32,301 $7,207 $0 $0 $39,508 $249,123 $1,180,54118 $264,489 $0 $29,328 $293,817 $4,407,015 $32,947 $7,351 $0 $0 $40,298 $253,519 $1,434,06019 $269,778 $0 $29,328 $299,107 $4,706,122 $33,606 $7,498 $0 $0 $41,104 $258,003 $1,692,06320 $275,174 $0 $29,328 $304,503 $5,010,624 $34,278 $7,648 $0 $0 $41,926 $262,576 $2,549,702

Scenario 1 Equity Financing, No Grant


Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Norwin 750 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 750 Tower Height 65 metersGross Capacity Factor 23.30% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 20.97% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,377,729 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 2,671,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 2,101,250$ Net Present Value $939,195 Simple Payback 11.92 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $2,905,463 Simple Payback with Grant 9.38 yearsPresent Value Benefit $4,058,310 IRR 7.44% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $3,119,114 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.30 Cost of Energy $0.1276 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 2,671,250$ $0 $2,677,813 ($2,677,813) ($2,677,813)2 $208,783 $17,482 $34,443 $260,709 $260,709 $30,000 $6,694 $0 $0 $36,694 $224,015 ($2,453,797)3 $212,959 $17,832 $34,443 $265,234 $525,943 $30,600 $6,828 $0 $0 $37,428 $227,807 ($2,225,991)4 $217,218 $18,188 $34,443 $269,850 $795,793 $31,212 $6,964 $0 $0 $38,176 $231,674 ($1,994,317)5 $221,563 $18,552 $34,443 $274,558 $1,070,351 $31,836 $7,103 $0 $0 $38,940 $235,618 ($1,758,699)6 $225,994 $18,923 $34,443 $279,360 $1,349,712 $32,473 $7,246 $0 $0 $39,718 $239,642 ($1,519,057)7 $230,514 $19,302 $34,443 $284,259 $1,633,970 $33,122 $7,390 $0 $0 $40,513 $243,746 ($1,275,311)8 $235,124 $19,688 $34,443 $289,255 $1,923,225 $33,785 $7,538 $0 $0 $41,323 $247,932 ($1,027,379)9 $239,827 $20,082 $34,443 $294,351 $2,217,577 $34,461 $7,689 $0 $0 $42,150 $252,202 ($775,177)

10 $244,623 $20,483 $34,443 $299,549 $2,517,126 $35,150 $7,843 $0 $0 $42,993 $256,557 ($518,620)11 $249,516 $20,893 $27,555 $297,963 $2,815,089 $35,853 $8,000 $0 $0 $43,852 $254,111 ($264,510)12 $254,506 $21,311 $27,555 $303,371 $3,118,460 $36,570 $8,160 $0 $0 $44,729 $258,642 ($5,868)13 $259,596 $21,737 $27,555 $308,887 $3,427,348 $37,301 $8,323 $0 $0 $45,624 $263,263 $257,39514 $264,788 $22,172 $27,555 $314,514 $3,741,862 $38,047 $8,489 $0 $0 $46,537 $267,978 $525,37315 $270,084 $22,615 $27,555 $320,253 $4,062,115 $38,808 $8,659 $0 $0 $47,467 $272,786 $798,15916 $275,485 $23,067 $27,555 $326,107 $4,388,223 $39,584 $8,832 $0 $0 $48,417 $277,691 $1,075,85017 $280,995 $23,529 $27,555 $332,078 $4,720,301 $40,376 $9,009 $0 $0 $49,385 $282,693 $1,358,54318 $286,615 $23,999 $27,555 $338,169 $5,058,470 $41,184 $9,189 $0 $0 $50,373 $287,796 $1,646,33919 $292,347 $24,479 $27,555 $344,381 $5,402,851 $42,007 $9,373 $0 $0 $51,380 $293,001 $1,939,34020 $298,194 $24,969 $27,555 $350,718 $5,753,568 $42,847 $9,560 $0 $0 $52,408 $298,310 $2,905,463



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 19.80% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,734,480 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 2,660,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 2,090,250$ Net Present Value $1,736,926 Simple Payback 9.52 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $4,121,993 Simple Payback with Grant 7.48 yearsPresent Value Benefit $5,028,998 IRR 10.13% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $3,292,072 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.53 Cost of Energy $0.1092 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 2,660,250$ $0 $2,669,000 ($2,669,000) ($2,669,000)2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $279,292 ($2,389,708)3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $284,011 ($2,105,697)4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $288,824 ($1,816,873)5 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $293,733 ($1,523,140)6 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $298,740 ($1,224,400)7 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $303,848 ($920,552)8 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $309,058 ($611,494)9 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $314,372 ($297,123)

10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $319,792 $22,66911 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $316,648 $339,31712 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $322,287 $661,60413 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $328,039 $989,64314 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $333,906 $1,323,54915 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $339,890 $1,663,44016 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $345,994 $2,009,43417 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $352,221 $2,361,65518 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $358,571 $2,720,22619 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $365,049 $3,085,27520 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $371,656 $4,121,993



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Fuhrlander 1500 Overall Structure Height 312 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1500 Tower Height 60 metersGross Capacity Factor 25.80% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 23.22% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 3,051,108 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant $4,120,250Net Present Value $3,236,613 Simple Payback 9.31 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $7,534,784 Simple Payback with Grant 8.18 yearsPresent Value Benefit $8,847,678 IRR 10.46% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $5,611,065 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.58 Cost of Energy $0.1045 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 4,690,250$ $0 $4,703,375 ($4,703,375) ($4,703,375)2 $208,783 $292,303 $76,278 $577,364 $577,364 $60,000 $13,388 $0 $0 $73,388 $503,976 ($4,199,399)3 $212,959 $298,149 $76,278 $587,386 $1,164,749 $61,200 $13,655 $0 $0 $74,855 $512,530 ($3,686,868)4 $217,218 $304,112 $76,278 $597,608 $1,762,357 $62,424 $13,928 $0 $0 $76,352 $521,255 ($3,165,613)5 $221,563 $310,194 $76,278 $608,034 $2,370,391 $63,672 $14,207 $0 $0 $77,879 $530,155 ($2,635,458)6 $225,994 $316,398 $76,278 $618,669 $2,989,061 $64,946 $14,491 $0 $0 $79,437 $539,232 ($2,096,226)7 $230,514 $322,726 $76,278 $629,517 $3,618,578 $66,245 $14,781 $0 $0 $81,026 $548,492 ($1,547,734)8 $235,124 $329,180 $76,278 $640,582 $4,259,160 $67,570 $15,076 $0 $0 $82,646 $557,936 ($989,798)9 $239,827 $335,764 $76,278 $651,868 $4,911,028 $68,921 $15,378 $0 $0 $84,299 $567,569 ($422,229)

10 $244,623 $342,479 $76,278 $663,380 $5,574,408 $70,300 $15,686 $0 $0 $85,985 $577,395 $155,16611 $249,516 $349,329 $61,022 $659,866 $6,234,275 $71,706 $15,999 $0 $0 $87,705 $572,162 $727,32712 $254,506 $356,315 $61,022 $671,843 $6,906,118 $73,140 $16,319 $0 $0 $89,459 $582,384 $1,309,71213 $259,596 $363,442 $61,022 $684,060 $7,590,178 $74,602 $16,646 $0 $0 $91,248 $592,812 $1,902,52314 $264,788 $370,711 $61,022 $696,521 $8,286,699 $76,095 $16,979 $0 $0 $93,073 $603,447 $2,505,97115 $270,084 $378,125 $61,022 $709,231 $8,995,929 $77,616 $17,318 $0 $0 $94,935 $614,296 $3,120,26716 $275,485 $385,687 $61,022 $722,195 $9,718,124 $79,169 $17,665 $0 $0 $96,833 $625,361 $3,745,62817 $280,995 $393,401 $61,022 $735,418 $10,453,542 $80,752 $18,018 $0 $0 $98,770 $636,648 $4,382,27618 $286,615 $401,269 $61,022 $748,906 $11,202,448 $82,367 $18,378 $0 $0 $100,745 $648,161 $5,030,43719 $292,347 $409,294 $61,022 $762,664 $11,965,112 $84,014 $18,746 $0 $0 $102,760 $659,904 $5,690,34020 $298,194 $417,480 $61,022 $776,697 $12,741,808 $85,695 $19,121 $0 $0 $104,815 $671,881 $7,534,784



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Fuhrlander 1500 Overall Structure Height 312 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1500 Tower Height 60 metersGross Capacity Factor 23.40% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 21.06% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 2,767,284 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant $4,120,250Net Present Value $2,463,354 Simple Payback 10.42 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $6,349,500 Simple Payback with Grant 9.15 yearsPresent Value Benefit $8,074,419 IRR 9.01% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $5,611,065 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.44 Cost of Energy $0.1153 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 4,690,250$ $0 $4,703,375 ($4,703,375) ($4,703,375)2 $208,783 $245,690 $69,182 $523,656 $523,656 $60,000 $13,388 $0 $0 $73,388 $450,268 ($4,253,107)3 $212,959 $250,604 $69,182 $532,745 $1,056,401 $61,200 $13,655 $0 $0 $74,855 $457,890 ($3,795,217)4 $217,218 $255,616 $69,182 $542,016 $1,598,417 $62,424 $13,928 $0 $0 $76,352 $465,664 ($3,329,553)5 $221,563 $260,728 $69,182 $551,473 $2,149,890 $63,672 $14,207 $0 $0 $77,879 $473,594 ($2,855,960)6 $225,994 $265,943 $69,182 $561,119 $2,711,009 $64,946 $14,491 $0 $0 $79,437 $481,682 ($2,374,278)7 $230,514 $271,262 $69,182 $570,958 $3,281,966 $66,245 $14,781 $0 $0 $81,026 $489,932 ($1,884,346)8 $235,124 $276,687 $69,182 $580,993 $3,862,959 $67,570 $15,076 $0 $0 $82,646 $498,347 ($1,385,999)9 $239,827 $282,221 $69,182 $591,229 $4,454,189 $68,921 $15,378 $0 $0 $84,299 $506,930 ($879,069)

10 $244,623 $287,865 $69,182 $601,670 $5,055,859 $70,300 $15,686 $0 $0 $85,985 $515,685 ($363,384)11 $249,516 $293,622 $55,346 $598,484 $5,654,342 $71,706 $15,999 $0 $0 $87,705 $510,779 $147,39512 $254,506 $299,495 $55,346 $609,346 $6,263,689 $73,140 $16,319 $0 $0 $89,459 $519,887 $667,28213 $259,596 $305,485 $55,346 $620,426 $6,884,115 $74,602 $16,646 $0 $0 $91,248 $529,178 $1,196,46014 $264,788 $311,594 $55,346 $631,728 $7,515,843 $76,095 $16,979 $0 $0 $93,073 $538,655 $1,735,11515 $270,084 $317,826 $55,346 $643,256 $8,159,098 $77,616 $17,318 $0 $0 $94,935 $548,321 $2,283,43616 $275,485 $324,183 $55,346 $655,014 $8,814,112 $79,169 $17,665 $0 $0 $96,833 $558,181 $2,841,61717 $280,995 $330,666 $55,346 $667,007 $9,481,119 $80,752 $18,018 $0 $0 $98,770 $568,237 $3,409,85418 $286,615 $337,280 $55,346 $679,240 $10,160,360 $82,367 $18,378 $0 $0 $100,745 $578,495 $3,988,34919 $292,347 $344,025 $55,346 $691,718 $10,852,078 $84,014 $18,746 $0 $0 $102,760 $588,958 $4,577,30720 $298,194 $350,906 $55,346 $704,446 $11,556,524 $85,695 $19,121 $0 $0 $104,815 $599,630 $6,349,500



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine RRB 600 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 600 Tower Height 65 metersGross Capacity Factor 24.80% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 22.32% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,173,139 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.030$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.025$ Project Cost 2,380,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 1,810,250$ Net Present Value $1,360,684 Simple Payback 11.99 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $3,119,702 Simple Payback with Grant 9.12 yearsPresent Value Benefit $3,541,793 IRR 10.84% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $2,181,109 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.62 Cost of Energy $0.1060 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 1,810,250$ $0 $1,815,500 ($1,815,500) ($1,815,500)2 $192,666 $0 $35,194 $227,860 $227,860 $24,000 $5,355 $0 $0 $29,355 $198,505 ($1,616,995)3 $196,519 $0 $35,194 $231,713 $459,573 $24,480 $5,462 $0 $0 $29,942 $201,771 ($1,415,224)4 $200,449 $0 $35,194 $235,644 $695,217 $24,970 $5,571 $0 $0 $30,541 $205,103 ($1,210,121)5 $204,458 $0 $35,194 $239,653 $934,869 $25,469 $5,683 $0 $0 $31,152 $208,501 ($1,001,621)6 $208,548 $0 $35,194 $243,742 $1,178,611 $25,978 $5,796 $0 $0 $31,775 $211,967 ($789,654)7 $212,718 $0 $35,194 $247,913 $1,426,523 $26,498 $5,912 $0 $0 $32,410 $215,502 ($574,151)8 $216,973 $0 $35,194 $252,167 $1,678,690 $27,028 $6,031 $0 $0 $33,058 $219,109 ($355,043)9 $221,312 $0 $35,194 $256,506 $1,935,197 $27,568 $6,151 $0 $0 $33,720 $222,787 ($132,256)

10 $225,739 $0 $35,194 $260,933 $2,196,130 $28,120 $6,274 $0 $0 $34,394 $226,539 $94,28311 $230,253 $0 $29,328 $259,582 $2,455,711 $28,682 $6,400 $0 $0 $35,082 $224,500 $318,78212 $234,858 $0 $29,328 $264,187 $2,719,898 $29,256 $6,528 $0 $0 $35,784 $228,403 $547,18613 $239,556 $0 $29,328 $268,884 $2,988,782 $29,841 $6,658 $0 $0 $36,499 $232,385 $779,57014 $244,347 $0 $29,328 $273,675 $3,262,458 $30,438 $6,791 $0 $0 $37,229 $236,446 $1,016,01615 $249,234 $0 $29,328 $278,562 $3,541,020 $31,047 $6,927 $0 $0 $37,974 $240,588 $1,256,60516 $254,218 $0 $29,328 $283,547 $3,824,566 $31,667 $7,066 $0 $0 $38,733 $244,813 $1,501,41817 $259,303 $0 $29,328 $288,631 $4,113,197 $32,301 $7,207 $0 $0 $39,508 $249,123 $1,750,54118 $264,489 $0 $29,328 $293,817 $4,407,015 $32,947 $7,351 $0 $0 $40,298 $253,519 $2,004,06019 $269,778 $0 $29,328 $299,107 $4,706,122 $33,606 $7,498 $0 $0 $41,104 $258,003 $2,262,06320 $275,174 $0 $29,328 $304,503 $5,010,624 $34,278 $7,648 $0 $0 $41,926 $262,576 $3,119,702

Scenario 2 Equity Financing, With Grant


Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Norwin 750 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 750 Tower Height 65 metersGross Capacity Factor 23.30% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 20.97% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,377,729 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 2,671,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 2,101,250$ Net Present Value $1,487,272 Simple Payback 11.92 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $3,475,463 Simple Payback with Grant 9.38 yearsPresent Value Benefit $4,058,310 IRR 10.48% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $2,571,037 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.58 Cost of Energy $0.1069 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 2,101,250$ $0 $2,107,813 ($2,107,813) ($2,107,813)2 $208,783 $17,482 $34,443 $260,709 $260,709 $30,000 $6,694 $0 $0 $36,694 $224,015 ($1,883,797)3 $212,959 $17,832 $34,443 $265,234 $525,943 $30,600 $6,828 $0 $0 $37,428 $227,807 ($1,655,991)4 $217,218 $18,188 $34,443 $269,850 $795,793 $31,212 $6,964 $0 $0 $38,176 $231,674 ($1,424,317)5 $221,563 $18,552 $34,443 $274,558 $1,070,351 $31,836 $7,103 $0 $0 $38,940 $235,618 ($1,188,699)6 $225,994 $18,923 $34,443 $279,360 $1,349,712 $32,473 $7,246 $0 $0 $39,718 $239,642 ($949,057)7 $230,514 $19,302 $34,443 $284,259 $1,633,970 $33,122 $7,390 $0 $0 $40,513 $243,746 ($705,311)8 $235,124 $19,688 $34,443 $289,255 $1,923,225 $33,785 $7,538 $0 $0 $41,323 $247,932 ($457,379)9 $239,827 $20,082 $34,443 $294,351 $2,217,577 $34,461 $7,689 $0 $0 $42,150 $252,202 ($205,177)

10 $244,623 $20,483 $34,443 $299,549 $2,517,126 $35,150 $7,843 $0 $0 $42,993 $256,557 $51,38011 $249,516 $20,893 $27,555 $297,963 $2,815,089 $35,853 $8,000 $0 $0 $43,852 $254,111 $305,49012 $254,506 $21,311 $27,555 $303,371 $3,118,460 $36,570 $8,160 $0 $0 $44,729 $258,642 $564,13213 $259,596 $21,737 $27,555 $308,887 $3,427,348 $37,301 $8,323 $0 $0 $45,624 $263,263 $827,39514 $264,788 $22,172 $27,555 $314,514 $3,741,862 $38,047 $8,489 $0 $0 $46,537 $267,978 $1,095,37315 $270,084 $22,615 $27,555 $320,253 $4,062,115 $38,808 $8,659 $0 $0 $47,467 $272,786 $1,368,15916 $275,485 $23,067 $27,555 $326,107 $4,388,223 $39,584 $8,832 $0 $0 $48,417 $277,691 $1,645,85017 $280,995 $23,529 $27,555 $332,078 $4,720,301 $40,376 $9,009 $0 $0 $49,385 $282,693 $1,928,54318 $286,615 $23,999 $27,555 $338,169 $5,058,470 $41,184 $9,189 $0 $0 $50,373 $287,796 $2,216,33919 $292,347 $24,479 $27,555 $344,381 $5,402,851 $42,007 $9,373 $0 $0 $51,380 $293,001 $2,509,34020 $298,194 $24,969 $27,555 $350,718 $5,753,568 $42,847 $9,560 $0 $0 $52,408 $298,310 $3,475,463



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 19.80% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,734,480 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 2,660,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 2,090,250$ Net Present Value $2,285,003 Simple Payback 9.52 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $4,691,993 Simple Payback with Grant 7.48 yearsPresent Value Benefit $5,028,998 IRR 13.65% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $2,743,995 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.83 Cost of Energy $0.0927 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 2,090,250$ $0 $2,099,000 ($2,099,000) ($2,099,000)2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $279,292 ($1,819,708)3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $284,011 ($1,535,697)4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $288,824 ($1,246,873)5 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $293,733 ($953,140)6 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $298,740 ($654,400)7 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $303,848 ($350,552)8 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $309,058 ($41,494)9 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $314,372 $272,877

10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $319,792 $592,66911 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $316,648 $909,31712 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $322,287 $1,231,60413 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $328,039 $1,559,64314 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $333,906 $1,893,54915 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $339,890 $2,233,44016 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $345,994 $2,579,43417 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $352,221 $2,931,65518 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $358,571 $3,290,22619 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $365,049 $3,655,27520 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $371,656 $4,691,993



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Fuhrlander 1500 Overall Structure Height 312 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1500 Tower Height 60 metersGross Capacity Factor 25.80% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 23.22% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 3,051,108 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 4,120,250$ Net Present Value $3,784,690 Simple Payback 9.31 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $8,104,784 Simple Payback with Grant 8.18 yearsPresent Value Benefit $8,847,678 IRR 12.31% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $5,062,988 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.75 Cost of Energy $0.0952 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 4,120,250$ $0 $4,133,375 ($4,133,375) ($4,133,375)2 $208,783 $292,303 $76,278 $577,364 $577,364 $60,000 $13,388 $0 $0 $73,388 $503,976 ($3,629,399)3 $212,959 $298,149 $76,278 $587,386 $1,164,749 $61,200 $13,655 $0 $0 $74,855 $512,530 ($3,116,868)4 $217,218 $304,112 $76,278 $597,608 $1,762,357 $62,424 $13,928 $0 $0 $76,352 $521,255 ($2,595,613)5 $221,563 $310,194 $76,278 $608,034 $2,370,391 $63,672 $14,207 $0 $0 $77,879 $530,155 ($2,065,458)6 $225,994 $316,398 $76,278 $618,669 $2,989,061 $64,946 $14,491 $0 $0 $79,437 $539,232 ($1,526,226)7 $230,514 $322,726 $76,278 $629,517 $3,618,578 $66,245 $14,781 $0 $0 $81,026 $548,492 ($977,734)8 $235,124 $329,180 $76,278 $640,582 $4,259,160 $67,570 $15,076 $0 $0 $82,646 $557,936 ($419,798)9 $239,827 $335,764 $76,278 $651,868 $4,911,028 $68,921 $15,378 $0 $0 $84,299 $567,569 $147,771

10 $244,623 $342,479 $76,278 $663,380 $5,574,408 $70,300 $15,686 $0 $0 $85,985 $577,395 $725,16611 $249,516 $349,329 $61,022 $659,866 $6,234,275 $71,706 $15,999 $0 $0 $87,705 $572,162 $1,297,32712 $254,506 $356,315 $61,022 $671,843 $6,906,118 $73,140 $16,319 $0 $0 $89,459 $582,384 $1,879,71213 $259,596 $363,442 $61,022 $684,060 $7,590,178 $74,602 $16,646 $0 $0 $91,248 $592,812 $2,472,52314 $264,788 $370,711 $61,022 $696,521 $8,286,699 $76,095 $16,979 $0 $0 $93,073 $603,447 $3,075,97115 $270,084 $378,125 $61,022 $709,231 $8,995,929 $77,616 $17,318 $0 $0 $94,935 $614,296 $3,690,26716 $275,485 $385,687 $61,022 $722,195 $9,718,124 $79,169 $17,665 $0 $0 $96,833 $625,361 $4,315,62817 $280,995 $393,401 $61,022 $735,418 $10,453,542 $80,752 $18,018 $0 $0 $98,770 $636,648 $4,952,27618 $286,615 $401,269 $61,022 $748,906 $11,202,448 $82,367 $18,378 $0 $0 $100,745 $648,161 $5,600,43719 $292,347 $409,294 $61,022 $762,664 $11,965,112 $84,014 $18,746 $0 $0 $102,760 $659,904 $6,260,34020 $298,194 $417,480 $61,022 $776,697 $12,741,808 $85,695 $19,121 $0 $0 $104,815 $671,881 $8,104,784



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Fuhrlander 1500 Overall Structure Height 312 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1500 Tower Height 60 metersGross Capacity Factor 23.40% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 21.06% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 2,767,284 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 4,120,250$ Net Present Value $3,011,431 Simple Payback 10.42 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $6,919,500 Simple Payback with Grant 9.15 yearsPresent Value Benefit $8,074,419 IRR 10.74% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $5,062,988 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.59 Cost of Energy $0.1050 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 4,120,250$ $0 $4,133,375 ($4,133,375) ($4,133,375)2 $208,783 $245,690 $69,182 $523,656 $523,656 $60,000 $13,388 $0 $0 $73,388 $450,268 ($3,683,107)3 $212,959 $250,604 $69,182 $532,745 $1,056,401 $61,200 $13,655 $0 $0 $74,855 $457,890 ($3,225,217)4 $217,218 $255,616 $69,182 $542,016 $1,598,417 $62,424 $13,928 $0 $0 $76,352 $465,664 ($2,759,553)5 $221,563 $260,728 $69,182 $551,473 $2,149,890 $63,672 $14,207 $0 $0 $77,879 $473,594 ($2,285,960)6 $225,994 $265,943 $69,182 $561,119 $2,711,009 $64,946 $14,491 $0 $0 $79,437 $481,682 ($1,804,278)7 $230,514 $271,262 $69,182 $570,958 $3,281,966 $66,245 $14,781 $0 $0 $81,026 $489,932 ($1,314,346)8 $235,124 $276,687 $69,182 $580,993 $3,862,959 $67,570 $15,076 $0 $0 $82,646 $498,347 ($815,999)9 $239,827 $282,221 $69,182 $591,229 $4,454,189 $68,921 $15,378 $0 $0 $84,299 $506,930 ($309,069)

10 $244,623 $287,865 $69,182 $601,670 $5,055,859 $70,300 $15,686 $0 $0 $85,985 $515,685 $206,61611 $249,516 $293,622 $55,346 $598,484 $5,654,342 $71,706 $15,999 $0 $0 $87,705 $510,779 $717,39512 $254,506 $299,495 $55,346 $609,346 $6,263,689 $73,140 $16,319 $0 $0 $89,459 $519,887 $1,237,28213 $259,596 $305,485 $55,346 $620,426 $6,884,115 $74,602 $16,646 $0 $0 $91,248 $529,178 $1,766,46014 $264,788 $311,594 $55,346 $631,728 $7,515,843 $76,095 $16,979 $0 $0 $93,073 $538,655 $2,305,11515 $270,084 $317,826 $55,346 $643,256 $8,159,098 $77,616 $17,318 $0 $0 $94,935 $548,321 $2,853,43616 $275,485 $324,183 $55,346 $655,014 $8,814,112 $79,169 $17,665 $0 $0 $96,833 $558,181 $3,411,61717 $280,995 $330,666 $55,346 $667,007 $9,481,119 $80,752 $18,018 $0 $0 $98,770 $568,237 $3,979,85418 $286,615 $337,280 $55,346 $679,240 $10,160,360 $82,367 $18,378 $0 $0 $100,745 $578,495 $4,558,34919 $292,347 $344,025 $55,346 $691,718 $10,852,078 $84,014 $18,746 $0 $0 $102,760 $588,958 $5,147,30720 $298,194 $350,906 $55,346 $704,446 $11,556,524 $85,695 $19,121 $0 $0 $104,815 $599,630 $6,919,500



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine RRB 600 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 600 Tower Height 65 metersGross Capacity Factor 24.80% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 22.32% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,173,139 Financing Debt Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.030$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.025$ Project Cost 2,380,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 1,810,250$ Net Present Value $721,059 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $1,427,093 Simple Payback with Grant NA yearsPresent Value Benefit $3,541,793 IRR NA Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $2,820,734 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.26 Cost of Energy $0.1781 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 79,933$ $95,210 $180,393 ($180,393) ($180,393)2 $192,666 $0 $35,194 $227,860 $227,860 $24,000 $5,355 $83,130 $92,013 $204,498 $23,362 ($157,031)3 $196,519 $0 $35,194 $231,713 $459,573 $24,480 $5,462 $86,455 $88,687 $205,085 $26,628 ($130,403)4 $200,449 $0 $35,194 $235,644 $695,217 $24,970 $5,571 $89,914 $85,229 $205,684 $29,960 ($100,443)5 $204,458 $0 $35,194 $239,653 $934,869 $25,469 $5,683 $93,510 $81,633 $206,295 $33,358 ($67,086)6 $208,548 $0 $35,194 $243,742 $1,178,611 $25,978 $5,796 $97,251 $77,892 $206,918 $36,824 ($30,262)7 $212,718 $0 $35,194 $247,913 $1,426,523 $26,498 $5,912 $101,141 $74,002 $207,553 $40,359 $10,0988 $216,973 $0 $35,194 $252,167 $1,678,690 $27,028 $6,031 $105,186 $69,957 $208,201 $43,966 $54,0639 $221,312 $0 $35,194 $256,506 $1,935,197 $27,568 $6,151 $109,394 $65,749 $208,863 $47,644 $101,707

10 $225,739 $0 $35,194 $260,933 $2,196,130 $28,120 $6,274 $113,770 $61,373 $209,537 $51,396 $153,10311 $230,253 $0 $29,328 $259,582 $2,455,711 $28,682 $6,400 $118,320 $56,823 $210,225 $49,357 $202,46012 $234,858 $0 $29,328 $264,187 $2,719,898 $29,256 $6,528 $123,053 $52,090 $210,927 $53,260 $255,72013 $239,556 $0 $29,328 $268,884 $2,988,782 $29,841 $6,658 $127,975 $47,168 $211,642 $57,242 $312,96214 $244,347 $0 $29,328 $273,675 $3,262,458 $30,438 $6,791 $133,094 $42,049 $212,372 $61,303 $374,26515 $249,234 $0 $29,328 $278,562 $3,541,020 $31,047 $6,927 $138,418 $36,725 $213,117 $65,445 $439,71016 $254,218 $0 $29,328 $283,547 $3,824,566 $31,667 $7,066 $143,955 $31,188 $213,876 $69,670 $509,38117 $259,303 $0 $29,328 $288,631 $4,113,197 $32,301 $7,207 $149,713 $25,430 $214,651 $73,980 $583,36118 $264,489 $0 $29,328 $293,817 $4,407,015 $32,947 $7,351 $155,701 $19,442 $215,441 $78,376 $661,73719 $269,778 $0 $29,328 $299,107 $4,706,122 $33,606 $7,498 $161,930 $13,213 $216,247 $82,860 $744,59720 $275,174 $0 $29,328 $304,503 $5,010,624 $34,278 $7,648 $168,407 $6,736 $217,069 $87,433 $1,427,093

Scenario 3 Debt Financing, No Grant


Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Norwin 750 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 750 Tower Height 65 metersGross Capacity Factor 23.30% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 20.97% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,377,729 Financing Debt Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 2,671,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 2,101,250$ Net Present Value $836,455 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $1,645,608 Simple Payback with Grant NA yearsPresent Value Benefit $4,058,310 IRR NA Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $3,221,855 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.26 Cost of Energy $0.1733 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 89,705$ $106,850 $203,118 ($203,118) ($203,118)2 $208,783 $17,482 $34,443 $260,709 $260,709 $30,000 $6,694 $93,293 $103,262 $233,249 $27,460 ($175,658)3 $212,959 $17,832 $34,443 $265,234 $525,943 $30,600 $6,828 $97,025 $99,530 $233,983 $31,251 ($144,407)4 $217,218 $18,188 $34,443 $269,850 $795,793 $31,212 $6,964 $100,906 $95,649 $234,731 $35,119 ($109,288)5 $221,563 $18,552 $34,443 $274,558 $1,070,351 $31,836 $7,103 $104,942 $91,613 $235,495 $39,063 ($70,225)6 $225,994 $18,923 $34,443 $279,360 $1,349,712 $32,473 $7,246 $109,140 $87,415 $236,274 $43,087 ($27,138)7 $230,514 $19,302 $34,443 $284,259 $1,633,970 $33,122 $7,390 $113,506 $83,049 $237,068 $47,191 $20,0528 $235,124 $19,688 $34,443 $289,255 $1,923,225 $33,785 $7,538 $118,046 $78,509 $237,878 $51,377 $71,4299 $239,827 $20,082 $34,443 $294,351 $2,217,577 $34,461 $7,689 $122,768 $73,787 $238,705 $55,646 $127,076

10 $244,623 $20,483 $34,443 $299,549 $2,517,126 $35,150 $7,843 $127,679 $68,877 $239,548 $60,002 $187,07711 $249,516 $20,893 $27,555 $297,963 $2,815,089 $35,853 $8,000 $132,786 $63,770 $240,408 $57,555 $244,63312 $254,506 $21,311 $27,555 $303,371 $3,118,460 $36,570 $8,160 $138,097 $58,458 $241,285 $62,086 $306,71913 $259,596 $21,737 $27,555 $308,887 $3,427,348 $37,301 $8,323 $143,621 $52,934 $242,179 $66,708 $373,42714 $264,788 $22,172 $27,555 $314,514 $3,741,862 $38,047 $8,489 $149,366 $47,189 $243,092 $71,422 $444,84915 $270,084 $22,615 $27,555 $320,253 $4,062,115 $38,808 $8,659 $155,340 $41,215 $244,023 $76,231 $521,08016 $275,485 $23,067 $27,555 $326,107 $4,388,223 $39,584 $8,832 $161,554 $35,001 $244,972 $81,135 $602,21617 $280,995 $23,529 $27,555 $332,078 $4,720,301 $40,376 $9,009 $168,016 $28,539 $245,940 $86,138 $688,35418 $286,615 $23,999 $27,555 $338,169 $5,058,470 $41,184 $9,189 $174,737 $21,818 $246,928 $91,241 $779,59519 $292,347 $24,479 $27,555 $344,381 $5,402,851 $42,007 $9,373 $181,726 $14,829 $247,935 $96,446 $876,04020 $298,194 $24,969 $27,555 $350,718 $5,753,568 $42,847 $9,560 $188,995 $7,560 $248,963 $101,755 $1,645,608



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 19.80% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,734,480 Financing Debt Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 2,660,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 2,090,250$ Net Present Value $1,634,609 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $2,867,326 Simple Payback with Grant NA yearsPresent Value Benefit $5,028,998 IRR NA Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $3,394,390 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.48 Cost of Energy $0.1453 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 89,336$ $106,410 $204,496 ($204,496) ($204,496)2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $92,909 $102,837 $244,671 $83,546 ($120,950)3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $96,626 $99,120 $245,649 $88,265 ($32,685)4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $100,491 $95,255 $246,647 $93,078 $60,3935 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $104,510 $91,236 $247,665 $97,987 $158,3806 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $108,691 $87,055 $248,704 $102,995 $261,3757 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $113,038 $82,707 $249,763 $108,102 $369,4778 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $117,560 $78,186 $250,843 $113,312 $482,7899 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $122,262 $73,484 $251,945 $118,626 $601,415

10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $127,153 $68,593 $253,069 $124,046 $725,46111 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $132,239 $63,507 $254,216 $120,902 $846,36312 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $137,528 $58,217 $255,385 $126,541 $972,90413 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $143,030 $52,716 $256,578 $132,293 $1,105,19714 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $148,751 $46,995 $257,795 $138,160 $1,243,35815 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $154,701 $41,045 $259,036 $144,145 $1,387,50216 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $160,889 $34,857 $260,301 $150,249 $1,537,75117 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $167,324 $28,421 $261,592 $156,475 $1,694,22518 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $174,017 $21,729 $262,909 $162,825 $1,857,05119 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $180,978 $14,768 $264,253 $169,303 $2,026,35420 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $188,217 $7,529 $265,623 $175,910 $2,867,326



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Fuhrlander 1500 Overall Structure Height 312 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1500 Tower Height 60 metersGross Capacity Factor 25.80% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 23.22% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 3,051,108 Financing Debt Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 4,120,250$ Net Present Value $3,056,219 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $5,322,698 Simple Payback with Grant NA yearsPresent Value Benefit $8,847,678 IRR NA Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $5,791,459 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.53 Cost of Energy $0.1408 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 157,507$ $187,610 $358,242 ($358,242) ($358,242)2 $208,783 $292,303 $76,278 $577,364 $577,364 $60,000 $13,388 $163,807 $181,310 $418,504 $158,860 ($199,382)3 $212,959 $298,149 $76,278 $587,386 $1,164,749 $61,200 $13,655 $170,359 $174,757 $419,972 $167,414 ($31,969)4 $217,218 $304,112 $76,278 $597,608 $1,762,357 $62,424 $13,928 $177,174 $167,943 $421,469 $176,139 $144,1705 $221,563 $310,194 $76,278 $608,034 $2,370,391 $63,672 $14,207 $184,261 $160,856 $422,996 $185,038 $329,2086 $225,994 $316,398 $76,278 $618,669 $2,989,061 $64,946 $14,491 $191,631 $153,486 $424,554 $194,116 $523,3247 $230,514 $322,726 $76,278 $629,517 $3,618,578 $66,245 $14,781 $199,296 $145,820 $426,143 $203,375 $726,6988 $235,124 $329,180 $76,278 $640,582 $4,259,160 $67,570 $15,076 $207,268 $137,849 $427,763 $212,819 $939,5179 $239,827 $335,764 $76,278 $651,868 $4,911,028 $68,921 $15,378 $215,559 $129,558 $429,416 $222,452 $1,161,969

10 $244,623 $342,479 $76,278 $663,380 $5,574,408 $70,300 $15,686 $224,181 $120,936 $431,102 $232,278 $1,394,24811 $249,516 $349,329 $61,022 $659,866 $6,234,275 $71,706 $15,999 $233,149 $111,968 $432,822 $227,045 $1,621,29212 $254,506 $356,315 $61,022 $671,843 $6,906,118 $73,140 $16,319 $242,474 $102,642 $434,576 $237,268 $1,858,56013 $259,596 $363,442 $61,022 $684,060 $7,590,178 $74,602 $16,646 $252,173 $92,943 $436,365 $247,695 $2,106,25514 $264,788 $370,711 $61,022 $696,521 $8,286,699 $76,095 $16,979 $262,260 $82,856 $438,190 $258,331 $2,364,58515 $270,084 $378,125 $61,022 $709,231 $8,995,929 $77,616 $17,318 $272,751 $72,366 $440,051 $269,179 $2,633,76516 $275,485 $385,687 $61,022 $722,195 $9,718,124 $79,169 $17,665 $283,661 $61,456 $441,950 $280,245 $2,914,00917 $280,995 $393,401 $61,022 $735,418 $10,453,542 $80,752 $18,018 $295,007 $50,110 $443,887 $291,531 $3,205,54118 $286,615 $401,269 $61,022 $748,906 $11,202,448 $82,367 $18,378 $306,808 $38,309 $445,862 $303,044 $3,508,58519 $292,347 $409,294 $61,022 $762,664 $11,965,112 $84,014 $18,746 $319,080 $26,037 $447,877 $314,787 $3,823,37120 $298,194 $417,480 $61,022 $776,697 $12,741,808 $85,695 $19,121 $331,843 $13,274 $449,932 $326,764 $5,322,698



Mashpee, MA



1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 157,507$ $187,610 $358,242 ($358,242) ($358,242)2 $208,783 $245,690 $69,182 $523,656 $523,656 $60,000 $13,388 $163,807 $181,310 $418,504 $105,151 ($253,091)3 $212,959 $250,604 $69,182 $532,745 $1,056,401 $61,200 $13,655 $170,359 $174,757 $419,972 $112,773 ($140,318)4 $217,218 $255,616 $69,182 $542,016 $1,598,417 $62,424 $13,928 $177,174 $167,943 $421,469 $120,547 ($19,770)5 $221,563 $260,728 $69,182 $551,473 $2,149,890 $63,672 $14,207 $184,261 $160,856 $422,996 $128,477 $108,7066 $225,994 $265,943 $69,182 $561,119 $2,711,009 $64,946 $14,491 $191,631 $153,486 $424,554 $136,565 $245,2717 $230,514 $271,262 $69,182 $570,958 $3,281,966 $66,245 $14,781 $199,296 $145,820 $426,143 $144,815 $390,0868 $235,124 $276,687 $69,182 $580,993 $3,862,959 $67,570 $15,076 $207,268 $137,849 $427,763 $153,230 $543,3169 $239,827 $282,221 $69,182 $591,229 $4,454,189 $68,921 $15,378 $215,559 $129,558 $429,416 $161,813 $705,130

10 $244,623 $287,865 $69,182 $601,670 $5,055,859 $70,300 $15,686 $224,181 $120,936 $431,102 $170,568 $875,69811 $249,516 $293,622 $55,346 $598,484 $5,654,342 $71,706 $15,999 $233,149 $111,968 $432,822 $165,662 $1,041,36012 $254,506 $299,495 $55,346 $609,346 $6,263,689 $73,140 $16,319 $242,474 $102,642 $434,576 $174,771 $1,216,13013 $259,596 $305,485 $55,346 $620,426 $6,884,115 $74,602 $16,646 $252,173 $92,943 $436,365 $184,061 $1,400,19214 $264,788 $311,594 $55,346 $631,728 $7,515,843 $76,095 $16,979 $262,260 $82,856 $438,190 $193,538 $1,593,73015 $270,084 $317,826 $55,346 $643,256 $8,159,098 $77,616 $17,318 $272,751 $72,366 $440,051 $203,204 $1,796,93416 $275,485 $324,183 $55,346 $655,014 $8,814,112 $79,169 $17,665 $283,661 $61,456 $441,950 $213,064 $2,009,99817 $280,995 $330,666 $55,346 $667,007 $9,481,119 $80,752 $18,018 $295,007 $50,110 $443,887 $223,120 $2,233,11818 $286,615 $337,280 $55,346 $679,240 $10,160,360 $82,367 $18,378 $306,808 $38,309 $445,862 $233,378 $2,466,49619 $292,347 $344,025 $55,346 $691,718 $10,852,078 $84,014 $18,746 $319,080 $26,037 $447,877 $243,841 $2,710,33820 $298,194 $350,906 $55,346 $704,446 $11,556,524 $85,695 $19,121 $331,843 $13,274 $449,932 $254,513 $4,137,414



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine RRB 600 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 600 Tower Height 65 metersGross Capacity Factor 24.80% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 22.32% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,173,139 Financing Debt Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.030$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.025$ Project Cost 2,380,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 1,810,250$ Net Present Value $1,291,059 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $2,265,925 Simple Payback with Grant NA yearsPresent Value Benefit $3,541,793 IRR NA Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $2,250,734 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.57 Cost of Energy $0.1423 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 $60,791 $72,410 $138,451 ($138,451) ($138,451)2 $192,666 $0 $35,194 $227,860 $227,860 $24,000 $5,355 $63,223 $69,978 $162,556 $65,303 ($73,148)3 $196,519 $0 $35,194 $231,713 $459,573 $24,480 $5,462 $65,752 $67,449 $163,143 $68,570 ($4,578)4 $200,449 $0 $35,194 $235,644 $695,217 $24,970 $5,571 $68,382 $64,819 $163,742 $71,901 $67,3235 $204,458 $0 $35,194 $239,653 $934,869 $25,469 $5,683 $71,117 $62,084 $164,353 $75,299 $142,6226 $208,548 $0 $35,194 $243,742 $1,178,611 $25,978 $5,796 $73,962 $59,239 $164,976 $78,766 $221,3887 $212,718 $0 $35,194 $247,913 $1,426,523 $26,498 $5,912 $76,920 $56,281 $165,612 $82,301 $303,6898 $216,973 $0 $35,194 $252,167 $1,678,690 $27,028 $6,031 $79,997 $53,204 $166,260 $85,907 $389,5969 $221,312 $0 $35,194 $256,506 $1,935,197 $27,568 $6,151 $83,197 $50,004 $166,921 $89,585 $479,182

10 $225,739 $0 $35,194 $260,933 $2,196,130 $28,120 $6,274 $86,525 $46,676 $167,595 $93,337 $572,51911 $230,253 $0 $29,328 $259,582 $2,455,711 $28,682 $6,400 $89,986 $43,215 $168,283 $91,298 $663,81712 $234,858 $0 $29,328 $264,187 $2,719,898 $29,256 $6,528 $93,586 $39,616 $168,985 $95,202 $759,01913 $239,556 $0 $29,328 $268,884 $2,988,782 $29,841 $6,658 $97,329 $35,872 $169,701 $99,183 $858,20314 $244,347 $0 $29,328 $273,675 $3,262,458 $30,438 $6,791 $101,222 $31,979 $170,431 $103,245 $961,44715 $249,234 $0 $29,328 $278,562 $3,541,020 $31,047 $6,927 $105,271 $27,930 $171,175 $107,387 $1,068,83416 $254,218 $0 $29,328 $283,547 $3,824,566 $31,667 $7,066 $109,482 $23,720 $171,935 $111,612 $1,180,44617 $259,303 $0 $29,328 $288,631 $4,113,197 $32,301 $7,207 $113,861 $19,340 $172,709 $115,922 $1,296,36818 $264,489 $0 $29,328 $293,817 $4,407,015 $32,947 $7,351 $118,416 $14,786 $173,499 $120,318 $1,416,68619 $269,778 $0 $29,328 $299,107 $4,706,122 $33,606 $7,498 $123,152 $10,049 $174,305 $124,801 $1,541,48720 $275,174 $0 $29,328 $304,503 $5,010,624 $34,278 $7,648 $128,078 $5,123 $175,128 $129,375 $2,265,925

Scenario 1 Debt Financing, With Grant


Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Norwin 750 Overall Structure Height 290 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 750 Tower Height 65 metersGross Capacity Factor 23.30% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 20.97% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,377,729 Financing Debt Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 2,671,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 2,101,250$ Net Present Value $1,406,455 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $2,484,440 Simple Payback with Grant NA yearsPresent Value Benefit $4,058,310 IRR NA Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $2,651,855 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.53 Cost of Energy $0.1429 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,563 $70,564 $84,050 $161,176 ($161,176) ($161,176)2 $208,783 $17,482 $34,443 $260,709 $260,709 $30,000 $6,694 $73,386 $81,227 $191,307 $69,401 ($91,775)3 $212,959 $17,832 $34,443 $265,234 $525,943 $30,600 $6,828 $76,322 $78,292 $192,041 $73,193 ($18,582)4 $217,218 $18,188 $34,443 $269,850 $795,793 $31,212 $6,964 $79,375 $75,239 $192,790 $77,060 $58,4785 $221,563 $18,552 $34,443 $274,558 $1,070,351 $31,836 $7,103 $82,549 $72,064 $193,553 $81,005 $139,4836 $225,994 $18,923 $34,443 $279,360 $1,349,712 $32,473 $7,246 $85,851 $68,762 $194,332 $85,028 $224,5117 $230,514 $19,302 $34,443 $284,259 $1,633,970 $33,122 $7,390 $89,286 $65,328 $195,127 $89,132 $313,6448 $235,124 $19,688 $34,443 $289,255 $1,923,225 $33,785 $7,538 $92,857 $61,757 $195,937 $93,318 $406,9629 $239,827 $20,082 $34,443 $294,351 $2,217,577 $34,461 $7,689 $96,571 $58,042 $196,763 $97,588 $504,550

10 $244,623 $20,483 $34,443 $299,549 $2,517,126 $35,150 $7,843 $100,434 $54,180 $197,606 $101,943 $606,49311 $249,516 $20,893 $27,555 $297,963 $2,815,089 $35,853 $8,000 $104,451 $50,162 $198,466 $99,497 $705,99012 $254,506 $21,311 $27,555 $303,371 $3,118,460 $36,570 $8,160 $108,630 $45,984 $199,343 $104,028 $810,01813 $259,596 $21,737 $27,555 $308,887 $3,427,348 $37,301 $8,323 $112,975 $41,639 $200,238 $108,650 $918,66814 $264,788 $22,172 $27,555 $314,514 $3,741,862 $38,047 $8,489 $117,494 $37,120 $201,150 $113,364 $1,032,03215 $270,084 $22,615 $27,555 $320,253 $4,062,115 $38,808 $8,659 $122,193 $32,420 $202,081 $118,172 $1,150,20416 $275,485 $23,067 $27,555 $326,107 $4,388,223 $39,584 $8,832 $127,081 $27,533 $203,030 $123,077 $1,273,28117 $280,995 $23,529 $27,555 $332,078 $4,720,301 $40,376 $9,009 $132,164 $22,449 $203,999 $128,080 $1,401,36118 $286,615 $23,999 $27,555 $338,169 $5,058,470 $41,184 $9,189 $137,451 $17,163 $204,986 $133,183 $1,534,54319 $292,347 $24,479 $27,555 $344,381 $5,402,851 $42,007 $9,373 $142,949 $11,665 $205,994 $138,387 $1,672,93120 $298,194 $24,969 $27,555 $350,718 $5,753,568 $42,847 $9,560 $148,667 $5,947 $207,021 $143,696 $2,484,440



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 19.80% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,734,480 Financing Debt Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 2,660,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 2,090,250$ Net Present Value $2,204,609 Simple Payback NA years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $3,706,158 Simple Payback with Grant NA yearsPresent Value Benefit $5,028,998 IRR NA Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $2,824,390 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.78 Cost of Energy $0.1211 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $70,194 $83,610 $162,554 ($162,554) ($162,554)2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $73,002 $80,802 $202,729 $125,488 ($37,066)3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $75,922 $77,882 $203,708 $130,207 $93,1404 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $78,959 $74,845 $204,706 $135,019 $228,1605 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $82,117 $71,687 $205,724 $139,929 $368,0886 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $85,402 $68,402 $206,762 $144,936 $513,0257 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $88,818 $64,986 $207,821 $150,044 $663,0688 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $92,371 $61,433 $208,902 $155,253 $818,3229 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $96,066 $57,739 $210,004 $160,567 $978,889

10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $99,908 $53,896 $211,128 $165,988 $1,144,87711 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $103,905 $49,900 $212,274 $162,844 $1,307,72012 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $108,061 $45,743 $213,444 $168,483 $1,476,20313 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $112,383 $41,421 $214,636 $174,235 $1,650,43814 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $116,879 $36,926 $215,853 $180,102 $1,830,54015 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $121,554 $32,251 $217,094 $186,086 $2,016,62616 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $126,416 $27,388 $218,360 $192,190 $2,208,81617 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $131,473 $22,332 $219,651 $198,416 $2,407,23318 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $136,731 $17,073 $220,968 $204,767 $2,611,99919 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $142,201 $11,604 $222,311 $211,245 $2,823,24420 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $147,889 $5,916 $223,681 $217,852 $3,706,158



Mashpee, MA



1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $138,365 $164,810 $316,300 ($316,300) ($316,300)2 $208,783 $292,303 $76,278 $577,364 $577,364 $60,000 $13,388 $143,900 $159,275 $376,563 $200,801 ($115,499)3 $212,959 $298,149 $76,278 $587,386 $1,164,749 $61,200 $13,655 $149,656 $153,519 $378,030 $209,355 $93,8564 $217,218 $304,112 $76,278 $597,608 $1,762,357 $62,424 $13,928 $155,642 $147,533 $379,528 $218,080 $311,9365 $221,563 $310,194 $76,278 $608,034 $2,370,391 $63,672 $14,207 $161,868 $141,307 $381,055 $226,980 $538,9166 $225,994 $316,398 $76,278 $618,669 $2,989,061 $64,946 $14,491 $168,342 $134,833 $382,612 $236,057 $774,9737 $230,514 $322,726 $76,278 $629,517 $3,618,578 $66,245 $14,781 $175,076 $128,099 $384,201 $245,316 $1,020,2898 $235,124 $329,180 $76,278 $640,582 $4,259,160 $67,570 $15,076 $182,079 $121,096 $385,821 $254,761 $1,275,0509 $239,827 $335,764 $76,278 $651,868 $4,911,028 $68,921 $15,378 $189,362 $113,813 $387,474 $264,394 $1,539,444

10 $244,623 $342,479 $76,278 $663,380 $5,574,408 $70,300 $15,686 $196,937 $106,238 $389,160 $274,220 $1,813,66311 $249,516 $349,329 $61,022 $659,866 $6,234,275 $71,706 $15,999 $204,814 $98,361 $390,880 $268,986 $2,082,65012 $254,506 $356,315 $61,022 $671,843 $6,906,118 $73,140 $16,319 $213,007 $90,168 $392,634 $279,209 $2,361,85913 $259,596 $363,442 $61,022 $684,060 $7,590,178 $74,602 $16,646 $221,527 $81,648 $394,423 $289,636 $2,651,49614 $264,788 $370,711 $61,022 $696,521 $8,286,699 $76,095 $16,979 $230,388 $72,787 $396,248 $300,272 $2,951,76815 $270,084 $378,125 $61,022 $709,231 $8,995,929 $77,616 $17,318 $239,604 $63,571 $398,110 $311,121 $3,262,88916 $275,485 $385,687 $61,022 $722,195 $9,718,124 $79,169 $17,665 $249,188 $53,987 $400,008 $322,186 $3,585,07517 $280,995 $393,401 $61,022 $735,418 $10,453,542 $80,752 $18,018 $259,155 $44,020 $401,945 $333,473 $3,918,54818 $286,615 $401,269 $61,022 $748,906 $11,202,448 $82,367 $18,378 $269,522 $33,654 $403,921 $344,986 $4,263,53319 $292,347 $409,294 $61,022 $762,664 $11,965,112 $84,014 $18,746 $280,303 $22,873 $405,935 $356,728 $4,620,26220 $298,194 $417,480 $61,022 $776,697 $12,741,808 $85,695 $19,121 $291,515 $11,661 $407,991 $368,706 $6,161,530



Mashpee, MA



1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $138,365 $164,810 $316,300 ($316,300) ($316,300)2 $208,783 $245,690 $69,182 $523,656 $523,656 $60,000 $13,388 $143,900 $159,275 $376,563 $147,093 ($169,207)3 $212,959 $250,604 $69,182 $532,745 $1,056,401 $61,200 $13,655 $149,656 $153,519 $378,030 $154,715 ($14,493)4 $217,218 $255,616 $69,182 $542,016 $1,598,417 $62,424 $13,928 $155,642 $147,533 $379,528 $162,489 $147,9965 $221,563 $260,728 $69,182 $551,473 $2,149,890 $63,672 $14,207 $161,868 $141,307 $381,055 $170,418 $318,4146 $225,994 $265,943 $69,182 $561,119 $2,711,009 $64,946 $14,491 $168,342 $134,833 $382,612 $178,507 $496,9217 $230,514 $271,262 $69,182 $570,958 $3,281,966 $66,245 $14,781 $175,076 $128,099 $384,201 $186,757 $683,6788 $235,124 $276,687 $69,182 $580,993 $3,862,959 $67,570 $15,076 $182,079 $121,096 $385,821 $195,172 $878,8499 $239,827 $282,221 $69,182 $591,229 $4,454,189 $68,921 $15,378 $189,362 $113,813 $387,474 $203,755 $1,082,604

10 $244,623 $287,865 $69,182 $601,670 $5,055,859 $70,300 $15,686 $196,937 $106,238 $389,160 $212,510 $1,295,11411 $249,516 $293,622 $55,346 $598,484 $5,654,342 $71,706 $15,999 $204,814 $98,361 $390,880 $207,603 $1,502,71712 $254,506 $299,495 $55,346 $609,346 $6,263,689 $73,140 $16,319 $213,007 $90,168 $392,634 $216,712 $1,719,42913 $259,596 $305,485 $55,346 $620,426 $6,884,115 $74,602 $16,646 $221,527 $81,648 $394,423 $226,003 $1,945,43214 $264,788 $311,594 $55,346 $631,728 $7,515,843 $76,095 $16,979 $230,388 $72,787 $396,248 $235,480 $2,180,91215 $270,084 $317,826 $55,346 $643,256 $8,159,098 $77,616 $17,318 $239,604 $63,571 $398,110 $245,146 $2,426,05816 $275,485 $324,183 $55,346 $655,014 $8,814,112 $79,169 $17,665 $249,188 $53,987 $400,008 $255,005 $2,681,06317 $280,995 $330,666 $55,346 $667,007 $9,481,119 $80,752 $18,018 $259,155 $44,020 $401,945 $265,062 $2,946,12518 $286,615 $337,280 $55,346 $679,240 $10,160,360 $82,367 $18,378 $269,522 $33,654 $403,921 $275,320 $3,221,44519 $292,347 $344,025 $55,346 $691,718 $10,852,078 $84,014 $18,746 $280,303 $22,873 $405,935 $285,783 $3,507,22820 $298,194 $350,906 $55,346 $704,446 $11,556,524 $85,695 $19,121 $291,515 $11,661 $407,991 $296,455 $4,976,246



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 15.84% S = -20% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,387,584 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 4,120,250$ Net Present Value ($380,398) Simple Payback 21.95 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $1,720,812 Simple Payback with Grant 19.29 yearsPresent Value Benefit $4,315,520 IRR 3.04% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $4,695,919 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 0.92 Cost of Energy $0.1891 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 4,120,250$ $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)2 $208,783 $19,101 $34,690 $262,574 $262,574 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $213,649 ($3,915,351)3 $212,959 $19,483 $34,690 $267,131 $529,705 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $217,228 ($3,698,123)4 $217,218 $19,872 $34,690 $271,780 $801,485 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $220,879 ($3,477,245)5 $221,563 $20,270 $34,690 $276,522 $1,078,007 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $224,602 ($3,252,642)6 $225,994 $20,675 $34,690 $281,359 $1,359,366 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $228,401 ($3,024,241)7 $230,514 $21,089 $34,690 $286,292 $1,645,658 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $232,275 ($2,791,967)8 $235,124 $21,510 $34,690 $291,324 $1,936,982 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $236,227 ($2,555,740)9 $239,827 $21,941 $34,690 $296,457 $2,233,439 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $240,257 ($2,315,482)

10 $244,623 $22,380 $34,690 $301,692 $2,535,131 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $244,369 ($2,071,114)11 $249,516 $22,827 $27,752 $300,094 $2,835,226 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $241,624 ($1,829,489)12 $254,506 $23,284 $27,752 $305,541 $3,140,767 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $245,902 ($1,583,587)13 $259,596 $23,749 $27,752 $311,097 $3,451,864 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $250,265 ($1,333,323)14 $264,788 $24,224 $27,752 $316,764 $3,768,628 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $254,715 ($1,078,607)15 $270,084 $24,709 $27,752 $322,544 $4,091,172 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $259,254 ($819,353)16 $275,485 $25,203 $27,752 $328,440 $4,419,612 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $263,884 ($555,469)17 $280,995 $25,707 $27,752 $334,454 $4,754,066 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $268,607 ($286,862)18 $286,615 $26,221 $27,752 $340,588 $5,094,653 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $273,424 ($13,437)19 $292,347 $26,746 $27,752 $346,844 $5,441,498 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $278,338 $264,90020 $298,194 $27,281 $27,752 $353,226 $5,794,724 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $283,349 $1,720,812

Scenario S-1 Equity Financing, No Grant


Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 17.82% S = -10% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,561,032 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 4,120,250$ Net Present Value $92,149 Simple Payback 19.03 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $2,445,153 Simple Payback with Grant 16.72 yearsPresent Value Benefit $4,788,068 IRR 4.23% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $4,695,919 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.02 Cost of Energy $0.1680 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 4,120,250$ $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)2 $208,783 $47,586 $39,026 $295,395 $295,395 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $246,470 ($3,882,530)3 $212,959 $48,538 $39,026 $300,523 $595,918 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $250,619 ($3,631,910)4 $217,218 $49,509 $39,026 $305,753 $901,671 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $254,851 ($3,377,059)5 $221,563 $50,499 $39,026 $311,087 $1,212,758 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $259,168 ($3,117,891)6 $225,994 $51,509 $39,026 $316,529 $1,529,287 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $263,571 ($2,854,321)7 $230,514 $52,539 $39,026 $322,079 $1,851,366 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $268,061 ($2,586,259)8 $235,124 $53,590 $39,026 $327,740 $2,179,105 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $272,642 ($2,313,617)9 $239,827 $54,662 $39,026 $333,514 $2,512,619 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $277,314 ($2,036,303)

10 $244,623 $55,755 $39,026 $339,404 $2,852,023 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $282,080 ($1,754,222)11 $249,516 $56,870 $31,221 $337,606 $3,189,629 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $279,136 ($1,475,086)12 $254,506 $58,007 $31,221 $343,734 $3,533,363 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $284,095 ($1,190,992)13 $259,596 $59,167 $31,221 $349,984 $3,883,347 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $289,152 ($901,840)14 $264,788 $60,351 $31,221 $356,359 $4,239,706 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $294,311 ($607,529)15 $270,084 $61,558 $31,221 $362,862 $4,602,568 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $299,572 ($307,957)16 $275,485 $62,789 $31,221 $369,495 $4,972,063 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $304,939 ($3,017)17 $280,995 $64,045 $31,221 $376,260 $5,348,324 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $310,414 $307,39718 $286,615 $65,326 $31,221 $383,161 $5,731,485 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $315,998 $623,39419 $292,347 $66,632 $31,221 $390,200 $6,121,685 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $321,693 $945,08820 $298,194 $67,965 $31,221 $397,380 $6,519,065 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $327,503 $2,445,153



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 19.80% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,734,480 Base Case Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 4,120,250$ Net Present Value $564,696 Simple Payback 16.79 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $3,169,493 Simple Payback with Grant 14.75 yearsPresent Value Benefit $5,260,615 IRR 5.37% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $4,695,919 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.12 Cost of Energy $0.1512 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 4,120,250$ $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)2 $208,783 $76,072 $43,362 $328,217 $328,217 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $279,292 ($3,849,708)3 $212,959 $77,593 $43,362 $333,914 $662,131 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $284,011 ($3,565,697)4 $217,218 $79,145 $43,362 $339,725 $1,001,857 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $288,824 ($3,276,873)5 $221,563 $80,728 $43,362 $345,653 $1,347,509 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $293,733 ($2,983,140)6 $225,994 $82,342 $43,362 $351,698 $1,699,208 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $298,740 ($2,684,400)7 $230,514 $83,989 $43,362 $357,865 $2,057,073 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $303,848 ($2,380,552)8 $235,124 $85,669 $43,362 $364,155 $2,421,228 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $309,058 ($2,071,494)9 $239,827 $87,383 $43,362 $370,571 $2,791,799 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $314,372 ($1,757,123)

10 $244,623 $89,130 $43,362 $377,115 $3,168,914 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $319,792 ($1,437,331)11 $249,516 $90,913 $34,690 $375,118 $3,544,032 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $316,648 ($1,120,683)12 $254,506 $92,731 $34,690 $381,926 $3,925,959 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $322,287 ($798,396)13 $259,596 $94,586 $34,690 $388,871 $4,314,830 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $328,039 ($470,357)14 $264,788 $96,477 $34,690 $395,955 $4,710,785 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $333,906 ($136,451)15 $270,084 $98,407 $34,690 $403,180 $5,113,965 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $339,890 $203,44016 $275,485 $100,375 $34,690 $410,550 $5,524,515 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $345,994 $549,43417 $280,995 $102,383 $34,690 $418,067 $5,942,582 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $352,221 $901,65518 $286,615 $104,430 $34,690 $425,735 $6,368,317 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $358,571 $1,260,22619 $292,347 $106,519 $34,690 $433,556 $6,801,872 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $365,049 $1,625,27520 $298,194 $108,649 $34,690 $441,533 $7,243,405 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $371,656 $3,169,493



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 21.78% S = +10% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1,907,928 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 4,120,250$ Net Present Value $1,037,244 Simple Payback 15.03 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $3,893,834 Simple Payback with Grant 13.20 yearsPresent Value Benefit $5,733,162 IRR 6.47% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $4,695,919 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.22 Cost of Energy $0.1375 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 4,120,250$ $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)2 $208,783 $104,557 $47,698 $361,039 $361,039 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $312,114 ($3,816,886)3 $212,959 $106,648 $47,698 $367,306 $728,345 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $317,402 ($3,499,484)4 $217,218 $108,781 $47,698 $373,698 $1,102,042 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $322,796 ($3,176,688)5 $221,563 $110,957 $47,698 $380,218 $1,482,260 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $328,298 ($2,848,389)6 $225,994 $113,176 $47,698 $386,868 $1,869,128 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $333,910 ($2,514,479)7 $230,514 $115,440 $47,698 $393,652 $2,262,780 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $339,634 ($2,174,845)8 $235,124 $117,748 $47,698 $400,571 $2,663,351 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $345,473 ($1,829,371)9 $239,827 $120,103 $47,698 $407,628 $3,070,979 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $351,429 ($1,477,943)

10 $244,623 $122,505 $47,698 $414,827 $3,485,806 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $357,503 ($1,120,439)11 $249,516 $124,956 $38,159 $412,630 $3,898,435 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $354,160 ($766,280)12 $254,506 $127,455 $38,159 $420,119 $4,318,555 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $360,480 ($405,800)13 $259,596 $130,004 $38,159 $427,758 $4,746,313 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $366,926 ($38,874)14 $264,788 $132,604 $38,159 $435,550 $5,181,863 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $373,502 $334,62815 $270,084 $135,256 $38,159 $443,498 $5,625,361 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $380,208 $714,83616 $275,485 $137,961 $38,159 $451,605 $6,076,966 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $387,049 $1,101,88617 $280,995 $140,720 $38,159 $459,874 $6,536,840 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $394,027 $1,495,91318 $286,615 $143,535 $38,159 $468,308 $7,005,148 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $401,145 $1,897,05819 $292,347 $146,405 $38,159 $476,911 $7,482,059 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $408,404 $2,305,46220 $298,194 $149,334 $38,159 $485,686 $7,967,746 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $415,809 $3,893,834



Mashpee, MA

Existing Power Use and Cost BasisWind Turbine Nordic 1000 Overall Structure Height 318 feet Annual Use: 1,271,280 kWhTurbine size (kW) 1000 Tower Height 70 metersGross Capacity Factor 22.00% Average Wind Speed 5.7 m/s at 50 meter Avg. Rate TotalNet Capacity Factor 23.76% S = +20% Project Term 20 years Customer Service/Demand 0.00996 12,661$ Net Annual Energy Production (kWh) 2,081,376 Financing Equity Distribution 0.01557 19,792$ Annual Facility Use (kWh/yr) 1,271,280 Energy Inflation 2.0% Transition 0.02014 25,604$ Retail Offset Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ General Inflation 2.0% Transmission 0.01853 23,560$ Value of Excess Energy Rate (kWh) 0.16423$ Discount Rate 4.0% Energy Use 0.10999 139,828$ REC value Y1-Y10 0.025$ Loan Rate 4.0% Renewable Energy 0.00050 636$ REC value Y11-Y20 0.020$ Project Cost 4,690,250$ Energy Conservation 0.00250 3,178$ Coincidence 100% Project Cost with Grant 4,120,250$ Net Present Value $1,509,791 Simple Payback 13.60 years Total Electric Cost 0.17719 225,258$ Net Cash Flow $4,618,174 Simple Payback with Grant 11.94 yearsPresent Value Benefit $6,205,709 IRR 7.53% Estimated Net Metering Credit 0.16423 93%Present Value Cost $4,695,919 Residual Value 25%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.32 Cost of Energy $0.1260 kWh


1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 4,120,250$ $0 $4,129,000 ($4,129,000) ($4,129,000)2 $208,783 $133,043 $52,034 $393,861 $393,861 $40,000 $8,925 $0 $0 $48,925 $344,936 ($3,784,064)3 $212,959 $135,704 $52,034 $400,697 $794,558 $40,800 $9,104 $0 $0 $49,904 $350,794 ($3,433,271)4 $217,218 $138,418 $52,034 $407,670 $1,202,228 $41,616 $9,286 $0 $0 $50,902 $356,769 ($3,076,502)5 $221,563 $141,186 $52,034 $414,783 $1,617,011 $42,448 $9,471 $0 $0 $51,920 $362,863 ($2,713,638)6 $225,994 $144,010 $52,034 $422,038 $2,039,049 $43,297 $9,661 $0 $0 $52,958 $369,080 ($2,344,558)7 $230,514 $146,890 $52,034 $429,438 $2,468,487 $44,163 $9,854 $0 $0 $54,017 $375,421 ($1,969,137)8 $235,124 $149,828 $52,034 $436,986 $2,905,474 $45,046 $10,051 $0 $0 $55,097 $381,889 ($1,587,249)9 $239,827 $152,824 $52,034 $444,685 $3,350,159 $45,947 $10,252 $0 $0 $56,199 $388,486 ($1,198,763)

10 $244,623 $155,881 $52,034 $452,538 $3,802,697 $46,866 $10,457 $0 $0 $57,323 $395,215 ($803,548)11 $249,516 $158,998 $41,628 $450,141 $4,252,839 $47,804 $10,666 $0 $0 $58,470 $391,672 ($411,876)12 $254,506 $162,178 $41,628 $458,312 $4,711,150 $48,760 $10,880 $0 $0 $59,639 $398,672 ($13,204)13 $259,596 $165,422 $41,628 $466,645 $5,177,796 $49,735 $11,097 $0 $0 $60,832 $405,813 $392,60914 $264,788 $168,730 $41,628 $475,146 $5,652,942 $50,730 $11,319 $0 $0 $62,049 $413,097 $805,70615 $270,084 $172,105 $41,628 $483,816 $6,136,758 $51,744 $11,545 $0 $0 $63,290 $420,526 $1,226,23316 $275,485 $175,547 $41,628 $492,660 $6,629,418 $52,779 $11,776 $0 $0 $64,555 $428,104 $1,654,33717 $280,995 $179,058 $41,628 $501,681 $7,131,098 $53,835 $12,012 $0 $0 $65,847 $435,834 $2,090,17118 $286,615 $182,639 $41,628 $510,882 $7,641,980 $54,911 $12,252 $0 $0 $67,164 $443,718 $2,533,88919 $292,347 $186,292 $41,628 $520,267 $8,162,247 $56,010 $12,497 $0 $0 $68,507 $451,760 $2,985,64920 $298,194 $190,018 $41,628 $529,840 $8,692,086 $57,130 $12,747 $0 $0 $69,877 $459,963 $4,618,174
