SED Duxbury Wind Feasibility Report

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR ON-SITE WIND GENERATION- DRAFT REPORT
Town of Duxbury, Massachusetts

October 20, 2011

Sponsored by:

2

i
Draft Report - Technical Analysis for On-Site Wind Generation for the Town of Duxbury
Notice

This report was prepared by Sustainable Energy Developments, Inc. in the course of performing work
sponsored by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) Commonwealth Wind Incentive
Program: Community Scale Wind, pursuant to task order 10-1 executed November 19, 2010. The
opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the MassCEC or the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute
an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it.

Further, the MassCEC, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the contractor make no warranties or
representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any
product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods
or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury,
or damage directly or indirectly resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information
contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.

Acknowledgements
Rich Gross P.E. Inc. contributed to the development of an electrical interconnection plan for a wind
turbine at this site.

AWS Truepower, LLC provided wind resource data that was used to calculate wind turbine output
estimates.

Disclaimer

This report is presented in response to the contract between the Town of Duxbury and Sustainable
Energy Developments, Inc. executed on 19 November 2010. The information and analyses presented
herein is based on wind development best practices, commercially available information and a preliminary
analysis of the Town of Duxbury electrical infrastructure. SED makes no guarantees, expressed or
implied as to the actual outcome of the processes described in this report.

3

ii
ABSTRACT

This report presents the findings of Sustainable Energy Development's Technical Analysis for On-Site
Wind Generation for the Town of Duxbury that occurred between November of 2010 and December of
2011. The study assessed and quantified the Town's ability to install a wind turbine on Town-owned land
that would utilize virtual net metering to offset municipal accounts. Key aspects of wind project
development were examined including: site considerations; wind resource assessment and turbine output
modeling; wind generated electricity value; electrical system impact assessment; buildability; permitting;
development budgeting; total capital cost; operations & maintenance; timeline; an economic analysis; and
financing and ownership options.

The goal of this feasibility study was to identify and explore a wind energy project that would be
economically beneficial for the Town of Duxbury to pursue. The Town of Duxbury Wind Bylaw restricts
the allowable height of a wind turbine to 250 feet, which presents an obstacle to economically beneficial
outcome for the Town. There are currently no wind technologies under this height that would be an
economical option for the Town to purse. Therefore, SED explored two different wind turbine technology
options that would provide the best economic opportunity for the Town of Duxbury. One would involve a
Northwind 450kW, a wind turbine currently under development, but that would be much more economical
than other similarly sized technologies on the market. The other technology evaluated was a PowerWind
900kW, which would slightly exceed the height limit, but would provide a proven and readily available
wind turbine that would generate significant electricity savings for the Town of Duxbury. Proceeding with
a project utilizing either of these technologies would be the best pathway to forward to a successful wind
development.

iii

KEYWORDS

On-site Wind Power
Wind Turbine
Wind Power
Wind Modeling
WindPro
WAsP
Town of Duxbury
Sustainable Energy Developments, Inc.
Northern Power Systems
Northern Power 450kW
PowerWind
PowerWind 56 900kW
Virtual Net Metering
iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

agl -above ground level
amsl -above mean sea level
AEP -annual energy production
AEO -annual energy output
DEP -Department of Environmental Protection
ENF -Environmental Notification Form
EPA -Environmental Protection Agency
FAA -Federal Aviation Administration
FCC -Federal Communications Commission
ft -feet
kW -kilowatt
kV -kilovolt
kVA -kilovolt-amp
MEPA -Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
Mass Highway -Massachusetts Highway Department
MassCEC -Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
MWh -Megawatt hours
m -meters
m/s -meters per second
MW -Megawatt
NPDES -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NHESP -Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
NHGC -North Hills Golf Course
NOI -Notice of Intent
O & M -operations and maintenance
SED -Sustainable Energy Developments, Inc
USFWS -United States Fish and Wildlife Service
W/m
2
-Watts per square meter
WAsP -Wind Atlas and Analysis Application Program

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-1
1 WIND TURBINE SITING AND ENERGY YIELD ANALYSIS 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 NORTH HILL SITE DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.3 PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT 1-2
1.4 WIND RESOURCE POTENTIAL 1-4
1.5 SITING CONSIDERATIONS 1-6
1.6 SELECTED SITE EVALUATIONS 1-10
1.7 FINAL SCENARIO RECOMMENDATIONS 1-16

2 WIND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND TURBINE OUTPUT MODELING 2-1
2.1 WIND TURBINE SELECTION AND OUTPUT CALCULATION 2-1
2.2 VIRTUAL MET MAST INFORMATION 2-2
2.3 TERRAIN AND ROUGHNESS MAPS 2-3
2.4 WIND TURBINE POWER CURVES 2-3
2.5 SUMMARY OF MODEL RESULTS 2-5
2.6 FINAL TURBINE OUTPUT CALCULATIONS 2-6

3 INTERCONNECTION INVESTIGATION 3-1
3.1 RECOMMENDED INTERCONNECTION PLAN 3-1
3.2 NEXT STEPS 3-2

4 WIND GENERATED ELECTRICITY VALUE 4-1
4.1 TOWN OF DUXBURY ELECTRICITY DATA 4-1
4.2 GREEN COMMUNITIES ACT AND NET METERING 4-2
4.3 CALCULATING NET METERED CREDITS 4-3
4.4 IMPLICATIONS OF NET METERING 4-5
4.5 ELECTRICITY RATE ESCALATION 4-6

5 BUILDABILITY 5-1
5.1 TRANSPORTATION 5-1
5.2 SITE ACCESS AND STAGING 5-1
5.3 FOUNDATIONS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 5-3

vi
6 PERMITTING AND REGULATORY ANALYSIS 6-1
6.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 6-1
6.2 STATE REGULATIONS 6-9
6.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS 6-17
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 6-19

7 PERMITTING TOOLBOX 7-1
7.1 SOUND PROPAGATION REPORT 7-1
7.2 SHADOW FLICKER ASSESSMENT 7-3
7.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 7-7

8 CAPITAL COSTS 8-1
8.1 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS 8-1
8.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 8-5
8.3 PROJECT TIMELINE 8-6

9 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 9-1
9.1 BASELINE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 9-1
9.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 9-2

10 FINANCING, OWNERSHIP AND OPERATIONS
10.1 MUNICIPAL BOND 10-1
10.2 LEASE MODEL 10-3
10.3 THIRD PARTY OWNERSHIP 10-4
10.4 CONCLUSION 10-9

vii
FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 1-1 North Hill Area with Property Lines 1-2
Figure 1-2 Property Designations with Legend 1-3
Figure 1-3 Municipal Open-Space Properties with Outline 1-4
Figure 1-4 Wind Resource Grid and Eligible Municipal Properties 1-5
Figure 1-5 Wind Resource Grid with Areas Identified 1-6
Figure 1-6 Wind Turbine Technologies 1-10
Figure 1-7 Site 1 NHGC with Setbacks 1-11
Figure 1-8 Site 2 Kettle Hole with Setbacks 1-13
Figure 1-10 Site 3 DPW West with Setbacks 1-15
Figure 1-7 Recommended Wind Turbine Locations 1-17
Figure 2-1 VMM Information 2-2
Figure 2-2 70m VMM Wind Roses and Weibull Distribution 2-3
Figure 2-3 PowerWind 56 900kW Manufacturer Supplied Power Curve 2-4
Figure 2-4 Northern Power 450kW Manufacturer Supplied Power Curve 2-5
Figure 2-5 Summary of Model Result 2-5
Figure 2-6 Assumed Losses 2-6
Figure 2-7 Final Output Calculations 2-7
Figure 4-1 12-Month Electric Usage Data (kWh) 4-2
Figure 4-2 Ten Largest Electric Accounts in Town of Duxbury 4-2
Figure 4-3 NSTAR 33-General Annual (G-1) Delivery Service Charges 4-4
Figure 4-4 Utility Derived Electricity Value Year 1 4-5
Figure 4-5 Projected Electricity Rates ($ per kWh) 4-6
Figure 6-1 Airports in Proximity of Proposed Development 6-2
Figure 6-2 Airports within a Ten-mile Vicinity 6-2
Figure 6-3 FCC Communication Paths Geosearch Results 6-4
Figure 6-4 Point to Point Communications 6-5
Figure 6-5 Local Communications 6-6
Figure 6-6 DOD long Range Radar Tool 6-7
Figure 6-7 Federal Regulations 6-8
Figure 6-8 Priority Habitats in Proximity of the Proposed Locations 6-10
Figure 6-9 Estimated Habitats in Proximity of the Proposed Locations 6-11
Figure 6-10 Protected or Listed Species for the Town of Duxbury 6-12
Figure 6-11 National Wetlands Inventory 6-13
Figure 6-12 Nationally Registered Historic Sites within Five Miles 6-14
Figure 6-13 Nationally Registered Historic Site Details within Five Miles 6-15
viii
Figure 6-14 State Regulations and Policies 6-16
Figure 6-15 Publicly Owned Land Overlay (POLO) District 6-17
Figure 6-16 Comparison of Turbine Variance Needs 6-18
Figure 6-17 Town Permits and Approvals 6-19
Figure 7-1 Sound Levels at 8 m/s for One (1) PowerWind 56 900kW
Wind Turbine at Site 1 7-2
Figure 7-4 PowerWind 56 Shadow Flicker Map Site 1 7-5
Figure 8-1 Estimated Total Project Costs 8-1
Figure 8-2 Estimated Design Costs 8-2
Figure 8-3 Estimated Construction Capital Costs for PowerWind 900kW 8-3
Figure 8-4 Estimated Construction Capital Costs for PowerWind 900kW 8-4
Figure 8-5 O&M Costs Comparison 8-6
Figure 8-5 Project Timeline for Wind Turbine Development 8-7
Figure 9-1 Unleveraged IRR, Payback and Savings at a 3% Energy Escalation 9-2
Figure 9-2 Scenario 1 900kW Sensitivity Analysis with Variable Energy Escalation Rates 9-2
Figure 9-3 Scenario 2 450kW Sensitivity Analysis with Variable Energy Escalation Rates 9-3
Figure 9-4 Scenario 1 900kW Sensitivity Analysis with Variable Annual Energy Production 9-3
Figure 9-5 Scenario 2 450kW Sensitivity Analysis with Variable Annual Energy Production 9-3
Figure 9-6 Scenario 1 900kW Sensitivity Analysis with Capital Costs 9-4
Figure 9-7 Scenario 2 450kW Sensitivity Analysis with Capital Costs 9-5
Figure 10-1 IRR, Year 1 and Year 20 Savings for Scenario 1 with Municipal Bond 10-2
Figure 10-2 Cash Flow of Bond Financed Wind Turbine Project at 3% Escalation 10-2
Figure 10-3 Town of Duxbury Economic Benefits for Lease Model Scenario 1 10-3
Figure 10-4 Cash Flow of Lease Model Scenario 1 10-4
Figure 10-5 20-Year Economic Benefit at Varying Retail Electricity Escalation Rates for $0.125/kWh
PPA at 3% Escalation with ITC 10-5
Figure 10-6 Energy Savings with $0.125/kWh PPA Escalating at 3% with ITC 10-6
PPA at 0% Escalation with ITC 10-6
Figure 10-8 Energy Savings with $0.155kWh PPA Escalating at 0% with ITC 10-7
ix
PPA at 3% Escalation without ITC 10-7
Figure 10-10 Energy Savings with $0.195 PPA Escalation at 3% without ITC 10-8
PPA at 0% Escalation without ITC 10-8
Figure 10-12 Energy Savings with $0.245/kWh PPA Escalating at 0% without ITC 10-9

APPENDICES

Appendix A WindPRO Model Runs
Appendix B Electrical One-line Diagram E-2
Appendix C Utility Rate Description
Appendix D Preliminary Development Plan D-1
Appendix E FAA Determination
Appendix F Town of Duxbury Community Wind Facilities Bylaw
Appendix G Shadow Flicker Analysis
Appendix H Output Pages from Cash Flow Models

S-1
Draft Report
Technical Analysis for On-Site Wind Generation for the Town of Duxbury
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

After completing a thorough technical feasibility study, Sustainable Energy Developments, Inc. (SED) has
determined that the installation of an economically viable wind power installation in the Town of Duxbury
is dependent upon: access to appropriately sized wind turbine technology and/or building community
support necessary to secure a height variance from the 250 foot height restriction established by the
Town's Wind Bylaw. f the project team is unable to secure a variance from this height restriction, there is
no currently available wind turbine which would generate significant economic returns for the Town. This
issue may be overcome by the introduction of new wind turbine technologies, currently being tested for
market or otherwise by gaining the community's support for a larger wind turbine project.

SED therefore identified two wind turbine technologies that would provide favorable economic returns for
use in this technical assessment. Neither of these technologies is an ideal or immediate fit for the project.
The Northwind 450kW is currently undergoing testing at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in
Golden, CO and is not expected to be commercially available until the summer of 2012 at the earliest.
The PowerWind 900kW is problematic because the shortest tower option would exceed the Bylaw's
height limit by 26 feet. These technology issues can be navigated efficiently through a transparent
development process and should not be considered obstacles to a project's success. A wind energy
installation in the Town of Duxbury possesses the technical characteristics necessary for a feasible,
economically beneficial project where one of these technologies can be utilized. SED's recommendation
is to pursue a larger project that would require a variance, because such a project will provide significantly
greater financial benefits for the Town without imposing significant impacts to the environment or
neighboring land uses. SED further recommends that this project proceed into the business planning
phase in preparation for a public vote on whether to proceed with obtaining a design and construction
grant from the MassCEC.

Site Considerations: Only property owned by the Town of Duxbury located in the area of North Hill, not
designated as conservation land was contemplated for potential wind turbine locations. There were
numerous development factors considered to identify appropriate locations for a wind turbine installation
in the North Hill area. SED first identified properties owned by the Town of Duxbury within an area of
roughly 1000 acres between the North Hill Golf Course, North Hill Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary, the Town
Hall and DPW Yard and Mayflower Cemetery. Once these properties were identified, SED overlaid a
wind resource grid to determine those areas with the highest wind speeds that would best support an
installation and three specific areas were selected: North Hill Golf Course, Kettle Hole and DPW West.

S-2
Draft Report

SED then applied additional criteria to determine most appropriate location to install a wind turbine within
each identified area. These included: setbacks from residences; setbacks from sensitive habitats;
Duxbury Community Scale Wind Facilities Bylaw setbacks; interconnection; accessibility; and wind
turbine technology.

The Town of Duxbury Wind Facilities Bylaw establishes a minimum setback distance equal to 1.1 times
the overall height of the wind turbine from the nearest property line and private or public way; and a
minimum setback distance equal to 2 times the overall height of the wind facility from the nearest existing
residential or commercial structure not owned by the applicant. SED also applied wind industry standard
setbacks based on the scale of wind turbine being considered.

The Bylaw also restricts height of a wind turbine to 250 feet (76m) from the base of the wind turbine to the
tip of the rotor blade at its highest point. This height restriction greatly limits the available wind turbine
technologies that could be considered for this project that would provide a worthwhile economic benefits
to the Town. Therefore, SED identified two wind turbine technologies to be considered for installation in
the Town of Duxbury, a Northwind 450kW and a PowerWind 900kW. The Northwind 450kW wind turbine
is currently under development and will not be commercially available until late 2012, but on a 50-meter
(76 feet) tower would not exceed the 250 foot height limited established by the Bylaw and due to its
advanced design would be more cost effective than other similarly sized technologies. The other wind
turbine considered, was a PowerWind 900kW on a 59-meter (194 feet) tower, which is a proven and

S-3
Draft Report
readily available technology. This wind turbine would slightly exceed the 250 foot height limit, but the
stronger economic returns it would provide may be enough to justify a variance for the additional height.

Wind Turbine &
Rated Capacity
Tower
Height
Rotor
Diameter
Total Tip
Height
Bylaw
Setback from
Residential
Buildings

Recommended
Setback from
Residential
Buildings
Northern Power
450kW
50m (164ft) 48m (157ft) 74m (243 ft) 150m (492ft) 244m (800ft)
PowerWind
900kW
59m (194ft) 56m (184ft) 87m (276 ft) 175m (574ft) 305m (1000ft)

After evaluating the positive and negative aspects of the potential locations, three final sites were
identified as the most developable locations for a wind turbine installation. All of the proposed sites meet
the Town's Bylaw and industry standard setback requirements.

S-4
Draft Report
From these locations, SED developed six potential development scenarios utilizing the two different wind
turbine technologies detailed to determine the logistical and economic viability of a development at the
Town of Duxbury.

Scenario Site Wind Turbine
1 North Hill Golf Course PowerWind 56 900kW
2 North Hill Golf Course Northwind 450kW
3 Kettle Hole PowerWind 56 900kW
4 Kettle Hole Northwind 450kW
5 DPW West PowerWind 56 900kW
6 DPW West Northwind 450kW

Wind Resource Assessment and Wind Turbine Output Modeling: The two different sized wind turbine
technologies were analyzed by creating a computer model with the industry standard modeling tool Wind
Atlas and Application Program (WAsP), created by the Danish National Laboratory, along with WindPRO,
created by EMD International A/S. A key input to the model was a representative year of wind data
derived from a Virtual Met Mast. Other key inputs to the model include wind turbine power curves for the
selected technologies, a roughness map, and a digital elevation model of the region. The following chart
is a summary comparison of the four scenarios analyzed.

Scenario Wind Turbine Gross MWh
Net MWh (AEP
minus 7.5% in
losses)
Mean Wind Speed
at Hub Height (m/s)
1 PowerWind 56 900kW 1,830.4 1,693
5.82 m/s (13.0 mph)
2 Northwind 450kW 1,167.5 1,080
5.48 m/s (12.3 mph)
3 PowerWind 56 900kW 1,892.1 1,750
5.89 m/s (13.2 mph)
4 Northwind 450kW 1,234.4 1,142
5.61 m/s (12.6 mph)
5 PowerWind 56 900kW 1,893.3 1,751
5.91 m/s (13.2 mph)
6 Northwind 450kW 1,243.0 1,150
5.64 m/s (12.6 mph)

S-5
Draft Report
Interconnection Investigation: SED commissioned an electrical interconnection plan for the project. It
was determined that the recommended interconnection for any of the three facilities would be into existing
three phase 23kV over-head distribution circuits located at the North Hill Golf Course (Sites 1 and 2) or
Town of Duxbury DPW Yard (Site 3). The 690V output of the wind turbine will be stepped up by a three
phase transformer at the base of the wind turbine. From there, the wire will run underground to the
overhead circuit at the Golf Course or DPW Yard. The wire runs for each site will be: 640m (2100ft) for
Site 1, 832m (2700ft) for site 2 and 518m (1700ft) for Site 3 respectively.

Utility Derived Electricity Value: SED evaluated 12+ months of electric bills and other supporting
information associated with the Town's 70 electric accounts in order to determine the value of wind
generated electricity. The Town of Duxbury currently uses over 5.2 million kWh per year, most of which is
attributed to the Duxbury Public Schools. The Town of Duxbury is served by NStar and currently has a
supply contract with GEXA for $0.104/kWh. The average electricity rate that the Town of Duxbury
currently pays is valued at $0.18/kWh.

Based on the interconnection investigation, any of the proposed wind turbines, would not be
interconnected behind an existing meter and therefore virtual net metering will be employed. Based on
proceedings in the Mass DPU regarding the implementation of the Green Communities Act, the rate at
which the electricity produced by a wind turbine at North Hill will be valued at NStar's General Service (G-
1 Rate) calculated to be $0.16/kWh. This will be applied to every kWh generated by a wind turbine at
North Hill and the savings will then be allocated onto the Town's accounts.

The scenarios presented will produce between 20% and 40% of the total electricity usage within the Town
of Duxbury and net metering eligibility will provide that 100% of the wind generated electricity will be
valued at the G-1 Rate.

Buildability: The transport of equipment, site access, staging needs and foundation considerations were
explored for both the PowerWind 900kW and Northwind 450kW wind turbines. Site 1 will require an
access road to be built from the golf course parking lot that follows the edge of the driving range to the
proposed turbine site. Limited clearing will be necessary at the wind turbine site, with the potential
utilization of a small area of the golf course. Site 2 and 3 will require significant site work that includes
grading of the existing slope to provide a flat area for the installation of the foundation and clearing of
trees at the project site and for a permanent access road.

Based on the subsurface conditions typical to coastal regions of Massachusetts consisting of sand and
gravel deposits a spread footing type foundation is anticipated for use at each site.

S-6
Draft Report
Permitting: SED analyzed local, state and federal permitting considerations for the installation of a wind
turbine in the Town of Duxbury at three identified sites. SED mapped out a permitting pathway for the
wind project to satisfy required permits and approvals. If the PowerWind 900kW wind turbine is pursued
a variance would be required to exceed the 250 foot height limit set by the Town's Bylaw. There do not
appear to be any other major permitting obstacles to development, although some additional
environmental studies will be necessary and public outreach through project specific public forums
combined with general wind education will be vital to project success.

Permitting Toolbox: SED performed initial assessments of the sound, shadow and visual implications of
a wind turbine installation at the sites considered. These studies suggest that any of three sites will have
limited or no discernible effect to neighboring residences. Site 1 will present some shadow and sound
effects to the North Hill Golf Course, but this will not affect the safety nor does SED feel it will adversely
affect recreation or ongoing operations at the golf course.

Development Budget Timeline and Total Capital Cost: Detailed design and construction budgets were
created for the different development scenarios. The following chart shows the design and construction
budgets for each scenario.

Town of Duxbury
Scenario 1
900kW
Scenario 2
450kW
Scenario 3
900kW
Scenario 4
450kW
Scenario 5
900kW
Scenario 6
450kW
Total Design $249,830 $203,800 $268,390 $222,360 $263,390 $217,360
Wind Turbine Cost $1,664,000 $997,000 $1,664,000 $997,000 $1,664,000 $997,000
Total Construction $1,106,500 $882,000 $1,372,500 $1,140,000 $1,211,500 $1,001,000
Total Project Cost $3,020,330 $2,082,800 $3,304,890 $2,359,360 $3,138,890 $2,215,360

SED has presumed that the design phase could begin as early July of 2012. Depending on how this
proceeds, construction could begin by the spring of 2013 and be completed later that summer.

Economic Analysis: The wind turbine output predictions, current wind generated electricity value and
total capital costs were compiled to produce unlevered pro-formas. The following chart is a comparison
of the economic returns for the six development scenarios in a baseline economic scenario of 3.0%
energy escalation rate, including MassCEC Design and Construction funding.

S-7
Draft Report
Scenario Wind Turbine Site
Payback
(years)
IRR 20 Year Savings
1 PowerWind 900kW 1 9.12 9.58% $3,776,304
2 Northwind 450kW 1 9.73 8.59% $2,194,047
3 PowerWind 900kW 2 9.65 8.74% $3,734,911
4 Northwind 450kW 2 10.51 7.56% $2,171,931
5 PowerWind 900kW 3 9.17 9.51% $3,905,279
6 Northwind 450kW 3 9.73 8.58% $2,348,763

Each of the scenarios examined appears to have favorable economics in this baseline scenario.
Scenarios 1 and 2 at Site 1 demonstrate the strongest economics and additional sensitivity were applied
to each.

Financing, Ownership and Operations: SED analyzed three different financing and ownership
scenarios utilizing the PowerWind 900kW to demonstrate how each would benefit the Town of Duxbury in
relation to a varying dispersal of risk. The most financially beneficial option to the Town of Duxbury would
be to self finance the project through issuing a municipal bond. This scenario could generate significant
energy savings, but the Town would take on the risk of developing and owning the project.

Alternately, the opportunity for third party ownership structure for this scenario could generate long-term
savings for the Town of Duxbury and provide very little upfront risk. A lease structure could be the most
practical solution, as risk would be shared between the Town and a third party. In this model, the Third
Party would develop and own the project, while the Town makes an annual lease payment, as well as
maintenance costs in exchange for all of the electricity generated by the wind turbine. These lease and
maintenance payments would be less than the value of energy savings and could save the Town over
$2.8 million over the project's lifetime.

Conclusion & Recommendation: This project has many of the aspects necessary for the successful
development of an on-site wind project. Based on the results of this study SED recommends that the
Town proceed into the business planning phase to prepare for a decision on whether to proceed with
design and construction in the spring 2012 Town Meeting. SED recommends that the stronger economic
benefit of installing a PowerWind 900kW justifies obtaining a variance of 26 feet on the Wind Bylaw and
would be the best path for the Town of Duxbury to pursue.

1-1
WIND TURBINE SITING AND ENERGY YIELD
SECTION 1

Appropriate and effective siting of a wind turbine is the most critical aspect of wind energy development.
This siting assessment is a culmination of the results of numerous investigations performed and
presented throughout this study in order to determine the optimal location and configuration for a wind
energy development to be owned by the Town of Duxbury. A technical siting assessment must critically
examine how a wind turbine will interact with a surrounding community and investigate all reasonable
actions that may be taken to minimize potential negative effects while maximizing economic and
environmental benefits for the Community.

1.1 BACKGROUND
A preliminary site assessment administered by the MassCEC was performed for the Town of Duxbury
which evaluated all municipally-owned property for suitability to host a community-scale wind energy
development. The assessment identified municipal property near the North Hill Golf Course and Town
Department of Public Works as the most feasible locations for wind development. The area offers ample
space for siting a wind turbine and thereby minimizing effects to the surrounding community, and
environmental and recreational resources on-site and in the neighboring vicinity. This area identified in
the preliminary site assessment is the basis of further investigations for this technical and economic
analysis for on-site wind generation.
SED performed site visits, evaluated available property/satellite maps and applicable GIS data, analyzed
wind resource data, and participated in discussions with Town officials and the general public in order to
identify the most appropriate locations for a wind turbine development within this identified area, identified
for the remainder of this study as North Hill. This siting process accounts for several considerations
including but not limited to: regulatory and development setbacks; current land uses and classifications;
and available site wind resource. From these details the most appropriate sites and the scale of preferred
technology was determined. Only property owned or administered by the Town of Duxbury was
considered within this analysis.

1.2 NORTH HILL SITE DESCRIPTION
The area encompassing North Hill represents the largest contiguous open space in the Town of Duxbury
with over 1000 acres of land divided between municipal, recreational and conservation classifications.
North Hill is predominantly wooded, with some wetlands distributed throughout. The signature
conservation feature in the area is the North Hill Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary, a 117 acre parcel owned
jointly by the Massachusetts Audubon Society and the Town of Duxbury, managed as part of the North
River Wildlife Sanctuary. The sanctuary is centrally located in the North Hill area and contains the North
Hill Pond and numerous recreation trails.

1-2
Several conservation and historic areas are designated throughout this portion of the Eastern Greenbelt,
including the Knapp Town Forest and the Waiting Hill Preserve. In addition to the extensive network of
recreational trails throughout, this area hosts the North Hill Golf Course (NHGC), a nine-hole municipal
golf course managed by Pilgrim Golf, LLC. The North Hill area adjoins with the Duxbury Town Hall,
Department of Public Works (DPW), the Senior Community Center, the Mayflower Cemetery and the
Town Transfer Station properties. The area evaluated for wind turbine development is bordered by
Tremont Street to the east, Mayflower Street to the south, Lincoln Street to the west and West Street to
the north.

Figure 1-1 North Hill Area with Property Lines

1.3 PROPERTIES ASSESSMENT
To determine appropriate wind turbine locations, SED first established a baseline criteria to identify what
sites would be considered:
1. Property must be owned by the Town of Duxbury;
2. Property must not be designated Conservation Land or Open Space;
3. Property must have a high enough wind resource to satisfy the MassCEC funding requirement.

1-3
Utilizing maps from the Massachusetts Oliver Program
1
and the Town of Duxbury GIS platform, SED
determined the ownership and usage designation for the numerous lots within the defined North Hill area
see Figure 1-2. Designations include Municipally Owned, Conservation, Audubon and Historical Property.
Areas outside of the considered area consist of single family residences and some additional
conservation and historically designated land. There are roughly 20 parcels owned by the Town of
Duxbury within this area (see Figure 1-3). Municipal properties were also identified south of Mayflower
Street between Round and Island Creek Ponds; these properties were not included in the preliminary site
assessment and therefore will not be considered for this siting assessment.

Figure 1-2 Property Designations with Legend

In addition to Conservation Land and Open Space areas, the Knapp Town Forest, the Mayflower
Cemetery, and the Senior Community Center property have also been excluded from consideration.

1
The MassGIS online data viewer: http://www.mass.gov/mgis/mapping.htm.

1-4

Figure 1-3 Municipal Open-Space Properties under Consideration with Outline

1.4 WIND RESOURCE POTENTIAL
In order to be eligible for MassCEC funding a wind energy project requires a wind speed of at least 5.6
m/s (12.6mph) between hub heights of 50m (164ft) and 59m (194ft) and 5.8 m/s (13mph) between hub
heights of 60m (195ft) and 69m (226ft). To identify the available wind resource of the North Hill area an
analysis was performed utilizing data obtained through a Virtual Met Mast (VMM) provided by AWS
Truepower (See Section 2). This VMM data was used to generate a wind resource grid of the North Hill
area that provides a visual representation of wind speeds at a height of 60m (195ft). The resource grid
provides a useful tool for micro-siting wind turbines by identifying areas where electrical generation can
be maximized based on the available wind resource. The combination of the wind resource grid with the
identified eligible properties overlay results in several areas where the wind resource would be supportive
of a wind turbine installation.

1-5

Figure 1- 4 Wind Resource Grid and Eligible Municipal Properties

Properties located within the green shading of Figure 1-4 meet the minimum requirement established by
the MassCEC; and would therefore would be best suited for siting a wind turbine based upon available
wind resource. Of these areas, three in particular were determined to be a far enough distance from
residential areas to minimize possible effects that a wind turbine could generate. These will be referred to
as:
Area 1) North Hill Golf Course
Area 2) Kettle Hole
Area 3) DPW West

1-6

Figure 1- 5 Wind Resource Grid with Development Areas Identified

1.5 SITING CONSIDERATIONS
The three areas identified were then evaluated to determine which location within would provide the most
ideal wind resource for an economically viable wind energy project. Additional siting criteria were then
applied to refine specific wind turbine locations and establish development options for the Town of
Duxbury. Appropriate wind turbine siting assures minimal interference results upon nearby properties,
existing buildings and/or residences, and allows for ease of access for construction and staging purposes.
The following is a brief description of these considerations with respect to wind turbine development in the
North Hill area.

Setbacks
Setbacks are used to avoid or minimize potential disturbances associated with sound and/or any
resulting shadow flicker effect , as well as to minimize potential disruption to the surrounding area and
natural habitat. Setbacks for residences, conservation areas and wetlands, historic areas, and recreation
areas and trails have been considered to determine appropriate locations to site a wind turbine within a
speicific area.

1-7
Residences and Unoccupied Buildings There are numerous residential neighborhoods
surrounding the North Hill area that were considered throughout siting efforts; these are primarily
located to the east and south. Industry standard setbacks based upon the scale of a proposed wind
turbine were used to determine the appropriate setback distance (See Figure 1-6). For non-
residential, unoccupied buildings, the standard setback employed is 1.1 times the total tip height of
the wind turbine. Another setback metric is drawn from the MassCEC which requires the performance
of an ambient sound study during the feasibility phase if a residence falls within 3.5 times the total tip
height of the proposed wind turbine.

Environmental and Recreational Resources -SED consulted with a variety of resources to
determine where these critical areas are located within the North Hill area, including but not limited to:
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), MassGIS data and the Town of Duxbury GIS platform.

The North Hill Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary is the defining feature of this area, and is therefore taken into
consideration in relation to each of the potential sites. SED recommends consultation be initiated
with the Mass Audubon Society, however, based upon past experience, and, that this is a single wind
turbine project it is unlikely that the Sanctuary will experience significant impacts by the envisioned
development.

The North Hill area has many recreational uses and numerous trails throughout. The NHGC is a
prominent recreational facility owned by the Town of Duxbury within proximity to the proposed
development.

Typical concerns associated with a wind turbine development include shadow flicker, general
aesthetic visibility, and ice throw. Shadow flicker and visibility will be discussed in later sections.
Icing on wind turbine blades is common in Northern areas of North America, but less likely in coastal
regions such as in Duxbury due to the moderating effects of the ocean. Wind turbines have been
proven to coexist with recreational and other uses and will pose little risk to the safety of existing land
uses with proper planning and education.
2
It is important however to minimize project encroachment
on these resources in order to avoid disrupting intended activities.

Buildabilty and Interconnection - Understanding the logistics of how a wind turbine project is built,
including the staging area, foundation, access road construction/upgrades and interconnection is vital
when considering how to site a wind turbine. Any obstacles associated with these could cause major
delays or cost increases that could impact a project's development. SED examined each site's ability to

2
Hull Wind I: adjacent to the high school football field. The Massachusetts Maritime Academy: close proximity to the school. IBEW:
located in the parking lot.

1-8
host a wind turbine with consideration for the staging and foundation, site accessibility, and distance to
points of interconnection. All sites would require construction of a 6m (20ft) wide paved access road to
allow for the transport of components.

Permitting Implications SED strives to work closely with clients, permitting authorities and
environmental advocacy groups to support smart community wind development. The many benefits this
type of development can bring are presented to all interested parties and all efforts are made to address
reasonable concerns associated with a wind turbine installation, particularly regarding construction near
sensitive areas. Permitting for a wind turbine at any of the proposed locations would require approvals
and or review at the federal, state and local levels.

Local Town of Duxbury local bylaws limit the overall scale and generating capacity for a
community-scale wind facility, largely due to the existing cap on the height of a wind turbine,
currently set at 250ft. The bylaw establishes a minimum setback distance equal to 1.1 times the
overall height of the wind turbine from the nearest property line and private or public way; and a
minimum setback distance equal to 2 times the overall height of the wind facility from the nearest
existing residential or commercial structure not owned by the applicant. The bylaw does however
allow the setback zone for Community-Scale Wind Facilities and or Wind Monitoring or
Meteorological Towers to fall within the limits of a Wetlands Protection Overlay District, and/or a
Flood Hazard Overlay District.

State Sites 1 and 2 are located within a Priority Habitat Area, which triggers review by the
Massachusetts Department of Natural Heritage. Due to the scale of the wind turbine and limited
area that would be disturbed by construction, and the close proximity of the previously disturbed
nature of the existing golf course, this is not considered a fatal flaw to development.

Federal FAA approval will be a limiting factor in the scale of a wind turbine development. A
Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH) for Site 1 has been issued and will limit the overall height of a
wind turbine based upon proximity to the Marshfield Airport and is considered representative of
the other 2 sites evaluated. The Not-to-Exceed Height is 317 feet (97m). The wind turbines
examined in this technical assessment would/would not exceed this limit. Appendix D: FAA NPH?

Wind Turbine Technology
SED actively performs technical reviews of wind turbine technologies with particular attention to their
compatibility with the distributed wind energy market. SED works with specific technologies in sizes
ranging from 10kW to 2MW, constantly reevaluating and updating the systems employed based on

1-9
availability, cost competitiveness, performance and overall reliability. Employing a proven wind turbine
technology is crucial for the successful planning, development and operation of a wind energy project.

Much of the advances in wind turbine technology over the past decade have been geared towards
making larger technologies for utility-scale wind farm development. The big players such as GE, Vestas
and Gamesa have put their resources towards boosting production and capacity for these technologies
larger than 1MW. During this time, community wind developers have had to rely on older technologies in
the 100kW to 1MW range such as the Turbowinds 400kW, the RRB 600kW or Norwin 750kW just to
name a few. Most of these technologies are manufactured by other firms that have bought the rights to
these technologies and have made very few improvements. The benefit of these machines is that they
are proven and reliable, but the technologies have become outdated.

A shift is taking place though as smaller manufacturers recognize the potential of mid-scale wind turbines
in the community wind market. These firms are scaling down some of the advancements made in the
utility-scale market to improve capacity factors, reliability and cost effectiveness. Examples include
permanent magnet generators that can cut down on maintenance costs or larger rotor diameters that
provide greater output in lower wind speeds. SED is working with several manufacturers at the forefront
of these upgrades to ensure that our clients are provided with most advanced technologies from firms like
Northern Power Systems and PowerWind that will improve economics and reliability. These will be the
technologies that take community wind into the future.

The Northern Power 450kW wind turbine is a mid-scale technology currently installed for testing
at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. This technology is based on the
design of the highly successful Northern Power 100kW. This wind turbine is a gearless direct
drive machine that utilizes permanent magnet technology thus reducing the number of moving
parts and wear items. The wind turbine has a rotor diameter of 48m and will be available with a
hub height of 50m or 65m. The first commercial versions of this wind turbine will be available in
mid-2012. The 50m tower will be the option investigated in this feasibility study that will meet not
exceed the Town Bylaw's current height restriction.

The PowerWind 900kW is the best mid-size wind turbine technology available on the market
today based on its performance and reliability history. The PowerWind 900kW is a horizontal axis
wind turbine available on a 59m or 71m steel, tubular tower with a rotor diameter of 56m or 60m.
The 56m rotor would be employed for the Town of Duxbury, as the Town of Duxbury is an
International Electrical Commission (IEC) Class II wind regime meaning that the 10-minute
average maximum 50-year extreme wind speed in this area is at least 95 mph. The 60m rotor is
designed for a Class III and would not meet the IEC standards for this region. It provides

1-10
significant power production (65% of the 1.5MW class); lower construction costs; and much lower
long term maintenance and operation costs than utility scale (1 MW or larger) wind turbines.

Both of these wind turbines also possess the functionality to prevent ice shedding during major icing
events, while minimizing downtime associated with these events. Ice buildup on each blade is measured
to determine the conditions that would require the wind turbine to be shutdown, which is done through
analysis of natural oscillation frequencies of the blades which will change during icing events. The
system will shut down the wind turbine automatically in these events and also restart whenever the
conditions improve.

With consideration for the Town's Wind Bylaw and airspace restrictions from the FAA, SED focused
investigations on the Northern Power 450kW on a 50m tower and the PowerWind 900kW on a 59m
tower. While overall, the height of the PowerWind 900kW does exceed the Town's Bylaw, the economic
returns are stronger and, in SED's judgment, justify the pursuit of a variance for this height restriction.

Figure 1-6 Wind Turbine Technologies
Wind Turbine
& Rated
Capacity
Tower
Height
Rotor
Diameter
Total Tip
Height
Bylaw
Setback
from
Residential
Buildings
MassCEC
Ambient
Sound Study
Setback

Industry
Recommended
Setback from
Residential
Buildings
Northern
Power 450kW
50m
(164ft)
48m
(157ft)
74m
(243 ft)
150m (492ft) 259m (851ft) 244m (800ft)
PowerWind
900kW
59m
(194ft)
56m
(184ft)
87m
(276 ft)
175m (574ft) 305m (1000ft) 305m (1000ft)

1.6 SELECTED SITE EVALUATIONS

Area 1 - North Hill Golf Course The North Hill Golf Course (NHGC) is located on relatively flat terrain
above the North Hill Marsh area. SED did not consider siting the wind turbine within the confines of the
NHGC as a suitable option, so as to minimize disruption to the course during construction. When
considering the wind resource, the most suitable location appears to be in a thinly forested area south of
the 8
th
hole's green and 9
th
hole's tee that sits at an elevation of 24m (79ft).

1-11
Figure 1-7 Site 1 - NHGC with Setbacks

Residences and Unoccupied Buildings The proposed site is south and east of nearby residential
areas. The closest residential property line is 396m (1300ft) west, with the closest residential building
442m (1450ft) north, both of which are associated with '72 Hounds Ditch Lane'. There is also a facility
owned by the Duxbury Housing Authority north of the Club House at '75 Merry Ave' which is 427m
(1400ft) from the proposed site. The closest non-residential building is the North Hill Club House, 396m
(1300ft) north of the proposed turbine site.

Environmental and Recreation Areas - The proposed wind turbine site is 177m (580ft) from the North
Hill Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary. There are wetland areas 76m (250ft) southwest and 146m (480ft)
southeast, both classified as Freshwater Forested Wetlands.

The proposed site would be within 30m (100ft) of the NHGC and 60m (200ft) from the North Hill Marsh
Pond Loop, a hiking trail that encircles the marsh. SED does not believe that these resources will be
adversely impacted by the presence of the wind turbine.

Buildability and Interconnection The proposed site would be accessed along the eastern edge of the
NHGC driving range. This route will require the construction of a suitable access road from the NHGC

1-12
parking lot. The proposed location is relatively flat and has the necessary room, roughly one acre, to
support the wind turbine installation and staging area for the crane and other components. The clearing of
approximately 1/3 acre would be necessary to construct the access road and prepare the site for staging,
which will require use of the area between the 8
th
and 9
th
holes.

The existing electrical infrastructure at the NHGC and at the DPW is not substantial enough to handle a
behind the meter interconnection without significant modifications and upgrades. SED therefore
recommends that the wind turbine be interconnected directly into the existing distribution circuit near the
Club House as a new service and account.

Permitting Implications The proposed site meets setback requirements established by the Town's
Wind Bylaw. The site is located within a Priority Habitat Area, which triggers review by the
Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), but due to the scale of the
wind turbine, the limited area that will be disturbed by construction, and the close proximity to the
previously disturbed nature of the golf course, this is not considered a fatal flaw. The only identified
federal implication is FAA approval based upon proximity to the Marshfield Airport four miles away.

Recommendation - Based on the demonstrated characteristics, it is SED's determination that the North
Hill Golf Course Site - Site 1 - is suitable for a wind turbine development. Based on the site characteristics
and setbacks, a PowerWind 900kW or Northwind 450kW could be appropriately sited here. SED does
not anticipate a wind turbine will adversely impact recreational activities at the golf course or other trails in
the North Hill area. The wind turbine could co-exist with the golf course and has potential to become a
signature feature of the NHGC that would draw golfers from around the region.

Area 2 - Kettle Hole This area is located between the Pond Loop Trail and Kettle Hole Trails. The
highest elevation within this area is 27m (90ft), and is centrally located within the parcel, which would
make it an ideal location for a wind turbine.

1-13

Figure 1-8 Site 2 - Kettle Hole with Setbacks

Residential and Unoccupied Building Setbacks The proposed site is centrally located within the
North Hill Area and there are no residences or unoccupied buildings nearby. The closest residences are
518m (1700ft) to the northeast and south. The closest non-residential building is the NHGC club house
762m (2500ft) north.

Conservation Areas and Wetlands - The proposed site sits between an unnamed Conservation Area
and the Mass Audubon North Hill Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary, at 91m (300ft) and 113m (370ft) respectively.
The closest wetland is 91m (300ft) east and is a Freshwater Forest Wetland. However, no wetland areas
would be disturbed during an installation at this site.

A wind turbine at the proposed site will not encroach upon any major trails within the North Hill area. The
closest trail is the Pond Loop Trail 137m (450ft) west and Kettle Hole Trail 198m (650ft) east.
Consultation with the local historic commission is recommended since a section of the Pond Loop Trail on
the east side of the Marsh is designated as a part of the historic 1623 "Green Harbor Trail that historically
connected the Towns of Plymouth and Marshfield.

1-14
Buildability and Interconnection The site access would be from the NHGC. An entirely new access
road over 1067m (3500ft) in length would need to be constructed, likely originating at the NHGC parking
lot and continuing through the Town Dumping Area. This route would require crossing some trails, but
identified wetlands and Conservation Lands could be avoided. A wetland delineation survey would be
needed for a development at this location. The project area itself is relatively flat. Clearing of at least one
acre for the foundation and staging area would be required; the access road would result in an additional
1.5 acres of cleared land.

Interconnection would be costly due to a long wire run and would follow the same route as the access
road with an interconnection scheme similar to that recommended for Site 1.

Permitting Implications - A wind turbine at the proposed site meets the setback requirements
established by the Town's Wind Bylaw. Based upon the scale of proposed clearing and the disturbance
of greater than one acre, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) coverage will be
required. For the State of Massachusetts, the EPA is the permitting authority for the NPDES.
3
The federal
implication of FAA approval remains based upon proximity to the Marshfield Airport four miles away.

Recommendation - Based on the demonstrated characteristics, it is SED's determination that the Kettle
Hole Site - Site 2 - is suitable for a wind turbine development utilizing a Northwind 450kW or PowerWind
900kW. Siting however, will add significant costs to the overall project due to the length of wire run and
access upgrades to be required. The amount of clearing necessary for the staging area and the
construction of an access road could pose an obstacle to development.

Area 3 - DPW West This area is located west of the Duxbury Town Hall and DPW yard and is
predominantly forested and interspersed with some recreational trials. The highest point and prime
location for siting a wind turbine within the area is approximately 27m (90ft) above sea level.

3
Applicants for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits covering new or expanded industrial project
construction must submit information on the proposed construction. The information must describe the proposed or expanded
process and its relationship to the existing facilities. The EPA will use the information to determine if new source performance
standards (NSPS) apply to the new construction. The New Source Determination (NSD) establishes whether or not the proposed
construction is subject to environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).
These regulations and definitions are found in Sections 306 and 511(c) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 6, 122.2, and
122.29.

1-15

Figure 1-9 Site 3 - DPW West with Setbacks

Residential and Unoccupied Building Setbacks The closest residential areas are to the north and
east of this proposed location. The closest residential property and residential building is at 102 Hounds
Ditch Lane, 366m (1200ft) and 405m (1330ft) to the northeast, respectively. The DPW Yard and Town
Hall are over 457m (1500ft) away from this site. The Duxbury First Parish Church is 548m (1800ft) east
of the proposed site.

Conservation Areas and Recreational Resources - The proposed site is 213m (700ft) away from two
unnamed Duxbury conservation areas that contain wetlands; these would not be disturbed at the
proposed location. The proposed site would pose little threat to recreation areas however trails in the area
would be crossed by the creation of an access road. The closest trail is a connector trail 30m (100ft) to
the north.

Buildability and Interconnection The proposed location would require the construction of an access
road originating at the DPW yard and extending 457m (1500ft). The proposed location is relatively flat
and has the area needed, roughly one acre, to support the wind turbine installation and staging area for

1-16
the crane and other components. Interconnection costs would be high due to the wire run and would
follow the same route as the access road. The wind turbine would be interconnected at the DPW yard
onto the existing 23kV overhead circuit owned by NSTAR.

Permitting Implications - The proposed site would meet the setback requirements established by the
Town's Wind Bylaw. The site is not located within a Priority Habitat Area. Based upon the scale of
proposed clearing and the possible disturbance of greater than one acre, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) coverage would likely be required. The federal implication associated with
FAA approval and the site's proximity to the Marshfield Airport four miles away still remains.

Recommendation - Based on the demonstrated characteristics, it is SED's determination that Site 3
would be suitable for wind development. However this site would add significant costs to the overall
project based upon the length of wire run and access upgrades required. The site could support a wind
turbine up to the 900kW scale, providing the Town Bylaw allows for a variance regarding the height
restriction currently in place, as a 900kW would exceed the maximum allowable height.

1.7 FINAL SCENARIO RECOMMENDATIONS

SED has identified three possible sites that would be appropriate options for siting a wind turbine within
the Town of Duxbury. The locations are titled: Site 1-North Hill Golf Course (42.042803, -70.701576);
Site 2 - Kettle Hole (42.039523, -70.702537); and Site 3 - DPW West (42.037655, -70.698261).
Each potential site presents its own benefits and obstacles to development that should be carefully
considered by the Town and community when deciding how to proceed. From SED's standpoint, Site 1
stands out as the most developable location due to its accessibility and available area for staging both of
which act to limit total project costs. The proximity of the wind turbine to the golf course will require some
additional planning and outreach, but SED does not consider that this will be a detriment to the golf
course but rather a potential opportunity to market the green credentials of the golf course and attract a
broader base of recreationists.

1-17
Figure 1-10 Recommended Wind Turbine Locations

2-1
SECTION 2

WIND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND TURBINE OUTPUT MODELING

In order to calculate the anticipated Annual Energy Production (AEP) of the wind turbine for the Town of
Duxbury, SED used the wind industry standard modeling tools Wind Atlas and Application Program
(WAsP), created by the Danish National Laboratory along with WindPRO, created by EMD International
A/S. WindPRO is used for creating the model and reports and the WAsP program is used by WindPRO
for the wind flow calculations. For this analysis, SED input model data from the selected wind turbines
and potential sites. A single PowerWind 56 900kW wind turbine with a hub height of 59m (193.5ft), and a
rotor diameter of 56m (183.7ft); along with a single Northwind 450kW wind turbine with a hub height of
50m (164ft), and a rotor diameter of 54m (177ft) were explored at three potential sites.

2.1 WIND TURBINE SELECTION AND OUTPUT CALCULATION
SED selected the PowerWind 900kW wind turbine for this project as they are highly reliable, currently
available, and offer a rated power output that is in line with the Town of Duxbury's electricity consumption.
The Northwind 450kW wind turbine offers a smaller alternative option to the PowerWind with the
expectation of high reliability based on the manufacturer's experience and reputation. To determine the
output of the wind turbines at each individual site, SED used the industry standard wind modeling
software, WAsP. The model was created by licensed and certified user: Scott Abbett, SED, USA using
WAsP version: 9.00.0153 and certified user Bill Court, SED, USA using WindPRO version 2.7.473.

In order to accurately calculate the output of the wind turbine at the Town of Duxbury, the WAsP and
WindPRO models considered:
A full year Virtual Met Mast (8760 hours) of wind data provided by AWS Truepower
4

The turbine sites located at: (UTM Zone 19, WGS84)
o Turbine Site 1 NHGC 359186.0 E, 4655940.0 N
o Turbine Site 2 Kettle Hole 359085.0 E, 4655567.0 N
o Turbine Site 3 DPW West 359435.0 E, 4655353.0 N
A terrain map of the USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle-Duxbury, MA
A roughness map for the USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle-Duxbury, MA
The power curve of the PowerWind 56 900 kW wind turbine with a 56m (183.7ft) rotor diameter
and a 59m (193.5ft) hub height
The power curve for the Northwind 450 kW wind turbine with a 54m (177ft) rotor diameter and a
50m (164ft) hub height.

4
AWS Truepower LLC based out of Albany, New York is an international leader and innovator in renewable energy technology
applications, advanced atmospheric modeling and measurement, and engineering services for over 25 years.

2-2

2.2 VIRTUAL MET MAST INFORMATION
SED contracted AWS Truepower of Albany, NY, to provide a Virtual Met Mast (VMM) data set, comprised
of a full year (8760 hours) of wind speed and direction data, for a location on the Town of Duxbury
property. Data from this VMM was then imported into WindPro in order to tabulate average wind speed
and direction data. AWS Truepower provides the following description of their VMM Product:

A Virtual Met Mast produces a representative calendar year of hourly wind speed, direction,
temperature, atmospheric pressure, air density, and energy output. It is produced by making
multiple refinements to coupled mesoscale and microscale model output, and then, using an
estimated wind profile for the chosen site, scaling this data to a particular height (e.g. 40m). Thus,
a complete climatology of typical conditions expected at the selected height above ground is
created

Virtual Met Mast is produced as follows: MASS ("Mesoscale Atmospheric Simulation System"), a
mesoscale numerical weather model that resolves atmospheric phenomena at scales down to 1
3 km, establishes the general patterns of wind and weather in a region. These patterns reflect the
influence of terrain, vegetation, oceans and lakes, solar heating, radiative cooling, convection,
and many other factors. With output from MASS, MesoMap, a microscale wind flow model, is
then used to assess the wind resource at a higher resolution (typically 50 - 200 m, or grid sizes of
from less than 1 acre to about 10 acres). Existing long-term meteorological data is then used to
verify output from MesoMap.

Figure 2-1 VMM Information
Data Source AWS Truepower
Height 50m & 70m
Location 359450.0 Easting (UTM -
WGS84)
Location 4655446.0 Northing (UTM
- WGS84)
Site Elevation 22m
Mean Wind Speed at 70m AGL
Mean Wind Speed at 50m AGL
6.18 m/s
5.68 m/s

Figure 2-1 provides a graphical representation of the WindPRO wind speed and direction in the form of
Wind Roses and Weibull Distribution for the 70m (229.6ft) VMM wind data. The Wind, Frequency and
Energy Roses describe wind direction, frequency and quantity of wind and turbine generated power from
each direction. It should be noted that in Figure 2-2 the energy rose is blank as it needs an associated
power curve in order to convert wind data to energy production. As depicted, the wind at the met mast
location is most frequently experienced at the southwest sectors. The Weibull Distribution (top left) is a
description of the number of hours in a year where certain wind speeds will exist at the meteorological

2-3
tower location. A similar distribution is used in conjunction with the wind turbine manufacturer-supplied
power curve to determine the gross electrical output from a wind turbine at a particular site.

Figure 2-2 70m VMM Wind Roses (Bottom) and Weibull Distribution (Top Left)

2.3 TERRAIN AND ROUGHNESS MAPS
WAsP and WindPRO use terrain and roughness maps to accurately determine the way the wind flows
over the identified site. These maps are input into the model in order to calculate the local site effects.
The terrain map is a topographical representation of the area using 6.096m (20ft) contour lines. The
roughness map is a representation of the surface roughness and/or ground cover in the surrounding area
based on the WAsP roughness classification system. The area was modeled using a 23,500m (77,099ft)
by 23,750m (77,919ft) digital elevation model around the Town of Duxbury sites. The terrain map comes
directly from the US Geological Survey and the roughness map used in this model was obtained from
AWS Truepower.

2.4 WIND TURBINE POWER CURVES
In order for the WAsP and WindPRO models to work properly it is important to have an accurate power
curve for the turbine being considered for the project. A power curve indicates how much power the

2-4
turbine will produce at different wind speeds. For this model, SED used the power curve for the
PowerWind 56 900 kW wind turbine with a 56m (183.7ft) rotor diameter along with the power curve for a
Northwind 450 kW wind turbine with a 54m (177ft) rotor diameter. The wind turbine manufacturer
provided the technical specifications needed to input the power curves into WindPRO. Figures 2-3 and 2-
4 are visual representations of the power curves for the PowerWind 56 900kW and Northwind 450kW
respectively as shown in WindPRO.

Figure 2-3 PowerWind 56 900kW - Manufacturer Supplied Power Curve

2-5
Figure 2-4 Northwind 450kW - Manufacturer Supplied Power Curve

SUMMMARY OF MODEL RESULTS
Once all of the data inputs were completed, the WindPRO model was run with the PowerWind 900 kW
turbine and the Northwind 450 kW wind turbine at the identified locations. Figure 2-5 is a summary of the
results of this model.

Figure 2-5 Summary of Model Result
Site Identification Location [UTM, WGS84] Turbine
Height
[m]
Wind Speed at
Hub (m/s)
Net AEP
[MWh]
Site 1 359186.0E, 4655940.0N PowerWind 900 59 5.82 m/s 1,830.4
Site 1 359186.0E, 4655940.0N Northwind 450 50 5.48 m/s 1,167.5

2-6
2.6 FINAL TURBINE OUTPUT CALCULATIONS
WAsP calculates turbine output assuming that the wind turbine is available 100% of the time and that
100% of the power produced by the generator makes it into the grid or is otherwise consumed on-site.
Realistically, a wind turbine experiences downtime for various reasons and not every single unit of power
produced at the turbine's generator makes it to the grid or is consumed on-site. The following are
considerations used in WindPRO determining how much power a wind turbine will actually supply.

Assumed Availability: This assumed figure is based on generally accepted performance history for
wind turbine size classes and is the percentage of time that the wind turbine would be in working
condition. This figure takes into account the downtime for scheduled maintenance activities and assumes
that the wind turbine is properly cared for and maintained by professionals.

Electric Line Losses: The power generated at the turbine needs to run through a certain distance of
electric lines and two different transformers before it connects to the grid or is consumed at a facility.
Through these conversions, a portion of power will be lost.

General Losses: This category includes downtime due to icing, other weather related events such as
high wind speed events and unscheduled maintenance.

Grid Failure: Without the electrical grid operating normally, a wind turbine cannot produce power
because it is a synchronous/induction generator that initially requires electricity to generate its own
electricity. Grid failure takes into account the time when the electrical grid is down due to scheduled or
unforeseen events.

Figure 2-6 Assumed Losses
Assumed Availability (98%) 2.0%
Electric Line Losses 2.0%
General Losses 2.5%
Grid Failure 1.0%
Total Losses 7.5%

Therefore the power produced by a turbine as calculated by WindPRO needs to be reduced by 7.5%.
Figure 2-7 shows the remaining calculations to determine power output of the wind turbines that were
examined for the Duxbury site. The final values used for turbine output are shown in bold.

2-7
Figure 2-7 Final Output Calculations
Site Turbine
Rated Power
Gross AEP from
WindPRO (MWh/yr)
Final net AEP after
losses (MWh/yr)
Site 1 PowerWind 900 kW 1,830.4 1,693
Site 1 Northwind 450 kW 1,167.5 1,080

3-1
Final Report - Technical Analysis for On-Site Wind Generation for the Town of Duxbury
INTERCONNECTION INVESTIGATION
SECTION 3

SED analyzed the existing electrical supply facilities, and the necessity for modifications associated with
interconnecting one (1) 450kW or one (1) 900kW to the utility grid at the Site 1 - NHGC.

3.1 RECOMMENDED INTERCONNECTION PLAN
Based on an analysis of the existing electrical facilities, consultation with Mr. Rich Gross P.E., and SED's
experience with similar wind turbine projects, an interconnection plan has been developed for proposed
turbine Site 1. Due to the similarity in approach for interconnecting a 450kW or a 900kW wind turbine, a
single plan has been developed and the minor differences based on wind turbine size are noted within the
plan. SED's recommendations will minimize interconnection costs while maintaining the integrity of the
existing town and utility owned electrical systems.

Existing Conditions
The primary electrical feeder for NHGC is a three-phase, 23kV overhead distribution circuit owned by
NSTAR
5
. The 23kV overhead circuit extends from West Street, up Merry Avenue, to a riser pole located
adjacent to the NHGC parking lot entrance and beside a gravel road leading to the NHGC maintenance
facilities. The circuit continues underground to a 150kVA transformer located adjacent to the maintenance
building at the west end of the course. The Club House appears to be electrically fed by a single phase
line originating from the three-phase 23kV overhead circuit. The single-phase circuit follows the northern
edge of the parking lot and terminates after approximately three spans at a pole north-east of the Club
House.

Interconnection Plan
The recommended interconnection plan includes all of the necessary protective equipment (relays and
disconnects) and interconnection of the wind turbine into the existing three-phase 23kV overhead circuit
currently feeding the golf course. The 690 Volt output of the turbine is: "stepped-up to 23kV by a new,
1000kVA three-phase transformer for a 900kW, or 500kVA three-phase transformer for a 450kW (located
at the base of wind turbine); transferred below ground approximately 2100ft via three, 1/0 AWG,
aluminum cable, under the parking lot and to a new riser pole located off the western side of the Club
House. The circuit will then be transferred over-head via three, 1/0 AWG, aluminum cable and
interconnect into the exiting three-phase 23 kV overhead circuit at NSTAR Pole # 459/9 located south-
west of the golf course parking lot. New poles for transferring the overhead circuit and for locating
protection and metering equipment will be installed between the new riser pole and existing NSTAR Pole

5
NSTAR is a Massachusetts based electric and gas utility

3-2
#459/9 as needed. Mr. Gross has developed a conceptual one-line for the proposed interconnection
approach for both the 900kW and 450kW wind turbines.

Since the generator will not be connected behind an existing service account, new service will be required
and a new account created with NSTAR for the turbine circuit. In addition, a new four quadrant meter will
be installed as well as any utility required protection equipment, such as a recloser and/or fused cut-outs,
deemed necessary by NSTAR.

Interconnection for Proposed Turbine Sites 2 and 3
The interconnection of turbines placed at the proposed turbine locations 2 or 3 will be very similar to the
approach described above. A turbine at Site 2 will interconnect at the same location as described above
for Site 1 and with identical protection equipment. The wire run, however, will increase from approximately
1700ft to 2900ft due to the increased distance from the proposed point of interconnection at the golf
course. A wind turbine at Site 3 will include all the same protection and electrical components as
described above but instead would interconnect into the existing three-phase 23kV over-head circuit
located at the DPW facility. The DPW buildings are fed by the same distribution circuit as the NHGC. As
with interconnection at the golf course, due to the size of the proposed generators and the capacity of the
existing electrical infrastructure at the DPW, it is recommended that the wind turbine be directly
connected into the existing 23kV distribution circuit and considered a new service account with NSTAR.

3.2 NEXT STEPS
During project design, an Interconnection Application will be filed with NSTAR for the proposed
interconnection approach. NSTAR will perform an initial review of the requested interconnection and will
determine if the request can proceed under the Expedited or Standard Process based on set screening
criteria. The ability to proceed under the Expedited Process depends on the size of the generator,
component certifications (IEEE, UL, etc), condition of NSTAR's existing distribution circuit, and the
associated impact of interconnecting the generator onto the distribution circuit. Costs associated with the
interconnection process have been included in the Capital Costs in Section 8 of this report. During the
interconnection application process system modifications, additional reviews or studies may be found to
be necessary, but these are not reflected in the costs provided as part of this study.

A detailed description of the interconnection process can be found in "Standards of Interconnection of
Distributed Generations" effective date October 1, 2009 and is available on the NSTAR website.

4-1
WIND GENERATED ELECTRICITY VALUE
SECTION 4
The value of electricity generated by a wind turbine will play a significant role in determining the final
configuration for a wind project owned by the Town of Duxbury. Wind generated electricity values for
municipalities significantly improved when net metering provisions were enacted and will now allow the
Town of Duxbury to aggregate and offset municipal loads with power produced from a single wind turbine
project, for multiple meters under the same distribution company and located in the same ISO-NE load
zone (also known as virtual net metering). This legislation will allow the Town of Duxbury to utilize all of
the electricity produced by a wind turbine installation to offset electricity use of any Town owned
accounts.

4.1 TOWN OF DUXBURY ELECTRICITY DATA
In order to determine the value of a wind energy generating facility for the Town of Duxbury, SED first
examined cumulative consumption data for all Town-owned accounts. Conservatively, SED has assumed
that electrical usage for the Town will not change significantly from its current level over the projected
lifespan of a wind turbine. Figure 4-1 shows the total electricity consumption of approximately 70 Town
accounts for the 12 months leading to December of 2009
6
. Town accounts are billed at several rate
classes for various meters; the most commonly experienced rate for the largest Town accounts include:
33-GeneralAnnual and 84-SEMA Medium General TOU. This will prove significant if the wind generated
electricity is used to offset usage for specific accounts. For 2009, Duxbury utilized in excess of 5 million
kWh across all facilities. Based on an analysis of the provided electricity bills, SED determined the total
electricity usage for the Town, as well as the average retail electricity cost per kWh. Figure 4-1 is a
monthly break down of electricity usage across all town accounts for the year 2010.

6
The Town provided copies of electricity bills reflecting annual usage for approximately seventy Town metered electricity accounts;
while dates vary slightly from account to account, the overall cumulative data provides an overall representation of the electricity
used by the Town for the year 2009.

4-2
Figure 4-1 12-Month Electric Usage Data (kWh)

Month Consumption (kWh)
January 468,508
February 483,166
March 462,166
April 425,997
May 444,978
June 408,385
July 347,257
August 386,505
September 423,415
October 441,819
November 458,698
December 488,100
Total
5,238,994

Of these 70 accounts, there are 10 that represent 80% of the total usage in the Town of Duxbury. These
include but are not limited to the High School, Intermediate School, Town offices, Senior Center, library,
fire station, pool, police station, water department, pump stations, town lighting, and traffic signals (Figure
4-2).
Figure 4-2 Ten Largest Electric Accounts in Town of Duxbury.
Account Name
2010 Electric Usage
(kWh)
Duxbury High School 1,244,320
Chandler School 618,971
Duxbury Middle School 616,000
Alden 515,090
Duxbury Free Library 322440
Off Evergreen 236,640
Tremont St. 168,240
Percy Walker Pool 150,400
10 Mayflower 132,400
Wright 115,760

4-3

4.2 GREEN COMMUNITIES ACT AND NET METERING
In 2008, the Green Communities Act, which contained legislation to significantly expand net metering in
Massachusetts, was signed into law. The passage of this legislation and its implications on net metering
has made Massachusetts a national model for stimulating the expansion of on-site renewable energy
generation. Under these regulations, customers are classified into tiers based on the size of their
electricity generator (under 60kW, between 60kW and 1MW, or 1MW to 2MW per unit). Any of the wind
turbine sizes contemplated in this Study for the Town would be categorized as a Class II Net Metering
Facility. Net metering allows customers with their own electricity generation capabilities to quantify the
flow of electricity through the use of a bi-directional meter. Net metering allows the Town's excess
generation to be allocated by the utility to other Town-owned facilities or through payment of net metering
credits and the utility is required to purchase or provide value for this excess energy. The rate that the
utility is required to purchase the excess electricity does not include the demand side management or
energy conservation charge (ECC), or the renewable energy charge (REC).

In late 2010, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) adopted an amended definition for
"a net metering facility of a municipality or other governmental entity. A municipality or government entity
is eligible for up to a 10 MW net metering, so long as the individual project does not exceed 2MW. Based
upon this new definition, a net metered wind facility must be owned by the Town, must be either a Class II
or Class III facility, or the Town must utilize all of the output of the facility. Based upon the annual
consumption data provided, the Town will easily be able to utilize all of the energy produced by the two
technologies contemplated in this Study. Based on the anticipated load and newly enacted net metering
regulations, the Town could pursue a project up to 2MW in size.

4.3 CALCULATING NET METERED CREDITS
Interconnecting a net metered wind turbine for the Town of Duxbury will be governed in this case by the
terms set forth in NSTAR's nterconnection Tariff for net metering services. NSTAR will calculate a Net
Metering Credit as determined in Section 1.06 (1) of the M.D.P.U. No. 163. For a Class II municipally
owned net metered facility credits will be equal to the product of excess kWh, by time-of-use if applicable,
in a billing period (monthly), that is aggregated over a period of a year. The net excess generation will be
monetized and Net Metering Credits will be calculated based on the excess kilowatt hours (kWh)
produced. The regulations state that credits may be "carried forward from month to month, multiplied by
the Utility distribution charges, which include the default service kWh charge, distribution kWh charge,
transmission kWh charge and transition kWh charge. Net Metering Credits are generally valued at slightly
less than the utility's full retail rate for Class facilities used by the Town as they would receive credit for
the default service, distribution, transmission, and transition charge.

4-4
NSTAR's default service charge will be based upon that experienced by Basic Service customers
allowing for the choice of a six-month fixed price, or a monthly variable price. Both the fixed and the
variable pricing closely reflect the actual price of electricity on the wholesale market.

In order to determine the economic benefits of net metering credits for the Town SED examined the
supply and distribution portions of the rates that the Town currently pays as well as applicable
regulations. However, the fact that there is no existing meter/load at the proposed wind turbine location
means that the Town's existing rate structure will not apply directly to the calculation of net metering
credit value. Rather, NSTAR's default service and 33-General Annual (G-1) rate class
7
will be used to
determine the value of wind generated electricity.

The supply portion of the Town's electricity is purchased from a competitive supplier via a contracted rate.
Currently, the fixed rate per kilowatt-hour for the electricity supply contract between Duxbury and GEXA is
$0.104/kWh. NSTAR's current default service rate is $0.0759 which may fluctuate based on competitive
supply contracts entered by the utility.
The current cost the Town pays for electricity delivery is variable, and is greater during "peak
consumption periods. The average delivery cost was calculated by adding up all delivery charges,
excluding demand charges and taxes, and dividing the total delivery cost by the number of kilowatt hours
used `by the Town. By doing this, SED was able to arrive at a "blended electricity delivery cost. Adding
the average supply rate per kWh to the blended deliver rate yields a total cost of $0.0435/kWh.

Figure 4-3 NSTAR 33-General Annual (G-1) Delivery Service Charges
8
Small Commercial/Industrial
Charge Per kWh
Default Service Charge (Fixed) $0.07586
Default Service Charge (Variable)
9
$0.07576
Distribution Energy First 2,300 kWh $0.05095
Distribution Energy Over 2,300 kWh $0.02168
Transition $0.01796
Transmission Energy $0.01628

7
This is the general use rate for non-residential customers whose load does not exceed 100kW in each of the 12 consecutive billing
months. use in the four billing months ending between June 1 and September 30 must be less than your total use for the other
eight billing months of the calendar year.
8
NSTAR's Distribution Charge includes a charge of $0.00191 for a Pension Adjustment Factor and $0.00004 to cover costs related
to customer Net Metering generation.
9
Based upon an average of the variable rates from July 2011 through December 2011.

4-5
In the case of a stand-alone wind turbine, as is the model contemplated for this installation, monthly
usage for a parasitic load of a 450kW or a 900kW wind turbine will never exceed the 2,300kWh figure and
therefore, for the purposes of calculating net metered credits, a distribution rate of $0.05095 has been
applied for future calculations. This result is an assumed net metered credit per kilowatt-hour of
$0.1611/kWh

In order to find the value of electricity generated by a 450kW or 900kW wind turbine for Duxbury, SED
multiplied the total anticipated electricity production for the wind turbine at the proposed wind turbine site
by the net metered rate. Figure 4-4 below shows these inputs, as well as the anticipated value of
electricity produced by the selected wind turbines at the proposed site for the first year.

Figure 4-4 Utility Derived Electricity Value - Year 1 at $0.1611/kWh

Scenario Wind Turbine AEP Electricity Value
Scenario 1 PowerWind
900kW
1,693,000 $272,742
Scenario 2
Northwind 450kW 1,080,000 $173,988
900kW
1,756,000 $282,891
Scenario 4
Northwind 450kW 1,142,000 $183,976
900kW
1,751,000 $282,086
Scenario 6
Northwind 450kW 1,150,000 $185,265

On a kWh basis, assuming that the Town would offset the electric accounts that use the electricity first, a
450kW wind turbine would provide enough energy to entirely offset the Duxbury Middle School and Free
Library. The 900kW would provide enough energy to offset the Duxbury High School and Chandler
Elementary.

4.4 IMPLICATIONS OF NET METERING
Net metering is important for this project as it will allow the Town to gain fair market value for electricity
produced on-site for all production of a wind turbine installation in a given one-year period. Because the
total anticipated use by the Town exceeds the total anticipated output of a 450kW or 900kW wind turbine
at the site, all of the electricity produced by a wind turbine for the Town will be valued at the net metered
rate of $0.1611/kWh. A 450kW wind turbine is estimated to produce approximately 21% of the Town's
current electricity use. A 900kW wind turbine is estimated to produce approximately 36% of the Town's
current electricity use.

The Town must complete Schedule Z at the time of interconnection indicating how NSTAR is to apply
earned Net Metering Credits for each billing period. Net Metering Credits may be applied to other Town

4-6
eligible accounts within the utility distribution zone though all of the applicable accounts appear to be
eligible for receipt of credits.

4.5 ELECTRICITY RATE ESCALATION
Because electricity rates are expected to increase over time, it is likely that the value of electricity
generated by a wind turbine at for the Town will also increase. In order to project the retail costs/rates of
electricity for the Town over the 20-year lifespan of the wind turbine, SED examined four potential annual
electricity escalation rates: 0% (electric rates do not inflate), 3% (5-year historic escalation), 4.26% (10-
year historic escalation), and 6.01% (15-year historic escalation). The rates used for this analysis are
based on a starting point of $0.1611/kWh and are detailed by year in Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5 Projected Electricity Rates ($ per kWh)

Year 0% 3.00% 4.26% 6.01%
2012 0.1611 0.1611 0.1611 0.1611
2012 0.1611 0.1659 0.1680 0.1708
2013 0.1611 0.1709 0.1751 0.1810
2014 0.1611 0.1760 0.1826 0.1919
2015 0.1611 0.1813 0.1904 0.2035
2016 0.1611 0.1868 0.1985 0.2157
2017 0.1611 0.1924 0.2069 0.2287
2018 0.1611 0.1981 0.2157 0.2424
2019 0.1611 0.2041 0.2249 0.2570
2020 0.1611 0.2102 0.2345 0.2724
2021 0.1611 0.2165 0.2445 0.2888
2022 0.1611 0.2230 0.2549 0.3061
2023 0.1611 0.2297 0.2658 0.3245
2024 0.1611 0.2366 0.2771 0.3440
2025 0.1611 0.2437 0.2889 0.3647
2026 0.1611 0.2510 0.3012 0.3866
2027 0.1611 0.2585 0.3140 0.4099
2028 0.1611 0.2663 0.3274 0.4345
2029 0.1611 0.2743 0.3414 0.4606
2030 0.1611 0.2825 0.3559 0.4883

Each increase in electricity rates will also increase the value of electricity produced by a wind turbine. For
more information on the total anticipated value of the proposed wind turbines over a 20-year period,
please see the economic models presented in Section 8 of this report.

4-1
BUILDABILITY
SECTION 5

The ability to efficiently build a wind turbine project for the Town of Duxbury depends on many factors that
are general concerns for all on-site wind turbine projects. These include the transport of wind turbine
components and construction equipment from the point of origin to the off-load/staging area, relationship
of crane setup to the staging area and turbine foundation, on-site geotechnical conditions, integration into
the existing electrical infrastructure, and post construction access for operations and maintenance
activities. In addition to these concerns, there are three separate sites under consideration, each with its
own set of advantages and drawbacks. For the purposes of this study, a PowerWind 900kW and a
Northern Power 450kW wind turbine were considered and an analysis of the site characteristics was
performed. During project design, the development area should be surveyed by a certified land surveyor
and a certified site plan developed. The proposed development aspects, such as access and staging,
should then be verified through consultation with a civil engineer.

5.1 TRANSPORTATION
Modern wind turbines are composed of several major components which may originate in various
locations all over the world. These components are usually delivered separately and require professional
transportation services. The contracted transport company must obtain all necessary permits and
approvals for transport of components from the port of delivery to the site. These include state and local
approvals for transport including bridge, overpass and utility line thresholds/clearances. The delivery of
each part of the wind turbine must be coordinated carefully with the project team and the wind turbine
provider. Due to the unique nature of wind turbine blade, nacelle, and tower transport, special attention
must be paid to the shipping route regarding tight curves, steep grades, overpass clearances, and bridge
capacities. Under certain circumstances, upgrades to existing roadways and associated infrastructure
can be required for the successful delivery of components. Additionally, wind turbine providers may
include wind turbine transport as part of a purchase agreement. Conditions of such transport services are
likely to contain certain access criteria, such as minimum turning radii and/or maximum slope.

5. 2 SITE ACCESS AND STAGING
Site access for construction equipment and wind turbine components, and the availability of adequate
area for a typical wind turbine installation are major considerations for building a project in the Town of
Duxbury. All access roads need to be constructed of suitable material to support the weights of the
transportation vehicles delivering equipment and components. Likewise, all staging areas and crane
pads will need to be constructed in similar fashion. Coordination of delivery intervals for different wind
turbine components could be scheduled in a manner such that tower sections can be offloaded directly

4-2
from the transport vehicle and erected onto the foundation with the main crane, thus minimizing the total
amount of staging area required.

Site 1 - North Hill Golf Course Considerations
Site 1 has the least amount of topographical concerns and wooded area requiring clearing of the three
proposed sites. The access road to the wind turbine would begin in the southeast corner of the existing
parking lot of the club house and hug the edge of the woods along the eastern edge of the driving range.
At the end of the driving range is a small patch of young growth woods that the access road will go
through before emerging alongside the ninth-hole tee boxes. The length of the road will be approximately
396m (1300ft). This access road will require grading and import of suitable road bed material to meet the
transportation requirements supplied by the turbine manufacturer, and will need to be maintained
throughout the life of the wind turbine to allow access for service and maintenance operations. An aerial
site plan has been included as Appendix C: Preliminary Development Plan and shows the spatial
relationship of the proposed site development layout.

The proposed turbine location at Site 1 is currently wooded, and will need to be cleared to a minimum
radius from the turbine foundation so that trees falling into the tower or onto the foundation are not a
possibility. The amount of tree clearing at this site is significantly less than the other two sites due to the
ability to use the adjacent cleared area. The area between the 8
th
green and 9
th
tee boxes is envisioned
as the optimal location to build the crane pad. This area can be reclaimed once installation is complete.
The 9
th
tee boxes will need to be temporarily used as a staging area for tower sections and turbine
components. During the construction phase it will be necessary to close a portion of the 9
th
tee boxes and
construct a temporary barrier to ensure the safety of patrons using the golf course.

Site 2 - Kettle Hole Considerations
To prepare Site 2 for the construction of a wind turbine, significantly more site work must be completed.
The entire site is wooded and will need to be cleared. The site will require grading to create a level area
for the installation of the foundation. The crane pad and staging area will likely need imported compacted
fill to support the weight of installation equipment and turbine components.

The proposed access road for Site 2 would have the same point of origin as Site 1, but would divert off
the driving range area and continue through the Town dumping area. The total length of this road would
be approximately 3500ft. This access road will require grading and import of suitable road bed material to
meet the transportation requirements supplied by the turbine manufacturer, and will need to be
maintained throughout the life of the turbine to allow access for service and maintenance operations.
.

4-3
Site 3 - DPW West Considerations
Site 3 is also located in a completely wooded area and poses similar land clearing concerns as Site 2.
The proposed access road for Site 3 would originate at the DPW yard and extend to the turbine location
from there. The length of new construction of this road would be approximately 1500ft. This access road
will require grading and import of suitable road bed material to meet the transportation requirements
supplied by the turbine manufacturer, and will need to be maintained throughout the life of the turbine to
allow access for service and maintenance operations.

5.3 FOUNDATIONS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Given the soil composition typical at the proposed sites, the foundation will most likely require a spread
footing style foundation. This style of foundation requires a large volume of concrete; however, material
costs are mitigated by the simplicity and ease of construction relative to other foundation styles. This
relies upon not only the mass of the foundation to resist the forces of the wind on the tower, but also the
relatively wide area over which the mass is spread. The benefit of this foundation is the simplicity of
design and relative familiarity to construction contractors. This simplicity and familiarity can result in a
more technically streamlined design and a reduced labor cost on the construction process. Other
possible foundation options include a caisson type foundation, which uses less concrete and has a
smaller footprint yet has a potential for increased construction costs. In the case of shallow bedrock, it
may be possible to use a rock anchor style foundation which ties the foundation directly to the rock below.
The applicability of these foundation types for the Town of Duxbury will depend on the bearing capacity of
the project site's soils. A geotechnical study will be necessary prior to the design of the wind turbine
foundation once a wind turbine and final location have been chosen.

Consultation with the wind turbine manufacturer is strongly recommended to determine suggested
foundation types once a final wind turbine and site have been selected. Most wind turbine manufacturers
require some type of review or approval of any proposed foundation.

6-1
PERMITTING AND REGULATORY ANALYSIS
SECTION 6

SED investigated the various permitting requirements for a community scale wind turbine installation on
behalf of the Town of Duxbury. This evaluation was compiled from an analysis of applicable federal, state
and local regulations, publicly available information, discussions with local officials, prior permitting
experience and wind industry best practices. What follows is a defined pathway for permitting selected
wind energy projects. The Duxbury wind turbine project will involve review and permitting by a variety of
local, state and federal officials. SED has prepared permitting tables to identify these requirements with a
description provided for the most applicable regulations. Once a site is selected and any environmental
design restrictions are considered, the permitting process for project construction should begin. FAA and
local jurisdictional approvals are the most significant for this project; most state permits with the exception
of MassHighway review and MEPA should not be applicable based upon the proposed turbine location(s)
however due diligence should be performed at the start of the design phase and upon final turbine site
selection. Site 2 and 3 will require a higher level of environmental review based upon the amount of
clearing and grading to prepare the site(s) for construction purposes.

6.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) An important step in permitting a wind turbine project is to
receive FAA determination that a project will have no adverse effect upon air traffic control or radar
systems. A Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration is required for any structure that exceeds
60.96m (200ft.) in height above ground level (agl) or if the structure is closer than 6,096m (20,000ft.) to a
public-use airport with a runway more than 975m (3,200ft.) long. The filing process is relatively simple
and takes approximately three months to receive a determination. SED recommends early filings to avoid
any potential or unexpected delays to project timelines. This notice is required for both the crane erection
during the construction phase and for the wind turbine itself. The FAA represents eight different Air Traffic
Divisions within this review process. Once each division responds to a Notice filing, usually within 30 to
45 days, the FAA will evaluate responses, review traffic patterns of nearby airports and run Part 77 to
determine if any Obstruction Standards have been exceeded. A filing will result in one of two findings,
either a Determination of No Hazard (DNH) or a Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH). A NPH Letter will
provide a No Effect Height (NEH) and explain what if any effect to airspace the project poses.

In order to assess the project's likelihood of receiving FAA approval SED first utilized the FAA Notice
Criteria Tool. Results indicate the proposed wind turbines at each of the proposed locations will exceed
notice criteria 77.9(a) ranging from 43ft to 131ft in height depending upon the selected model thus
requiring the filing of a notice of Proposed Construction. SED then performed a cursory examination of all
nearby public and private airports to the proposed turbine locations. The nearest airport, Marshfield Muni-

6-2
George Harlow Airport, is a publicly owned airport located approximately 3.5 miles away from Site 1.
Additional airports identified by the FAA circle search tool within a ten-mile vicinity include Cranland,
Monponsett Pond, and Plymouth Municipal Airport. A private runway is located approximately 5.5miles to
the northwest in Pembroke, MA that was not identified by the FAA circle search however is included on
the figure below. Figure 6-1, shows the location of the airports in relation to the sites being considered for
a wind turbine installation for the Town of Duxbury.

Figure 6-1 Airports in Proximity of Proposed Wind Turbine Development

Figure 6-2 Airports within a Ten-mile Vicinity
Name Site Type City Distance to Sites
Marshfield Municipal - George Harlow Airport Marshfield ~3.5 miles
Cranland Airport Hanson ~6 miles
Monponsett Pond
Seaplane
Base
Halifax ~6.5 miles
Plymouth Municipal Airport Plymouth ~8 miles

6-3
Based upon MassCEC requirements, SED filed an early Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration
(Form 7460-1) with the FAA in August of 2011 for a 330ft. wind turbine at the proposed Site 1 location
(Latitude: 42 2' 33.57'' N Longitude: 70 42' 5.51'' W)
10
and was issued a Notice of Presumed Hazard
based upon proximity to the Marshfield Municipal Airport. This does not pose a fatal flaw however the
finding will restrict the overall height of the final wind turbine configuration; a project cannot exceed an
overall height of 317ft; for the wind turbines under consideration the 900kW tower on the shorter tower
(59m) meets this requirement. While slightly further away from the Marshfield Airport than Site 1 this
restriction is assumed to apply to all of the sites under consideration.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - Utility wind turbine projects may impact electronic
communications signals in two ways. Wind turbines and their associated transmission lines can generate
electromagnetic noise, which can interfere with telecommunications services, or, more commonly, wind
turbines can create physical obstructions that distort communications signals. Various communication
systems to include microwave systems, mobile radio (LMR) operations, mobile telephone services, and
off-air TV broadcast signals may be affected by physical obstructions such as mountains, trees, buildings
or wind turbines.
11
Large wind farm developers typically commission engineering studies to determine the
extent of any impacts to surrounding FCC licensed facilities. Single wind turbines, however, are less likely
to cause such interference due to the minimal amount of interrupted airspace.

SED performed an FCC geosearch to identify licensed microwave communications within a five mile
radius of the proposed wind turbine location. Specific infrastructure with the potential to be negatively
influenced were located including: common carrier fixed point-to-point microwave (CF), microwave
industrial business pool (MG), microwave public safety pool (MW), microwave aviation (WA), microwave
marine (WM), and microwave radiolocation (WR). Sixty-one (61) active call sign/lease IDs were identified.
These paths are plotted in proximity to the proposed wind turbine locations in Figure 6-3.

10
Wind turbine coordinates have been slightly adjusted since the filing, however not significantly enough to alter a final
determination from the FAA. The new coordinates are 42.042897, -70.701410.
11
AWEA Siting Handbook Feb 2008.

6-4
Figure 6-3 FCC Communication Paths Geosearch Results

Of the 61 identified active call signs, 7 were listed as point-to-point radio service signs, creating a total of
42 communication pathways, several of which are redundant paths varying only in frequencies. These
call signs have been plotted in Figure 6-4 below and linked to demonstrate the proximity of point to point
communication pathways to the proposed wind turbine locations. Based upon the distance to the
proposed sites, it is assumed that a wind turbine at these sites will not interfere with active local point to
point communications.

6-5
Figure 6-4 Point to Point Communications

Figure 6-5 shows in orange the location of known communication towers and antennas
12
within four
miles of the proposed sites (4 registered and 11 nonregistered). These are overlaid with the plotted point
to point pathways. Currently, the nearest communication equipment is less than one mile (~.8miles) from
Site1, an unregistered 46.3m (152ft.) tower owned by Nextel Communications of Midatlantic. Based upon
the distance from the tower, the likelihood of interference problems to be associated with a potential wind
turbine project at these locations is minimal. There were no applications for future towers located within
the vicinity detected as of 02/22/11. Unless additional microwave carrying communications towers are
erected within the line of sight of the turbine, there should not be any significant impact on point-to-point
microwave communications for the wind turbine sites currently under consideration.

12
Antennasearch.com

6-6
Figure 6-5 Local Communications

SED assessed the wind turbine locations using the Department of Defense's Long Range Radar Tool. At
this time, the potential impact of a wind turbine on long range radar is unknown and this tool is 100%
optional. The area shaded red indicates that impacts are highly likely and the area shaded yellow
indicates that impacts to radar are likely While results of the online tool indicate likely impact to Air
Defense and Homeland Security radars, according to the DOD "The blockage caused by a single turbine,
due to its slender shape, will be relatively small, resulting in a negligible shadow area behind that single
turbine.
13

Department of Defense, Report to the Congressional Defense Committees, The Effect of Windmill Farms on Military Readiness
2006, page 52

6-7
Figure 6-6 DOD Long Range Radar Tool

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) - USFWS acts as the enforcement authority for the Endangered
Species Act, Chapter 7 which requires review of all projects that may threaten federally listed endangered
species, and are federally authorized, permitted, funded, or occurring on federal land or by a federal
agency. The USFWS acts as the enforcement authority for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In response to
wildlife concerns, the USFWS issued interim guidelines on ways to develop wind turbine projects to avoid
and minimize impacts to wildlife. These guidelines are generally aimed towards utility-scale wind power
developments. USFWS review could be triggered should federal permits or funding be necessary for the
wind turbine installation.

According to the MA Dept of Fish and Game, there are only two federally listed endangered or threatened
species within the entire Town of Duxbury; the Piping Plover, a small shorebird, listed as threatened and
the Roseate Tern, a colonial-nesting, marine water bird, listed as Endangered. As this is a single wind
turbine installation, and based upon the preferred habitat of the listed species, SED does not anticipate
any avian issues that would impact the development of this project however thorough investigation and
review to minimize or eliminate any impact upon wildlife and migratory bird populations prior to project
construction is recommended.

6-8
Figure 6-7 Federal Regulations
14

Regulation/Permit Authority Citation Approval Time Comments
Notice of Proposed
Construction or
Alteration
Fed Aviation
Admin.
14 CFR Part
77
~90 days. Filed
8/10/11.
Determination
pending.
Required for crane erection and
tower structure. All structures
above 200ft will need lighting.
Compliance with FCC
Rules
FCC Title 47,
Chapter 1,
Part 15
NA These rules establish that devices
may not produce "Harmful
Interference", defined as "Any
emission, radiation or induction that
endangers the functioning of a radio
navigation service or other safety
services or seriously degrades,
obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a
radio communications service
operating in accordance with this
chapter".
15

NPDES Stormwater
Construction
General Permit
Federal EPA/
Requires joint
approval with
MDEP
Sections 306
and 511(c) of
the Clean
Water Act
and 40 CFR
Parts 6,
122.2, and
122.29.
Discharge of
stormwater from
construction sites
disturbing more
than 1 acre.
Requires joint approval with
MDEP. Sites 2 and 3 may require
this permit as they will likely disturb
greater than 1 acre.
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
Federal EPA Possible for Sites
2 and 3
The New Source Determination
(NSD) establishes whether or not
the proposed construction is subject
to environmental assessment under
the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).
Service Interim
Guidance on Avoiding
and Minimizing Wildlife
Impacts from Wind
Turbines
United States
Fish & Wildlife
Service
May 13, 2003
http://www.ha
bitat.adfg.alas
ka.gov/tech_r
eports/standa
rds_technique
s/wind_turbin
es.pdf
Guidance Only Not applicable for the size project
proposed unless federal permitting
requirements are triggered.
Habitat Conservation &
Incidental Take Permit
Fish & Wildlife
Service
6 U.S.C.
1531-1544;
Endangered
Species Act
NA Initiated in the presence of
endangered species.
Migratory Bird Treaty
Act
Fish & Wildlife
Service
I6 U.S.C.
703-712
NA Prohibits the taking, killing
possession etc. of migratory birds
Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
Fish & Wildlife
Service
16 U.S.C.
668-668d;
BGEPA
NA Enforcement potential.

14
Adapted from Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts at Amherst - Community Wind Power Fact
Sheet #7.
15
AWEA Comments to BLM draft PEIS December 10, 2004

6-9
6.2 STATE REGULATIONS

Mass Highway Review The Mass Highway parameters may be exceeded by the selected technology
requiring a permit if the combined weight of the trailer and any wind turbine components exceeds
80,000lbs. If a wind turbine is installed in the Town of Duxbury, a professional transport company should
be contracted and responsible for obtaining all applicable transport permits. Exceptions are allowable
granted the proper procedure is followed to receive Mass Highway approvals.

Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) (M.G.L. c.30, secs. 61-62H and regulations 301
CMR 11.00) The MEPA Office conducts environmental impact reviews of certain projects requiring state
agency action, including potential impacts to state-listed rare species. Agency actions include granting
State permits or licenses, providing state financial assistance, or transferring state land. Based on MEPA
review thresholds, the relatively small area to be disturbed by the turbine's construction, and the fact that
the project is not located within a State designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern, nothing more
than an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) is likely in order to identify potential environmental
impacts will be necessary.

Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) - The State's Natural Heritage Program
identifies any mapped habitat for endangered species. Concurrent with the above MEPA review process,
a complete project review checklist with MESA and a Rare Species Information Request Form in addition
to a Notice of Intent (NOI) should be filed with the Town Conservation Commission, Massachusetts
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)
office for the North Hills Golf Course and Kettle Hole sites as these proposed wind turbine locations fall
within a designated Priority Habitat of Rare Species and Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife. These refer to
the known geographical extent of habitat for all state-listed rare plant and animal species. It will be
necessary to provide the NHESP with a copy of any required Notice of Intent (NOI), pursuant to the rare
species provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations. The NHESP will determine the rare
species present in the estimated habitat and recommend measures to protect them. An opinion is issued
within approximately four weeks from receipt of a completed Request. Minimal impact is anticipated for
Site 1 North Hills Golf Course based upon the relatively small scale of the proposed project and the
previously disturbed nature of the Golf Course itself. Site 2 Kettle Hole may pose greater concern based
upon the required amount of clearing (over 2 acres) associated with the staging area and the construction
of an access road at each of the sites. The DWP site is outside the boundaries of any currently listed
Priority or Estimated Habitat.

In Figure 6-8, Priority Habitat 1172 is highlighted in grey with a yellow outline. It should be noted that
Priority and Estimated Habitats often overlap as is the case here. Figure 6-9 depicts Estimated Habitats in
grey with a green outline. Two of the three proposed sites are located within EH 972.

6-10

Figure 6-8 Priority Habitats in Proximity of the Proposed Turbine Location

6-11

Figure 6-9 Estimated Habitats in Proximity of the Proposed Turbine Locations

According to the NHESP on-line data base, there are several state listed threatened, endangered or of
special concern species, to include avian and bat species, within the Town of Duxbury; these could pose
a potential or perceived risk to project development. During the design phase of the project an initial avian
and bat study may be required to further quantify these risks so that development activities can avoid or
minimize impacts. While a project of this size should not cause any disturbance to wildlife, it will be
important to demonstrate that there are no species currently in the project area that would be significantly
impacted by a wind turbine project. The following chart lists avian species listed within the limits of the
Town of Duxbury
16
. Typical habitat for the birds listed varies from sandy coastal beaches and dunes,
open expanses of grassy fields, hayfields, long barrier beaches, and freshwater marshes and meadows.

16
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/town_lists/town_d.htm#duxbury

6-12

Figure 6-10 Protected or Listed Species for the Town of Duxbury
Taxonomic
Group
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
MESA
Status
Federal
Status
Most Recent
Observation
Bird Bartramia
longicauda
Upland
Sandpiper
E 1975
Bird Botaurus
lentiginosus
American
Bittern
E 1992
Bird Charadrius
melodus
Piping
Plover
T T 2006
Bird Sterna
dougallii
Roseate
Tern
E E 2008
Bird Sterna
hirundo
Common
Tern
SC 2008
Bird Sterna
paradisaea
Arctic Tern SC 2007
Bird Sternula
antillarum
Least Tern SC 2007
Dragonfly/Damselfly Somatochlora
linearis
Mocha
Emerald
SC 2001
Reptile Terrapene
carolina
Eastern Box
Turtle
SC 2008
Vascular Plant Aristida
purpurascens
Purple
Needlegrass
T 1911
Vascular Plant Aristida
tuberculosa
Seabeach
Needlegrass
T 1981
Vascular Plant Carex
polymorpha
Variable
Sedge
E 2005
Vascular Plant Persicaria
setacea
Strigose
Knotweed
T 1983
T= Threatened E=Endangered SC=Special Concern

Although there are several wetlands classified as Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands in the vicinity of
the proposed project area, these are several hundred feet away from the proposed wind turbine locations
and will be avoided for the duration of staging, access and construction. From Site 1 the nearest
wetland area is estimated at 250 ft. southwest and 480 ft. southeast, both classified as Freshwater
Forested Wetlands. From Site 2 - The closest wetland is 300 ft. east and is a Freshwater Forest Wetland.
No wetland areas would be affected by this wind turbine site. From Site 3 - The proposed site is 700 ft.
from conservation areas to the west which include wetlands and an additional wetland area is present
750 ft. to the southeast. Based on these setbacks, the wind turbine sites would pose negligible effects to
wetland areas. This should be confirmed with the local conservation commission upon final wind turbine
site selection.

6-13

Figure 6-11 National Wetlands Inventory

Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)
The MHC was established to identify, evaluate, and protect important historical and archaeological assets
of the Commonwealth. Any project that requires funding, licenses or permits from any state agency must
be reviewed by the MHC for compliance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 9 Section 27C; or if
from a federal agency, must be reviewed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act.

A review of the available Massachusetts state historical databases was performed to reveal the historic
landmarks that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places within a five mile radius from
the proposed wind turbine locations. While the project is not located within a historic district there are
several sites of historical significance listed within the five mile radius; of most significance is the Old
Shipbuilder's Historic District one mile away and the Kingston Center Historic District approximately 3.5
miles distant. The use of a state or federal funding or licensing will trigger the need to file a Project
Notification Form with the MHC, however based upon publicly available data, the proposed turbine
location, conversations with Town officials and the scale of the proposed project, impact to local historical
resources is unlikely. Details of these historic sites have been included in the map and chart provided in
Figure 6-12 and 6-13 for reference.

6-14
Figure 6-12 Nationally Registered Historic Sites within Five Miles

6-15
Figure 6-13 Nationally Registered Historic Site Details within Five Miles
Historic Place Name Address City
~Miles at the
closest
point
A First Parish Church
SW of Duxbury at
Tremont and Depot
Sts.
Duxbury .45
B Bradford, Capt. Gamaliel, House
W of Duxbury at 942
Tremont St.
Duxbury .5
C Bradford, Capt. Gershom, House
W of Duxbury at 931
Tremont St.
Duxbury .5
D Bradford, Captain Daniel, House 251 Harrison St. Duxbury .6
E
Alden, John, House

105 Alden St. Duxbury .7
F
Old Shipbuilder's Historic District

Both sides of
Washington St. from
Powder Point Ave. to
N of South Duxbury
Duxbury 1.2
G
Pillsbury Summer House

45 Old Cove Rd. Duxbury 1.6

King Caesar House

King Caesar Rd. Duxbury 1.8
I
Standish, Alexander, House

341 Standish St. Duxbury 2.2
J Webster, Daniel, Law Office and Library
Careswell and
Webster Sts.
Marshfield 2.4
K Thomas--Webster Estate 238 Webster St. Marshfield 2.5
L
Bradford House

50 Landing Rd. Kingston 3
M Adams, Frederic C., Public Library 33 Summer St. Kingston 3.3
N Kingston Center Historic District Main, Green Sts Kingston 3.4

6-16
Figure 6-14 State Regulations and Policies
17

Permit Authority Citation Timeframe Comments
MEPA
Determination:
Environmental
Notification Form
(ENF)
Executive Office
of Environmental
Affairs
MEPA
Regulations,
301 CMR 11.00
30 days Jurisdictional authority occurs when
State provides financial assistance;
may require Environmental
Notification Form (ENF). Projects
resulting in a "take" of state-listed rare
species and disturbs two or more
acres of Priority Habitat may be
required to file an Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) with the
MEPA office (301 CMR 11.03(2)). All
projects that require this filing will be
screened by NHESP staff for review.
Rare Species
Information
Request Form
Massachusetts
Endangered
Species
Act/MESA
321 CMR 8:00;
321 CMR 10:00
four weeks
from receipt
of a complete
Request
Required. Will determine the rare
species present in the estimated
habitat and recommend measures to
protect them. $50.00 filing fee.
Notice of Intent
(NOI)

Mass. Natural
Heritage and
Endangered
Species
Program
321 CMR 10:00
Massachusetts
Endangered
Species Act
30 days Required filing due to project location
in an Estimated and Priority Habitat.
Protects ~ 190 species of vertebrate
and invertebrate animals and 258
species of native plants that are listed
as Endangered, Threatened or of
Special Concern in MA.
Conservation and
Management
Permit
for Wetlands
Program Policy:
'Activities in the
Buffer Zone'
Massachusetts
Department of
Environmental
Protection
310 CMR 10.00.
March 1999
Approval time
dictated by
NOI to Mass.
Natural
Heritage and
Endangered
Species
Program
For development in buffer zones
adjacent to wetlands. See also:
Bordering Vegetated Wetland
Delineation Criteria and Methodology
http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/
bvw.htm
Limited Projects: Access Roadways
or Driveways (DWW Policy 88-2)
http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/
acroad.htm. N/A due to the distance
from existing wetlands.
Project
Notification Form
(PNF)
Massachusetts
Historical
Commission
(MHC)
MGL Ch. 9
Sections 27-32
30 days
Advise filing
at the
beginning of
the design
phase.
Any new construction projects that
require funding, licenses, or permits
from any state or federal agencies
may be reviewed by MHC. The MHC
is the office of the SHPO. Other
interested parties such as local
historical commissions or Indian
Tribes are also consulted.
Request for
Airspace Review
Mass
Aeronautics
Commission
~60 days.
Dictated by
FAA filing.
MAC rules on all projects over 200ft
agl MAC notification will be triggered
by the FAA filing for this project.

17
Notes: Portions adapted from Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts at Amherst - Community
Wind Power Fact Sheet #7 ;

6-17
6.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS
The Town of Duxbury added Article 616 Community-Scale Wind Facilities (Appendix E) to their Protective
Bylaws in March of 2010 to specifically provide, by way of the Special Permit Granting Authority, in this
case the Planning Board, for the construction and operation of Community-Scale Wind Facilities for
Municipal use. The Bylaw dictates that a proposed wind turbine project must satisfy all applicable
approvals and permits at the local, state and federal requirements, including but not limited to safety,
construction, environmental, electrical, communications and aviation requirements before moving into the
construction phase of a wind turbine installation. The ordinance dictates the need to minimize any
adverse visual, safety, and environmental impacts of a facility to be constructed solely within the Town's
Publicly Owned Land Overlay (POLO) District. Local permits and approvals are listed in Figure 6-19.

Figure 6-15 Publicly Owned Land Overlay (POLO) District

Special Permit: In order to obtain a Special Permit for the siting of a wind turbine within the Town of
Duxbury an applicant must demonstrate actual or perspective site control over the site, setback areas and
access roads; receive FAA approval; submit a site plan and visual representations within a two mile
radius of the site, and demonstrate compliance with DEP noise regulations
18
. The height of the wind

18
Siting must conform with the provisions of the Department of Environmental Protection's, Division of Air Quality Noise Regulations
(310 CMR 7.10): it must not increase the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above ambient level, or produce a "pure
tone condition
18
, both of which are measured at the property line and at the nearest inhabited residence. An analysis prepared by a
qualified engineer shall be presented to demonstrate compliance with these noise standards.

6-18
turbine is not to exceed 250ft above the current grade level and setbacks must be 1.1 times the overall
height of the turbine from property lines and private or public ways, and two times the overall height from
the nearest existing residential or commercial structures not owned by the applicant; exceptions apply to
the Wetlands Protection and Flood Hazard Overlay Districts.

The applicant will have the burden of proving that the project will not impose significant adverse impacts
on neighboring or adjacent uses through either siting or mitigation due to shadow flicker, land clearing,
and fragmentation of open space areas. The site must be in an approved and appropriate location, not
create appreciable hazards to pedestrians, vehicles or wildlife, and be appropriately developed and safely
operated and maintained to meet the requirements of the adopted ordinance. The special permit
application will be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Planning Board, Board of Health, Conservation
Commission, Department of Public Works, Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Design Review Board.

Variance: As part of the special permit process, a variance must be granted for any wind turbine
exceeding the overall height of 250ft. One of the proposed wind turbine technologies will exceed the
maximum height set by the Town's protective bylaw regarding the installation of community wind turbines.
A 450kW wind turbine on the shorter of the two available towers (164ft/50m) with an overall height of
~74m (243m) will comply. A variance is filed with the Board of Appeals to demonstrate that the wind
turbine with the requested variance would be appropriate for the zoning district; that there is a substantial
hardship, financial or otherwise, involved that leads to the request; that the desired relief will not result in
substantial detriment to the public good and will not nullify or substantially detract from the intent or
purpose of the Bylaw. Without a variance, wind turbine technology selection and economic benefit will be
significantly restricted.

Figure 6-16 Comparison of Turbine Variance Needs
Proposed Wind Turbine Overall Height
Necessary
Variance
450kW 50m tower 48m Rotor Diameter 74m/243ft. 0ft.
900kW 59m tower 56m Rotor Diameter 87m/285ft. 35ft.

Building Permit - A building permit and electrical inspection will likely be required prior to construction
although this is not clearly stated in the recently adopted ordinance. The Building Department is
responsible for plan review, permitting and inspections for new construction and/or alterations to any
structure within the Town. Appropriate fees will be assigned by the Town.
In addition to applying for and obtaining the special permit, it will be important to reach out to other local
agencies for comment. The Conservation Commission and local Historical Commission should be
contacted to ensure all concerns are properly understood and addressed before a wind turbine is

6-19
constructed. The Conservation Commission should receive any filing submitted to the NHESP and the
local historical commission should be contacted if a PNF is filed with the Massachusetts Historical
Commission. t is SED's experience that involving and cooperating with these agencies at the early
stages of a project is important for the success and acceptance of a wind turbine project.
Figure 6-17 Town Permits and Approvals
Regulation/
Permit
Authority Citation Timeframe Comments
Special Permit
Application
Special Permit
Granting
Auth./Town
Planning Board
Town of
Duxbury
Zoning Bylaws
Article 616
Community-
Scale Wind
Facilities
Conservative
estimates are
up to a 6
month review
process.
FAA approval, visual
simulations, site plan and site
control, and noise compliance
should be demonstrated prior to
filing. A variance will be required
as part of the Special Permit
process for the proposed
turbine technologies.
Building Permit
Application
Building
inspector
MA Building
Code 780
CMR
Required for all new
construction. Fee will likely be
based on the cost of
construction.
Notice of Intent
(NOI for the
NHESP)
Duxbury
Conservation
Commission
310 CMR
10.37,
10.58(4)(b),
and 10.59
Response can
be expected
within 30 days
of filing.
For a project located within
Estimated Habitat of Rare
Wildlife or Priority habitat a
Notice of Intent (NOI) is
required. A copy of the NOI
must be sent to the NHESP no
later than the date of filing of the
NOI with the Conservation
Commission for review.
Project
Notification
Historical
Commission
Town Bylaws require that a
wind turbine minimize impacts
on scenic, natural and historic
resources of the Town of
Duxbury.

6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The first step of the permitting process is to officially file for the necessary permits that appear to have the
longest lead time for approval. In the case of a wind turbine for the Town of Duxbury local permits and
FAA appear to have the longest lead time. SED has filed a notice of proposed construction of alteration
with the FAA. An ambient noise study should commence at the earliest convenience in order to submit a
statement of compliance with the special permit application. A special permit and site plan review should
commence as soon as the Town moves into the design phase. Once the permits have been filed, the
project team should engage the community at the earliest possible date and include them in the
development process wherever possible and appropriate. The project team must engage community
stakeholders, environmental groups and potential wind energy opponents to discuss this development
and maintain transparency throughout design. By establishing a two-way dialogue with the public, the

6-20
project team should be able to avoid costly delays and/or the creation of well-organized resistance. The
goal of these meetings should be to educate the community to a point where an educated decision can
be made to assess the public benefit of the project.

7-1

PERMITTING TOOLBOX
SECTION 7

Public approval plays a significant role in the development of a community wind project. Public concerns
often arise as to what the anticipated impacts of a wind turbine are on nearby properties and residences.
Visual impacts, noise impacts and shadow flicker effects are often the top concerns encountered during
the design and permitting phase of a wind energy development. In order to assist the Town in
determining, what if any adverse impacts a wind turbine development may have on the neighboring
community, SED has performed sound and shadow flicker studies for the proposed turbine models at the
three sites identified through this analysis.

7.1 SOUND PROPAGATION REPORT
Town Bylaw states that a community scale wind turbine development must conform with the provisions
set by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's, Division of Air Quality Noise
Regulations (310 CMR 7.10). These currently dictate that a wind turbine must not increase the broadband
sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above ambient level, or produce a "pure tone condition
1
, both of
which are measured at the property line and at the nearest inhabited residence.

When considering sound effects, it is important to note that the nature of the Decibel scale is such that
two combined sounds, such as the existing background ambient noise and the noise emitted by the wind
turbine, are not directly additive. For instance, if a sound of 40 dB is added to a sound of 46 dB the
resulting sound level is approximately 47 dB, a decibel increase of only 1 dB. It is also typical to discuss
environmental sound impacts in terms of the A-weighted sound level, or dB (A), which adapts the decibel
scale to the frequency response of the human ear.

Figures 7-1 through 7-3 show a sound propagation model developed in WindPRO by certified user Bill
Court, SED, USA using WindPRO version 2.7.486. This model demonstrates decibel contours at a height
of 5ft above ground level as emitted by a wind turbine at various potential sites for the Town of Duxbury,
under a worst-case scenario The WindPRO model utilizes verified sound emission data, as provided by
the manufacturer, and assumes no ground or structure attenuation, which approximates to a very smooth
flat offshore surface. The model also assumes the wind turbine is operating in a wind speed of 8m/s. This
speed is typically used in acoustic impact studies because it represents the near maximum output
capacity (kW) and, therefore, near maximum sound emission of a wind turbine. It also represents a time
when the ambient background noise of the surrounding area is comparatively low. It is important to note
that the model shown does not take into account existing background ambient noise levels, only the
sound levels as emitted by the wind turbine.

7-2

Figure 7-1 - Sound Levels at 8 m/s for One (1) PowerWind 56 900kW Wind Turbine at Site 1


7-3


The nearest residences to any of the wind turbine sites are estimated to experience between 40 and 45
dB (A) according to Figures 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3. Daytime ambient levels are expected to be 35 to 45 db (A),
therefore the proposed turbines would not exceed the Mass DEP's 10 db(A) above ambient at property
lines requirement.

7.2 SHADOW FLICKER ASSESSMENT
SED performed an assessment of potential shadow flicker impacts at the three proposed sites within the
Town of Duxbury. Shadow flicker occurs when wind turbine blades cast an intermittent shadow on the
surrounding area when the blades pass in front of the sun. The location and occurrence of the shadow
effect depends on the time of year, time of day, and weather. The disturbance that can be caused by
shadow effect mainly occurs in un-shaded windows of buildings located within the effect area. Obstacles
between the wind turbine and area of concern, such as trees, buildings, or terrain can reduce or eliminate
the effects of shadow flicker.

Shadow flicker effects will only occur under certain conditions:
o During daylight hours
o When the sun is un-obscured; shining, no overcast or foggy conditions
o When wind turbine is in operation or spinning (in a position facing or facing-away from the sun)

7-4

Receptors
The turbines that are considered for this project are a single PowerWind 56 900kW wind turbine, with a
71 meter (233ft) hub height and a 56 meter (184ft) rotor diameter, or a single Northern Power 450kW
wind turbine, with a 50 meter (164ft) hub height and a 54 meter (177ft) rotor diameter; and are proposed
at one of the three potential sites within the Town. For this initial assessment only the PowerWind 56
turbine was used in the models, as this turbine has a greater potential impact than the Northern Power
450kW. The potential turbine sites are located on municipal property south of the NHGC and between
Route 3A and North Hill Pond. SED identified 17 locations to evaluate with receptors to quantify the
shadow flicker impacts from the proposed wind turbine. Receptors are representative of areas that could
be impacted by shadow flicker or have been identified as sites of particular concern. These areas were
selected based on several criteria:

o Distance to wind turbine location within 10 rotor diameters, or 560 meters (1,837ft)
o Areas most likely to be effected by shadow effects related to position of sun in the sky locations
to the east, west, and north of wind turbine
o Current use (residence, classrooms, overnight lodging)
o Areas of cultural and historical significance
Shadows will be cast on specific days of the year and will move as the sun rotates across the horizon.
Certain areas are more susceptible to shadow effects depending on the time of day and relative position
from the wind turbine. Areas to the west of the wind turbine can experience these effects as the sun
rises, areas to the north can experience the effects during the day, and areas to the east can experience
effects as the sun sets. The shadows cast by the wind turbine blades will be narrow, of low intensity and
move rapidly at the receptor. The closer a receptor is to the wind turbine, the more intense the shadow.
This is because a greater proportion of the sun is blocked by the rotating wind turbine blades. As the
distance between the receptor and the wind turbine increases, the shadow effect diminishes as low-angle
light bends around objects and becomes diffuse
19
. Figures 7-4 through 7-6 show the shadow flicker
maps identifying the worst case scenario for each of the three potential sites. The shading is
representative of the amount of shadow flicker in hours/per year, the red circle identifies ten (10) rotor
diameters for the PowerWind 56 wind turbine. Figures 7-4 and 7-6 show receptor locations identified as
SR1 through SR17 in relation to the proposed wind turbine, no locations fit the criteria for receptors at
Site 2.

19
http://nepa.energy.gov/documents/EA-1737F_AppendixD-1_ShadowFlickerAnalysis.pdf

7-5

Figure 7-4 - PowerWind 56 Shadow Flicker Map - Site 1


7-6


Methodology
SED used the Shadow Flicker module of the software program WindPRO, created by EMD International
A/S. This model was created by certified user Bill Court, SED, USA using WindPRO version 2.7.486.
This model was developed using a worst case scenario in order to calculate the attached report
(Appendix G Shadow Flicker Analysis) at the identified receptors. This worst case scenario accounts for
the turbine constantly spinning, the rotor always oriented perpendicular to the receptor, and the sun
shining during every daytime hour of a given year without being obscured by weather conditions, such as
clouds or obstacles, such as trees. Each receptor site was assumed to be a residence with a single bay
window 1 meter wide by 1 meter high (3.28 x 3.28 ft), and elevated 1.5 meters (5 ft) above ground level.
For the purposes of this analysis, the model assumes that these windows are facing perpendicular to the
wind turbine. The results of the shadow flicker analysis are attached to this document in the form of a
main report listing total hours per year, days per year and maximum hours per day of shadow flicker.
Because these conservative assumptions were used for the purposes of this analysis, it is expected that
the impact of shadow flicker on the identified receptor site will be less than the model predicts.

7.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The sound propagation report demonstrates that sound from the wind turbine at any of the 3 locations
would be audible to some residences within the area primarily off of Hounds Ditch Road. This sound

7-7

would not exceed 45 dba at any of these sites under a worst-case scenario. Collection of additional sound
readings will be necessary from the final agreed upon wind turbine site prior to development in order to
confirm compliance with Mass DEP regulations and more importantly to allay any public concerns which
may arise.

The shadow flicker impact assessment demonstrates that there will be some shadow effects from a wind
turbine to neighboring residences, but that these are well within what is considered reasonable for this
type of wind development, as they would not exceed 30 hours per year based around this worst-case
assessment. SED will prepare visual photo simulation of the wind turbine at the various sites in order to
demonstrate the visual effect that a wind turbine may have on the aesthetics of the surrounding
community. This will be performed during the business planning stage.

10-1
CAPITAL COSTS
SECTION 8
8.1 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS
The estimated capital costs for a wind energy generating facility for the Town of Duxbury were
determined using wind industry best practices, SED's experience constructing similar sized projects, site-
specific characteristics that will influence the cost of design and construction, and current equipment
pricing.

Figures 8-1 through 8-4 show the estimated capital costs for the design and construction phases of the
project. The capital cost estimates provided in this report are indicative of SED performing this work and
likely do not reflect the cost that a less experienced firm may charge for similar services. Capital cost
projections should be updated on a continual basis as work commences.
Estimated capital costs are provided for the following six scenarios:
Scenario 1: Installation of a single (1) PowerWind 900kW at Site 1
Scenario 2: Installation of a single (1) Northwind 450kW at Sites 1
Scenario 4: Installation of a single (1) Northwind 450kW at Site 2
Scenario 6: Installation of a single (1) Northwind 450kW at Site 3

Figure 8-1 Estimated Total Project Costs
Town of Duxbury
Scenario 1
900kW
Scenario 2
450kW
Scenario 3
900kW
Scenario 4
450kW
Scenario 5
900kW
Scenario 6
450kW
Total Design $249,830 $203,800 $268,390 $222,360 $263,390 $217,360
Wind Turbine Cost $1,664,000 $997,000 $1,664,000 $997,000 $1,664,000 $997,000
Total Construction $1,106,500 $882,000 $1,372,500 $1,140,000 $1,211,500 $1,001,000
Total Project Cost $3,020,330 $2,082,800 $3,304,890 $2,359,360 $3,138,890 $2,215,360

Figure 8-2 breaks design capital costs into specific tasks and overall design cost for each project scenario
and Figure 8-3 breaks capital costs into the main construction categories and shows the "all-in cost for
each project scenario.

10-2

Figure 8-2 Estimated Design Costs
TOWN OF DUXBURY 900kW 450kW
1.0 MassCEC Project Milestones
1.1 Project Progress Briefings 2,320.00 $ 2,320.00 $
1.2 Milestone Reporting 2,320.00 $ 2,320.00 $
2.0 Permitting Toolbox - $ -
2.1 Acoustic Sound Study 13,720.00 $ 13,720.00 $
2.2 Shadow Flicker Study 4,960.00 $ 4,080.00 $
2.3 Avian, Wildlife and Habitat 18,400.00 $ 18,400.00 $
2.4 Visual Assessment 5,460.00 $ 5,180.00 $
2.5 Wetland and Stream Delineation (Sites 2 and 3) 3,560.00 $ 3,560.00 $
3.0 Public Outreach - $ -
3.1 Public Forums and Hearings 11,940.00 $ 9,220.00 $
4.0 Permits and Regulatory Filings - $ -
4.1 Building Permits 3,920.00 $ 2,320.00 $
4.2 Special Permit/Variance/Site Plan Review 12,280.00 $ 7,480.00 $
4.3 MEPA ENF Filed 1,050.00 $ 1,070.00 $
4.4 MHC Filed 1,050.00 $ 1,070.00 $
4.5 FAA Filed 360.00 $ 250.00 $
5.0 Interconnection Application 22,320.00 $ 19,960.00 $
6.0 Project Design - $ -
6.1 Civil Design 19,030.00 $ 12,770.00 $
6.2 Foundation Design 31,220.00 $ 19,960.00 $
6.3 Electrical Design 36,440.00 $ 21,300.00 $
6.4 Communications Design 6,410.00 $ 7,710.00 $
6.5 Procurement 10,530.00 $ 11,370.00 $
Additional Civil and Electrical Design for Site 2 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $
Additional Civil and Electrical Design for Site 3 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $
7.0 Capital Cost Estimates 2,560.00 $ 2,840.00 $
8.0 Project Financing and Green Marketing 4,920.00 $ 5,080.00 $
9.0 Operations and Maintenance Planning 2,920.00 $ 2,920.00 $
10.0 Project Management 25,200.00 $ 22,960.00 $
Travel Costs (8 Total Trips) 10,500.00 $ 9,500.00 $
Total Design for Site 1 249,830.00 $ 203,800.00 $

10-3

Figure 8-3 Estimated Construction Capital Costs for PowerWind 900kW
PowerWind 900kW Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
Wind Turbine Equipment
Turbine, Tower and Blades $1,664,000 $1,664,000 $1,664,000
Customs Duty (US 3.5%) Included Included Included
Turbine and Blade Freight Included included included
Tower Freight Included Included Included
2 Year Warranty Included Included Included
Sub Total $1,664,000.00 $1,664,000.00 $1,664,000.00
Civil Construction
Access Road, Clearing, Site Preparation $94,000 $285,000 $201,000
Crane Pad $20,000 $25,000 $25,000
Excavation - Foundation and Trench $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Foundation Bolt Template $0 $0 $0
Foundation Installation $180,000 $180,000 $180,000
Sub Total $344,000 $540,000 $456,000
Electrical Installation
Wire Run $115,000 $180,000 $108,000
Interconnection Transformer $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Final Electrical Terminations, Metering $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Grounding $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Down Tower Wiring $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Communications $10,000 $20,000 $15,000
Sub Total $270,000 $345,000 $268,000
Mechanical Installation
Crane Set Up and Transport $60,000 $60,000 $60,000
Crane - Main $80,000 $80,000 $80,000
Crane - Tailing $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Bolt Tensioning, Shim and Grout $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Rigging and Miscellaneous Tools $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Labor $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Sub Total $230,000 $230,000 $230,000
Commissioning and Construction Control
Mechanical $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Electrical $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Civil $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Sub Total $22,500 $22,500 $22,500
Other
Miscellaneous (Relay, Touch up Paint, Remediation, etc) $25,000 $35,000 $35,000
Construction/Project Management Management Labor $180,000 $200,000 $200,000
Bonding, Development and Transaction Costs $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
Sub Total $240,000 $235,000 $235,000
Total Construction Costs $2,770,500 $3,036,500 $2,875,500
Total Design $249,830 $268,390 $263,390
Total Project Cost $3,020,330 $3,304,890 $3,138,890

10-4
Figure 8-4 Estimated Construction Capital Costs 450kW
Northwind 450kW Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
Wind Turbine Equipment
Turbine, Tower and Blades $997,000 $997,000 $997,000
Customs Duty (US 3.5%) included included included
Turbine and Blade Freight included included included
Tower Freight included included included
2 Year Warranty Included Included Included
Sub Total $997,000.00 $997,000.00 $997,000.00
Civil Construction
Access Road, Clearing, Site Preparation $105,000 $285,000 $201,000
Crane Pad $12,000 $15,000 $15,000
Excavation - Foundation and Trench $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Foundation Bolt Template $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Foundation Installation $90,000 $90,000 $90,000
Sub Total $312,000 $495,000 $411,000
Electrical Installation
Wire Run $105,000 $150,000 $95,000
Interconnection Transformer $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Final Electrical Terminations, Metering $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Grounding $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Down Tower Wiring $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Communications $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Sub Total $235,000 $280,000 $225,000
Mechanical Installation
Crane Set Up and Transport $25,000 $35,000 $35,000
Crane - Main $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Crane - Tailing $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Shim and Grout $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Bolt Tensioning $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Rigging $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Labor $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Sub Total $135,000 $145,000 $145,000
Commissioning
Mechanical $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Electrical $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Civil $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Sub Total $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Other
Miscellaneous (Relay, Touch up Paint etc) $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Bonding, Development and Transaction Costs $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Construction Management Labor $100,000 $120,000 $120,000
Sub Total $170,000 $190,000 $190,000
Total Construction Costs $1,879,000 $2,137,000 $1,998,000
Development/Design $203,800 $222,360 $217,360
Total Project Cost $2,082,800 $2,359,360 $2,215,360

10-5
8.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Equipped with sophisticated sensors, control systems, and protective equipment, modern wind turbines
are designed to operate automatically with little need for manual intervention. Wind turbines are remotely
monitored and can be controlled by various entities such as the owner, the manufacturer, and/or third-
party operators.

Regularly scheduled maintenance is necessary and includes tasks such as oil changes, lubrication,
torque checks, and visual inspections. These maintenance activities typically occur at six month intervals,
and require different tasks based on the particular wind turbine and associated components.
Unscheduled maintenance events may take place as well, and require personnel to address issues on-
site. Typically, large wind turbine components are covered by the manufacturer-provided warranties in
the event of a failure. These components, such as gearboxes, generators, and blades, experience large,
variable loads and may require replacement outside of the provided warranty period. The probability of
these failures can be accounted for based on the operating history of the wind turbine, reputation of the
original parts manufacturers, and wind resource characteristics. A proactive and comprehensive O&M
plan requires the consideration of all of these factors, and will minimize life-cycle costs and maximize
wind turbine availability.

The combination of scheduled, unscheduled, and major replacement tasks are major factors that relate to
"downtime and "availability of a wind turbine. Downtime is defined as the percentage of time the wind
turbine is inoperable due to maintenance or faults. Conversely, availability is defined as the amount of
time the wind turbine is able to operate. For this analysis, downtime was estimated at 2%, which
translates to roughly 175 hours per year. This downtime is considered for O&M planning purposes and
used in the annual energy output estimates of the wind turbine. O&M costs were estimated on a yearly
basis including continuous monitoring, warranties, scheduled maintenance costs, unscheduled
maintenance costs, and probable part failure costs.

Wind turbine operations and maintenance figures for the Duxbury wind project can be broken down into
four main categories:
1. Warranty & Unscheduled Maintenance During the warranty period the wind turbine owner is
generally expected to pay for periodic scheduled maintenance costs, but not for unscheduled
maintenance that may be covered under the warranty agreement. It should be noted that the
most reputable wind turbines come with at minimum a 2 year warranty.

2. Scheduled Operations & Maintenance - SED assigned a budgetary figure of $0.018 per kWh of
electricity produced by a single PowerWind 900kW wind turbine and $0.025 per kWh for the
Northwind 450kW wind turbine. Also included in this category is a general wind turbine operations

10-6
cost. These costs include remote monitoring and reporting services that may be required by
permitting or regulatory entities. These costs are shown to escalate at 3% annually.
3. Maintenance Reserve SED recommends that a maintenance reserve be set aside on an annual
basis to prepare for the possibility of a major component failure during the life of the wind turbine.
It is up to the owner to determine a mechanism to store these funds, however, like any piece of
mechanical equipment a wind turbine may have component failures after the warranty period and
the owner should appropriately budget for these potential costs. The recommended maintenance
reserve for the PowerWind 900kW is $24,375 and $15,000 for the Northwind 450kW wind turbine.
4. Insurance Standard wind turbine insurance costs approximately $10,000 per Megawatt of
generating capacity annually. Insurance provides coverage for general liability including act of
god insurance for coverage of lightning and other weather related events. These costs are
shown to escalate at 3% annually.
These projected annual costs may be allocated to different entities based on the project ownership and
warranty terms, but are nonetheless conservative and inclusive of all necessary tasks. Figure 8-5 is a
summary of O&M costs for the Town of Duxbury wind turbine options.
Figure 8-5 O&M Costs Comparison

8.3 PROJECT TIMELINE
SED's recommended timeline for development is primarily dependent upon the decision making process
of the Town of Duxbury combined with the receipt of design and construction funding from the MassCEC.
SED recommends that the Town proceed with a vote on pursuing this project at the next Town Meeting in
the spring of 2012, with public outreach and education continuing through this period. Depending on the
community-wide decision, SED would then recommend that the Town submit an application for design
and construction funding from the MassCEC Commonwealth Wind Incentive Program.

An estimated timeline of design and construction for a single 450kW or 900kW wind turbine based on
SED's past experiences is provided. This timeline is likely to change as the project progresses. SED will
continually update the Town on the schedule for the various tasks of this project. The arrangement for
proceeding with the project will also greatly affect the timeline for this project, as well as the selected site.

900kW 450kW
Year 1 Scheduled O &M $25,000 $15,000
Year 3 Scheduled O & M
$30,474

$25,920

Yearly Maintenance Reserve $24,375
$15,000

Year 1 Insurance Cost $9,000 $4,500

10-7
Assuming the project is awarded Design and Construction funding in spring 2012, design would proceed
through the remainder of the year. Construction could begin in the spring of 2013 depending upon the
development model pursued with substantial completion of the project occurring in the summer of 2013.

Figure 8-6 Project Timeline for Wind Turbine Development

Town of Duxbury Wind Energy Proj ect
Design Tasks
Final Draft
Business Planning
Town Meeting Vote
MassCEC Grant Application Submit and Award
1.0 Project Milestones
1.1 Design Kickoff
1.2 MassCEC Milestone Requirements
2.0 Permitting Toolbox
2.1 Ambient Soud Study
2.2 Shadow Flicker Study
2.3 Avian, Wildlife & Habitat
2.4 Visual Assessment
2.5 Wetland and Stream Delineation
3.0 Public Outreach
3.1 Public Forums and Hearings
4.0 Permits and Regulatory Filings
4.1 Building Permit Filed
4.2 Special Permit/Variance/Site Plan Review
4.3 MEPA ENF
4.4 MHC Filed
4.5 Updated FAA Filed
5.0 Interconnection Application
6.0 Project Design
6.1 Civil Design
6.2 Foundation Design
6.3 Electrical Design
6.4 Communication Design
6.5 Procurement
7.0 Capital Cost Estimates
8.0 Project Financing and Green Marketing
9.0 Operations and Management Planning
10.0 Project Management
J
u
l-1
3
A
u
g
-1
3
J
u
l-1
3
A
u
g
-1
3
S
e
p
-1
3
S
e
p
-1
3
S
e
p
-1
2
O
c
t-1
2
A
p
r
-1
2
M
a
y
-1
2
J
u
n
-1
2
J
u
l-1
2
A
u
g
-1
2
N
o
v
-1
1
D
e
c
-1
1
J
a
n
-1
2
F
e
b
-1
2
M
a
r
-1
2
M
a
r
-1
2
A
p
r
-1
2
M
a
y
-1
2
J
u
n
-1
2
N
o
v
-1
1
D
e
c
-1
1
J
a
n
-1
2
F
e
b
-1
2
D
e
c
-1
2
J
a
n
-1
3
O
c
t-1
2
J
u
l-1
2
A
u
g
-1
2
S
e
p
-1
2
M
a
y
-1
3
J
u
n
-1
3
M
a
y
-1
3
J
u
n
-1
3
N
o
v
-1
2
D
e
c
-1
2
J
a
n
-1
3
F
e
b
-1
3
M
a
r
-1
3
A
p
r
-1
3
A
p
r
-1
3
F
e
b
-1
3
M
a
r
-1
3
N
o
v
-1
2
Construction Tasks
1.0 Construction Period 1: Turbine Transport and Delivery
2.0 Construction Period 2: Foundation*
3.0 Construction Period 3: Electrical Infrastructure
4.0 Construction Period 4: Erection and Commisioning
5.0 Project Management
J
u
l-1
3
A
u
g
-1
3
S
e
p
-1
3
S
e
p
-1
2
O
c
t-1
2
A
p
r
-1
2
M
a
y
-1
2
J
u
n
-1
2
J
u
l-1
2
A
u
g
-1
2
N
o
v
-1
1
D
e
c
-1
1
J
a
n
-1
2
F
e
b
-1
2
M
a
r
-1
2
M
a
y
-1
3
J
u
n
-1
3
N
o
v
-1
2
D
e
c
-1
2
J
a
n
-1
3
F
e
b
-1
3
M
a
r
-1
3
A
p
r
-1
3

10-1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
SECTION 9

The six project scenarios for wind turbine development in the Town of Duxbury were input into SED's
financial models utilizing variables calculated in prior sections and assumptions explained below.

Annual Energy Production (Figure 2-7)
Wind Generated Electricity Value (Section 4)
Design Budget (Figure 8-2)
Capital Costs (Figures 8-3 and 8-4)
Operations and Maintenance Costs (Figure 8-5)

9.1 BASELINE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The first step of the economic analysis is to combine prior findings in order to perform a cash flow
analysis of each wind turbine scenario examined. The best way to gauge the economic viability of a
project is to employ a baseline economic scenario where the client would be the owner and build off of
these results to employ alternative ownership structures. In addition to the assumptions detailed
elsewhere in this report, the following assumptions will be applied to the cash flow analyses:

Town would pay cash down for 100% of the project cost
Operation, Maintenance and Insurance costs will increase with standard inflation of 3%
Renewable Energy Credit (RECs) value of $0.025/kWh will be applied for 10 years of operation
based on current market rates
MassCEC grants are included at maximum funding

A summary of the cash flow analyses for the prospective development scenarios, wherein Town would
own and pay for 100% of the project costs upfront (unleveraged), and escalation would increase at 3%, is
provided as Figure 9-1.

10-2
Figure 9-1 Unleveraged IRR, Payback and Savings at a 3% Energy Escalation
Scenario Wind Turbine Site
Payback
(years)
IRR
Lifetime
Cost of
Electricity
20 Year Savings
1 PowerWind 900kW 1 9.12 9.58% $0.11 $3,776,304
2 Northwind 450kW 1 9.73 8.59% $0.13 $2,194,047
3 PowerWind 900kW 2 9.65 8.74% $0.12 $3,734,911
4 Northwind 450kW 2 10.51 7.56% $0.13 $2,171,931
5 PowerWind 900kW 3 9.17 9.51% $0.11 $3,905,279
6 Northwind 450kW 3 9.73 8.58% $0.12 $2,348,763

These analyses demonstrate the strong financial benefit that all of the potential scenarios would yield for
the Town. Scenarios 1 & 2 involving Site 1 at the NHGC demonstrates the strongest economics due to
the reduced capital costs associated with shorter access road and wire run. These two scenarios will be
the main focus for additional sensitivity and financing considerations.

9.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
It is important to understand the sensitivity of these economics when certain variables are adjusted. The
most important variables analyzed for the Town of Duxbury were the sensitivity of electricity cost inflation,
AEP and project capital costs. Scenarios 1 and 6 were analyzed for this sensitivity.

Electricity Cost Inflation
Figures 9-2 and 9-3 demonstrate a sensitivity analysis of the IRR and payback period for the proposed
wind turbines at North Hill related to energy escalation rates. Electricity rates can vary greatly from year
to year, but have a general upward trajectory that is accounted for in these analyses.

Figure 9-2 Scenario 1 900kW Sensitivity Analysis with Variable Energy Escalation Rates

IRR Payback (years)
0.00% 5.7% 11.0
3.00% 9.6% 9.2
4.26% 11.1% 8.6
6.61% 14.0% 7.0

10-3
Figure 9-3 Scenario 2 450kW Sensitivity Analysis with Variable Escalation Rates

IRR Payback (years)
0.00% 4.5% 12.2
3.00% 8.6% 9.7
4.26% 10.2% 9.1
6.61% 13.1% 8.2

Changes in AEP
The correlated wind data and subsequent wind resource modeling is subject to some error. Although all
possible efforts are made to reduce this error and make conservative reductions, it is important to
understand how differing wind turbine output levels affect the overall project economics. Figures 9-4 and
9-5 show the economic returns if the AEP is lower than projected in this report which may occur from year
to year. This may account for yearly fluctuations of either higher and/or lower production.

Figure 9-4 Scenario 1 900kW Sensitivity Analysis with Variable Annual Energy Production

Production (kWh) IRR Payback
80%
1,354,400 5.1% 12.9 years
85%
1,439,050 6% 11.9 years
90%
1,523,700 6.9% 11.1 years
95%
1,608,350 7.9% 10.3 years
100%
1,693,000 8.7% 9.7 years
105%
1,777,650 9.6% 9.1 years
110%
1,862,300 10.3% 8.7 years

Figure 9-5 Scenario 2 450kW Sensitivity Analysis with Variable Annual Energy Production (AEP)

Production (kWh) IRR Payback
80%
864.000 5.2% 12.7 years
85%
918.000 6% 11.9 years
90%
972.000 6.8% 11.2 years
95%
1,026,000 7.9% 10.3 years
100%
1,080,000 8.6% 9.73 years
105%
1,134,000 9.3% 9.3 years
110%
1,188,000 10% 8.8 years

10-4

Changes in Capital Costs
Figures 9-6 and 9-7 demonstrate a sensitivity analysis of the IRR and payback period related to variation
in actual development costs for a wind turbine project.

Figure 9-6 Scenario 1 900kW Sensitivity Analysis with Capital Costs

Capital Costs IRR Payback
90% $2,695,797 11.4% 8.1 years
95% $2,845,564 10.5% 8.6 years
100% $2,995,330 9.7% 9.1 years
105% $3,145,097 9% 9.5 years
110% $3,294,863 8.3% 10 years
115% $3,444,630 7.7% 10.4 years
120% $3,594,396 7.1% 10.9 years

Figure 9-7 450kW Sensitivity Analysis with Capital Costs

Capital Costs IRR Payback
90% $1,874,520 10.3% 8.7 years
95% $1,978,660 9.4% 9.2 years
100% $2,082,800 8.6% 9.73 years
105% $2,186,940 7.9% 10.3 years
110% $2,291,080 7.2% 10.8 years
115% $2,395,220 6.6% 11.4 years
120% $2,499,360 6% 11.9 years

10-1
FINANCING, OWNERSHIP AND OPERATIONS
SECTION 10

When financing wind energy projects, as with any significant infrastructure project, an appropriate
financing mechanism should be selected to balance the risks and benefits according to the community's
goals. This section will demonstrate three potential financing scenarios that alter the risk-to-reward-ratio
for the Town of Duxbury.

The three scenarios range from full ownership and capitalization of the project by the Town through the
issuing of a municipal bond, to full ownership and operation by a private third party. If the Town takes full
ownership of the wind turbine project, they will assume all risks associated with the wind development.
These would include capital risk, operational risk, and the risk of public acceptance. These risks can be
mitigated for any wind project owner through appropriate development of the wind project including a long
term operation and maintenance partner agreement.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Town can avoid both capital and operational risks through a third
party ownership structure. Such a change in ownership structure will not present the magnitude of
financial rewards that come with self ownership, but will relieve the Town of all other associated risks
except that of public acceptance for the project. Under such a scenario the third party will be responsible
for owning the project, ensuring its operation and the Town will only pay for wind generated electricity
when it is successfully delivered to their facility.

The third potential financing model presented here is known as land-lease. This ownership structure
provides a balanced risk profile to the Town and a Third Party. The Third Party will provide the capital to
develop the project, with the Town agreeing to pay an annual lease fee, while receiving all of the
electricity generated by the wind turbine, as well as the environmental attributes.

For the purpose of this analysis, SED is utilizing Scenario 1, as it has been demonstrated as the most
economically viable project. This section will focus on the financing, ownership and operations for this
particular wind turbine scenario. Each of the models used for this analysis has been adapted from the
baseline scenario of a single PowerWind 900kW from Section 8 and all associated assumptions.

10.1 MUNICIPAL BOND
SED created an economic model using the assumption that the Town could issue a bond for the financing
of the wind turbine. The advantage of this structure is that by the spreading of debt payments over time
the Town of Duxbury can diffuse the impact of the capital expenditure of the wind turbine over multiple
years. Over the past 5 years there have been several low interest bond programs geared specifically

10-2
towards clean energy development, notably Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) and Qualified
Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs). Neither of these programs are currently active and there has been
no indication that they will be available in the near future.

The terms of the bond included a 20 year term with an interest rate of 3.45%.
20
Figure 10-1 shows the
year 1 and 20 year savings with a bond financing scenario and Figure 10-2 shows the positive cash flow
attributes of the wind turbine project financed in this manner.

Figure 10-1 IRR, 1 Year and 20 Year Savings for Scenario 1 with Municipal Bond
Energy Escalation
Year 1
Savings
20 Year
Savings
0% $68,504 $621,464
3% $76,651 $2,706,069
4.3% $80.072 $3,852,271
6.6% $86,454 $6,565,422

Figure 10-2 Cash Flow of Bond Financed Wind Turbine Project at 3% Escalation

20
1 Month average yield on 20 year municipal bonds.
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Cash Flow after Tax Accumulated Cash Flow

10-3
10.2 LEASE MODEL
In this scenario, a third party owner accepts the risk from construction through the first several years of
operation and the Town would pay a negotiated lease payment to the third party, but receive all of the
energy as well as the environmental attributes generated by the wind turbine. The goal in this scenario is
that the lease payment made by the Town will be less than the electricity savings generated by the wind
turbine. The model would be set up to allow the private entity to receive all of the tax benefits from the
project and to meet their desired rate of return before transferring ownership to the Town of Duxbury for
current Fair Market Value of the project. The price would be according to the IRS definition as
determined by a third party assessor and for the purpose of this analysis is estimated at 30% of the total
project cost in year 10. This sale year can change depending on negotiations between the Town and the
third party.

The lease model spreads the risk out evenly to both parties, which will be a more attractive arrangement
for third parties, but still limit the capital risk to the Town to develop the project. SED ran these models
assuming the ITC will be extended, as without it the economics would not be favorable to a third party.

Figure 10-3 Town of Duxbury Economic Benefits for Lease Model Scenario 1

Payback Period (Starting Year 10) 5.01 years
Lease Payment (Years 1-10) $2,700,000
Lifetime Savings (Year 1-20) $2,896,143

10-4
Figure 10-4 Cash Flow of Lease Model Scenario 1

10.3 THIRD PARTY OWNERSHIP
A third party ownership option would involve a private, third party to own and operate the wind turbine
project and sell the power to the Town under a predetermined long term power purchase contract or
power purchase agreement (PPA). The advantage of this ownership model is that it would remove the
capital and operational risk to the Town and still lock in the electric purchase pricing to hedge against an
anticipated rise in electric rates. This hedge would stabilize annual electricity expenditures and provide
the Town of Duxbury with a more precisely designed operating budget.

An additional advantage that third parties offer is the ability to take advantage of currently available
federal tax incentives, most notably the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which can then be passed on to the
Town in the form of more favorable PPA terms. The ITC provides a tax credit equivalent to 30% of the
total project costs to the project owner. Several different scenarios had to be considered as part of this
third party arrangement due to the current uncertainty attached to extension of the Investment Tax Credit
(ITC) beyond 2012. Therefore, SED has run third party ownership scenarios with and without the ITC.

SED therefore created third party model for the Town and determined that a long term contract for
electricity purchase could be attractive to the third party owner with an agreement within several different
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary

10-5
financing benchmarks that would achieve a 12% IRR, the point at which a third party owner would be
attracted to the project.

Figure 10-5 and 10-7 are tables showing the 20-year savings to the Town of Duxbury for a PPA with the
ITC still in place. Two PPA structures were examined: one with rates of $.125kWh escalating at 3%
annually and the other with a rate fixed of $.155/kWh. Each structure was analyzed with sensitivity
towards varying retail electricity rate escalation. Figure 10-6 and 10-8 are graphical representation of this
analysis. This analysis assumes that the Town will retain the RECs produced by the wind turbine.

PPA at 3% Escalation with ITC
Benefit to Duxbury@ 0% 719,869 $
Benefit to Duxbury @ 3% 2,920,557 $
Benefit to Duxbury @ 4.3% 4,154,389 $

Figure 10-6 Energy Savings with $.125/kWh PPA Escalating at 3% with ITC

$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Current Electricty
Structure - 0%
escalation
Current Electricty
Structure - 3%
escalation
Current Electricty
Structure - 4.3%
escalation
Electricty Costs
with Wind Turbine
Current Electrity Costs v. Wind Generated Electricty Cost
Year
A
n
n
u
a
l

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

10-6
Figure 10-7 Third Party 20 Year Economic Benefit to Duxbury at Varying Retail Electricity
Escalation Rates for $0.155/kWh at 0% Escalation with ITC

Benefit to Duxbury@ 0% $1,158,012
Benefit to Duxbury @ 3% $3,358,700
Benefit to Duxbury @ 4.3% $4,592,532

Figure 10-8 Energy Savings with $0.155/kWh PPA Escalating at 0% with ITC

Figure 10-9 and 10-11 are tables showing the 20-year savings to the Town of Duxbury for a PPA where
the ITC is not extended. Rates of $.195kWh escalating at 3% and $.245/kWh at a flat rate (0%
escalation) respectively, with varying escalation for retail electricity rates. Figure 10-10 and 10-12 are
graphical representation of that data. This analysis assumes that the Town will retain the RECs produced
by the wind turbine.

$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Current Electricty
Structure - 0%
escalation
Current Electricty
Structure - 3%
escalation
Current Electricty
Structure - 4.3%
escalation
Electricty Costs
with Wind Turbine
Current Electriity Costs v. Wind Generated Electricty
Year
A
n
n
u
a
l

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

10-7
Figure 10-9 20 Year Economic Benefit at Varying Retail Electricity Escalation Rates for $.195/kWh
at 3% Escalation without ITC

Benefit to Duxbury@ 0% -$2,464,539
Benefit to Duxbury @ 3% -$263,851
Benefit to Duxbury @ 4.3% $969,981

Figure 10-10 Energy Savings with $0.195/kWh PPA Escalating at 3% without ITC

Figure 10-11 20 Year Economic Benefit to Duxbury at Varying Retail Electricity Escalation Rates
for $0.245/kWh at 0% Escalation without ITC

Benefit to Duxbury@ 0% -$1,889,388
Benefit to Duxbury @ 3% $311,300
Benefit to Duxbury @ 4.3% $1,545,132

$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Current Electricty
Structure - 0%
escalation
Current Electricty
Structure - 3%
escalation
Current Electricty
Structure - 4.3%
escalation
Electricty Costs
with Wind Turbine
Year
A
n
n
u
a
l

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

10-8
Figure 10-12 Energy Savings with $0.245/kWh PPA Escalating at 0% without ITC

10.4 CONCLUSION
The financing solution that is chosen for a wind project in the Town of Duxbury depends on the level of
risk that the Town and community are willing to take on. Under a municipal bond scenario, Duxbury can
maximize the lifetime savings and financial benefit of a project at the expense of carrying a higher level of
risk. A 3
rd
party ownership scenario would remove the majority of financial risk to Duxbury, but retain the
risks associated with the possible rate fluctuations that could weaken the benefits of this financing option.
The lease option would spread the risk evenly between a third party and the Town of Duxbury, which may
provide the most practical approach to development.

Of these options, the one offering the greatest financial benefit to Duxbury is the self ownership scenario -
to self-finance and own the project. The keys to managing risk of the self ownership model is choosing
strong technology partners for the development, installation, and operation and maintenance of the
project.

$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Current Electricty
Structure - 0%
escalation
Current Electricty
Structure - 3%
escalation
Current Electricty
Structure - 4.3%
escalation
Electricty Costs
with Wind Turbine
Year
A
n
n
u
a
l

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

10-9
Regardless of the financing scenario that is selected, SED recommends that the Town of Duxbury
capitalize and control the project through the design phase in order to provide flexibility and to maximize
economic benefits should the Town pursue a third party ownership model.

APPENDIX A
WindPRO Model Runs

WindPRO version 2.7.486 Jan 2011
WindPRO is developed by EMD International A/S, Niels Jernesvej 10, DK-9220 Aalborg , Tlf. +45 96 35 44 44, Fax +45 96 35 44 46, e-mail: windpro@emd.dk
Project:
Duxbury WP Model
Printed/Page
9/20/2011 3:14 PM / 1
Licensed user:
SED, Inc.
317 State Route 104
US-14519 Ontario, NY
4738
Scott Abbett / scott.abbett@sed-net.com
Calculated:
9/19/2011 12:23 PM/2.7.486
STATGEN - Wind Data Analysis
Calculation: STATGEN 70mWind data: A - VMM; Hub height: 70.0
Site Coordinates
UTM WGS 84 Zone: 19 East: 359,450 North: 4,655,446
Meteo data
VMM
Weibull Data
Sector A- parameter Wind speed k- parameter Frequency Wind
gradient
exponent
[m/s] [m/s] [%]
0 N 6.12 5.42 2.138 6.1 0.000
1 NNE 6.41 5.69 1.873 6.3 0.000
2 ENE 6.35 5.62 1.998 4.4 0.000
3 E 6.19 5.53 1.688 4.2 0.000
4 ESE 6.02 5.43 1.509 4.4 0.000
5 SSE 6.28 5.64 1.551 7.0 0.000
6 S 6.43 5.70 2.243 10.2 0.000
7 SSW 7.65 6.83 3.013 17.3 0.000
8 WSW 6.96 6.22 3.114 11.7 0.000
9 W 7.72 6.87 2.717 9.9 0.000
10 WNW 7.56 6.75 2.951 10.9 0.000
11 NNW 6.86 6.10 2.703 7.5 0.000
All 6.97 6.17 2.314 100.0

APPENDIX B
Electrical One-Line Diagram

RICHARD C. GROSS P.E., INC.
10 SPEEN STREET FRAMINGHAM, MA 01701
PHONE: 508-665-5805 EMAIL:RGROSS@IEEE.ORG
TOWN OF DUXBURY, MASSACHUSETTS
WIND TURBINE GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION STUDY
PROPOSED ELECTRICAL ONE LINE DIAGRAM
SIZE DATE DWG NO REV
12 SEPT 2011 E-1 0
SCALE NONE SHEET 1 OF 2
NSTAR 22.8 kV DISTRIBUTION CIRCUIT ON WEST STREET - ROUTE 14, DUXBURY, MA (THREE PHASE, OVERHEAD CIRCUIT)
22.8 kV DEADEND/RISER POLE
(NSTAR POLE # 459/9)
THREE (3) FUSED
CUTOUTS WITH
SURGE ARRESTERS
(EXISTING)
EXISTING 22.8 kV THREE PHASE UNDERGROUND CIRCUIT
THREE (3) FUSED
CUTOUTS
ONE (1) FUSED CUTOUT
AND SINGLE PHASE
OVERHEAD 13.2 kV TAP AT
NORTH HILL GOLF
COURSE PARKING LOT
NSTAR SINGLE PHASE
OVERHEAD DISTRIBUTION
TRANSFORMER
13.2 kV 120/240 VOLT
OVERHEAD SECONDARY
SUPPLY TO SINGLE PHASE
LOADS
THREE PHASE OVERHEAD 22.8 kV
LATERAL ON MERRY AVE.
NSTAR PADMOUNT
TRANSFORMER #150-349
NORTH HILL
GOLF COURSE
SECONDARY
LOADS
NEW CONSTRUCTION
13.2 kV DEADEND
POLE
CUSTOMER LOADBREAK DISCONNECT
SWITCH
THREE POLE 27 kV MAX. VOLTAGE GANG
OPERATED DISCONNECT SWITCH TO BE
INSTALLED ON NEWUTILITY POLE
(PADLOCKABLE IN OPEN POSITION)
600 AMP CONTINUOUS
40 kA MOMENTARY, 150 kV BIL
EXTENT OF
NSTAR
EQUIPMENT
OWNERSHIP
ANALOG TELEPHONE
CIRCUIT TO NSTAR
METER
(BY CUSTOMER)
FUSED CUTOUTS (3)
(OWNED & OPERATED BY NSTAR)
FOUR QUADRANT REVENUE
METER WITH METERING
CTS & PTS (POLE
MOUNTED)
NSTAR 22.8 kV PROTECTIVE INTERFACE EQUIPMENT
(To be located on easement provided by Customer)
NSTAR LOADBREAK
DISCONNECT SWITCH
(OWNED & OPERATED BY
NSTAR)
22.8 kV RISER
POLE AND
CABLE
TERMINATIONS
3 1/C, 25 kV CLASS, #1/0 AWG
ALUMINUM CABLES INSTALLED
IN CONDUIT
(DISTANCE APPROX. 2100 FT.)
NEWOVERHEAD THREE PHASE TAP FROM
NSTAR POLE #459/9 TO NSTAR LOADBREAK
1/0 AWG AAAC
(APPROX. 25 FT.)
NEW OVERHEAD THREE PHASE CKT. FROM
CUSTOMER DISC. SW. TO RISER POLE
1/0 AWG AAAC
(APPROX. 25 FT.)
(3) SURGE
ARRESTERS
22 kV MCOV
TO WIND TURBINE GENERATOR
(CONTD ON SHEET 2)
RICHARD C. GROSS P.E., INC.
10 SPEEN STREET FRAMINGHAM, MA 01701
PHONE: 508-665-5805 EMAIL:RGROSS@IEEE.ORG
TOWN OF DUXBURY, MASSACHUSETTS
WIND TURBINE GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION STUDY
PROPOSED ELECTRICAL ONE LINE DIAGRAM
SIZE DATE DWG NO REV
12 SEPT 2011 E-1 0
SCALE NONE SHEET 2 OF 2
WIND TURBINE GENERATOR
NORTHERN POWER 450
450 kW, 480 VOLTS
POWER FACTOR: 0.9 LAG 0.9 LEAD
TYPE 4 WTG
(FULL CONVERTER INTERFACE)
UL 1741 CERTIFIED
AC
DC
AC
DC
PULSE WIDTH
MODULATED IGBT
FREQUENCY CONVERTER
DOWN TOWER ASSEMBLY OF
WIND TURBINE GENERATOR
POTENTIAL
TRANSFORMER
CURRENT
TRANSFORMER
POWER
TRANSFORMER
NON-FUSED GROUP-
OPERATED
DISCONNECT SWITCH
BI-DIRECTIONAL
REVENUE METER
GENERATOR
LEGEND:
25
PROTECTIVE RELAY
(RELAY FUNCTION NUMBER)
CIRCUIT BREAKER
SURGE ARRESTER
22.8 kV ELBOW
CONNECTOR
THREE (3) SETS OF 3 1/C 250 KCMIL COPPER
POWER CABLES, 2 kV CLASS IN PVC SCHEDULE
40 CONDUITS AND 1 1/C 1/0 AWG COPPER
GROUND WIRE WITH EACH SET
(APPROX. DISTANCE 25 FT.)
WIND TURBINE GENERATOR STEP-UP
TRANSFORMER (GSU)
22.8 kV 480/277 VOLTS
500 kVA
Z = 5.75%
VACUUM INTERRUPTER SWITCH
AUTOMATED WITH SEL-700G MULTIFUNCTION PROTECTIVE RELAY
25 kV CLASS, 150 KV BIL
SWITCH: 3 POLE, 600 AMPERE CONTINUOUS AND LOADBREAK
INTERRUPTER: 12 kA MAXIMUM INTERRUPTING RATING
(LOCATED ADJACENT TO OR INTEGRATED WITH WIND TURBINE GENERATOR STEP-UP TRANSF.)
PROTECTIVE DEVICE FUNCTIONS:
27 undervoltage relay
51 overcurrent relay (phase)
51N ground overcurrent relay
51V voltage controlled overcurrent relay
59 overvoltage relay
81U underfrequency relay
81O overfrequency relay
27
59
TRIP
81U
81O
51V 51N
CURRENT
SENSOR
VOLTAGE
SENSOR
600 AMP
VACUUM
INTERRUPTER
12 kA
52
MAIN CIRCUIT BREAKER
AT SECONDARY OF GSU
800 AMP
ANALOG OR CELL PHONE
TELEPHONE CIRCUIT TO
CUSTOMER METER
(BY CUSTOMER)
CUSTOMER PRIMARY
METERING CABINET
FOUR QUADRANT REVENUE
METER WITH METERING
CTS & PTS (PADMOUNTED) (3) SURGE
ARRESTERS
22 kV MCOV
3 1/C, 25 kV CLASS, #1/0 AWG
ALUMINUM CABLES INSTALLED
IN CONDUIT
(DISTANCE APPROX. 25 FT.)
TO 22.8 kV RISER POLE
(CONTD ON SHEET 1)
WIND TURBINE
GENERATOR
CONTROLLER

APPENDIX C
Utility Rate Description

33 - General Annual (G-1) (MDTE 330 (PDF))
This general use rate is for non-residential customers with a load that does not exceed 100 kW in
each of 12 consecutive billing months. Usage must be annual, meaning that your total
electricity use in the four billing months ending between June 1 and September 30 must be less
than your total use for the other eight billing months of the calendar year.
Delivery Service Charges
Customer
(per month)
$5.53
Distribution
Demand
First 10 kW
(per kW)
No Charge
Distribution
Demand
Over 10 kW
(per kW)
$4.86
Distribution Energy
First 2,300 kWh
(per kWh)
$0.05095
Distribution Energy
Over 2,300 kWh
(per kWh)
$0.02168
Transition
(per kWh)
$0.01796
Transmission Demand
(per kW)
No Charge
Transmission Energy
(per kWh)
$0.01628
Energy Conservation
(per kWh)
$0.00250
Renewable Energy
(per kWh)
$0.00050
The Distribution Charge includes a charge of $0.00191 for a Pension Adjustment Factor and
$0.00004 to cover costs related to customer Net Metering generation.
The above table is for the delivery services portion of your bill. To calculate your total bill, you
also need to add the supplier services charges (Basic Service or a third-party energy supplier).

35 - General Seasonal (G-1) (MDTE 330 (PDF))
This seasonal use rate is for non-residential customers with a load that does not exceed 100 kW
in each of 12 consecutive billing months. Seasonal use means that your total electricity use in
the four billing months ending between June 1 and September 30 is greater than your total use
for the other eight billing months of the calendar year.
Customer
(per month)
Distribution
Demand
Distribution
Demand
$5.53 First 10 kW
(per kW)
No Charge
Over 10 kW
(per kW)
$4.31
Distribution
Energy
First 1,800 kWh
(per kWh)
$0.08624
Distribution
Energy
Over 1,800 kWh
(per kWh)
$0.03439
Transition
(per kWh)
$0.01795
Transmission Demand
(per kW)
No Charge
Transmission Energy
(per kWh)
$0.02106
Energy Conservation
(per kWh)
$0.00250
Renewable Energy
(per kWh)
$0.00050

84 - Medium General Time of Use (G-2) (MDTE 331 (PDF))
This rate is for customers with a load that is greater than 100 kW but less than 500 kW for at
least 12 consecutive billing months. This rate has peak and off-peak periods. During eastern
daylight savings time, Peak Load is from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. During
eastern standard time, Peak Load is from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday. For both
eastern daylight savings time and eastern standard time, Low Load B begins at 10 p.m. and ends
at 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and all hours on Saturday and Sunday. Low Load A includes
all hours not included in Peak Load and Low Load B.
Customer
(per month)
$360.13
Distribution
Demand
(per kVa)
$1.53
Distribution
Energy
Peak Load
(per kWh)
$0.02807
Distribution
Energy
Low Load A
Distribution
Energy
Low Load B
Transition
(per kWh)
$0.01805
(per kWh)
$0.02524
(per kWh)
$0.01997
Transmission
Demand
(per kVa)
$4.85
Transmission Energy
(per kWh)
$0.00174
Energy Conservation
(per kWh)
$0.00250
Renewable Energy
(per kWh)
$0.00050

APPENDIX D
Preliminary Development Plan Site 1 NHGC

TITLE
Preliminary Development Plan for North Hill Golf Club
PREPARED FOR
Town of Duxbury Technical Analysis of On-Site
Wind Generation
DISCLAIMER
Drawing is for planning and reference purposes only and has
been developed with best available information.
LEGEND
REVISION DATE
9/16/2011
317 ROUTE 104 21$5,2, NY 14519
SHEET
1 OF 1
Underground Electrical Cable
Limit of Work for Clearing, Staging and Access
2ft Contours Shown Generated from NED (1/3 arc second)
Proposed Turbine Location
Electrical Pole(s)

APPENDIX E
FAA Determination

Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
2601 Meacham Boulevard
Aeronautical Study No.
2011-WTE-10157-OE
Fort Worth, TX 76137
Page 1 of 3
Issued Date: 09/22/2011
Matt Vanderbrook
Sustainable Energy Developments, Inc.
317 Route 104
Ontario, NY 14519
** NOTICE OF PRESUMED HAZARD **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Wind Turbine North Hill Wind Turbine
Location: Duxbury, MA
Latitude: 42-02-33.57N NAD 83
Longitude: 70-42-05.51W
Heights: 330 feet above ground level (AGL)
408 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would
have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation
facilities. Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air
navigation.
If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 317 feet above ground level (395 feet above mean sea
level), it would not exceed obstruction standards and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued.
See Attachment for Additional information.
NOTE: PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE STRUCTURE IS
PRESUMED TO BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE EVEN AT A REDUCED HEIGHT. ANY RESOLUTION OF THE
ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA SO THAT A FAVORABLE
DETERMINATION CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BE ISSUED.
IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT
ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY
FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7081. On any future correspondence
concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2011-WTE-10157-OE.
Page 2 of 3
Signature Control No: 147548364-149976830 ( NPH -WT )
Michael Blaich
Specialist
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Page 3 of 3
Additional information for ASN 2011-WTE-10157-OE
Proposal: To construct a Wind Turbine to a height of 330 feet above ground level (AGL), 408 feet above mean
sea level (AMSL).

Location: The structure will be located approximately 3.58 nautical miles (NM) south of the Marshfield
Municipal-George Harlow Field Airport (GHG) reference point.

Proposal has the following Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) Effect at GHG:

GHG NDB RWY 6 Increases Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) CAT A from 580 to 640, CAT B from 600 to
640, No Effect Height (NEH): 395 feet AMSL (without "2C" survey, Increases MDA CAT A from 580 to 600
and no effect on CAT B, NEH: 403 feet AMSL (with "2C" survey).

The "2C" survey we require should meet the following specifications:

1. A registered engineering firm must develop engineering survey data.
2. Survey data must be based on the National Geodetic Datum of 1983, in Latitude and Longitude (degrees,
minutes, and seconds).
3. A letter that certifies, both the accuracy of horizontal and vertical data. "2C" accuracy is required, with
horizontal accuracy of 50 feet and vertical accuracy of 20 feet. This letter must contain the official seal of the
firm and be signed by an engineer.

APPENDIX F
Town of Duxbury Community Wind Facilities Bylaw

Town of Duxbury
Annual Town Meeting
March 13, 2010
The Town meeting was called to order by the Moderator at 9:05am, recessed for a
Special Town Meeting at 9:15am until the meeting adjourned sine die at 9:50am
when the Annual Town Meeting reconvened, recessed for lunch from noon until
1pm and recessed at 3:50pm until the meeting was reconvened on Monday, March
15
th
at 7:30pm and adjourned sine die at 10:55pm. All sessions were held at the
Duxbury Performing Arts Center, 73 Alden St., Duxbury
Article 18-Moved and seconded that the Town will vote to amend the Protective Bylaw
by adding a new Section 616 entitled Community-Scale Wind Facilities:
616 COMMUNITY-SCALE WIND FACILITIES
616.1 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of this section is to provide by special permit for the construction and
operation of Community-Scale Wind Facilities, to generate power for use at municipally
owned facilities and to provide standards for the placement, design, construction,
monitoring, modification and removal of such Community-Scale Wind Facilities that
address public safety, minimize impacts on scenic, natural and historic resources of the
Town of Duxbury and to provide adequate financial assurance for operating and
decommissioning such Community-Scale Wind Facilities.
This section applies to all Community-Scale Wind Facilities proposed to be constructed
after the effective date of this section. It shall apply to any size turbines, regardless of
rated nameplate capacity. Any new Community-Scale Wind Facility or physical
modifications to existing Community-Scale Wind Facilities that materially alters the type
or increases the size of such facilities or other equipment shall require a special permit
processed in accordance with this section.
Community-Scale Wind Facilities shall be constructed only in the Publicly Owned Land
Overlay District (POLOD) and exclusive of the Dunes Protection District and
the Wetlands Protection Overlay District.
616.2 Definitions
Community-Scale Wind Facility: A Community-Scale Wind Facility is a Wind Facility
where the primary use of the facility is to generate electrical power for use by the Town,
inclusive of all equipment, machinery and structures utilized in connection with the
conversion of wind energy to electricity. This includes, but is not limited to,
transmission, storage, collection and supply equipment, substations, transformers,
service and access roads, and one or more Wind Facility.
Height: When referring to a Community-Scale Wind Facility, the height of a Wind
Facility will be measured from natural grade to the tip of the rotor blade at its highest
point.
Nacelle: The housing around the electrical generator and other systems such as
gearboxes and blade controls on a wind turbine. The rotor blades are typically
connected to the nacelle.
Rated Nameplate Capacity: The maximum rated output of electric power production
equipment. This output is typically specified by the manufacturer with a nameplate on
the equipment.
Setback: The distance from the base of the Community-Scale Wind Facility tower,
measured from the centerline of the Community-Scale Wind Facility tower, to the
nearest property line.
Special Permit Granting Authority: The Special Permit Granting Authority shall be
the Planning Board.
Wind Monitoring or Meteorological Tower: A temporary tower (Met. Tower)
equipped with devices to measure wind speeds and direction used to determine how
much wind power a site can be expected to generate.
Wind Facility: A wind turbine device that converts kinetic wind energy into rotational
energy that drives an electrical generator. A Wind Facility typically consists of a tower,
nacelle body at the top of the tower, and a rotor with two or more blades, also known
as a Horizontal- Axis Wind Turbine configuration. However, a Wind Facility could also
consist of a Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine configuration. (Refer to Wind Turbine
Configurations diagram 616.2a below.)
Diagram 616.2a
616.3 Permitting
1) Special Permit Granting Authority. No Community-Scale Wind Facility shall
be erected, constructed, installed or modified as provided in this section without first
obtaining a special permit from the Special Permit Granting Authority (a Special
Permit). The construction of a Community-Scale Wind Facility shall comply with all
requirements set forth in sections 616.3, 616.4, 616.5 and 616.6. All such Community-
Scale Wind Facilities shall be constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes any
adverse visual, safety, and environmental impacts. A Special Permit may be granted if
the Special Permit Granting Authority finds that:
(a) the specific site is an appropriate and approved location for such use;
(b) the use is not expected to adversely affect the neighborhood;
(c) there is not expected to be any appreciable hazard to pedestrians, vehicles or
wildlife from the use;
(d) adequate and appropriate infrastructure will be provided for the proper and
safe operation of the Community-Scale Wind Facility; and
(e) the requirements of section 616-3-616.10 are complied with in all respects;
Temporary erection of Wind Monitoring or Meteorological Towers shall also be required
to be permitted as a temporary structure subject to issuance of a building permit for a
temporary structure for not more than eighteen months. Wind Monitoring or
Meteorological Towers shall comply with the minimum height, setback, lighting and
signage requirements as set forth in section 616.4.
2) Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations. The construction and
operation of all such proposed Community-Scale Wind Facilities shall be consistent with
all applicable local, state and federal requirements, including but not limited to all
applicable safety, construction, environmental, electrical, communications and aviation
requirements.
3) Proof of Liability Insurance. The applicant and all appropriate contractors
shall provide evidence of liability insurance in an amount and for a duration sufficient to
cover loss or damage to persons and structures occasioned by the failure of the facility
or reasonably foreseeable events thereat.
4) Site Control. At the time of its application for a Special Permit, the applicant
shall submit documentation of actual or prospective control of the project site sufficient
to allow for installation and use of the proposed facility. Documentation shall also
include proof of control over setback areas and access roads, if required.
5) Contact Data. The applicant or Community-Scale Wind Facility permit holder
shall maintain a phone number, email address, and physical address (all to be posted at
the facility) and identify a responsible individual person for the public to contact with
inquiries and complaints throughout the life of the project. Such persons shall be
accessible at all times during normal business hours and for emergencies on a 24 hour a
day, every day basis. The Special Permit shall specify the requirements for a contact
person(s).
616.4 Certain Specific Requirements
1) Height - Community-Scale Wind Facilities and or Monitoring or Meteorological
Towers shall be no higher than 250 feet above the current grade of the land.
2) Setbacks - Community-Scale Wind Facilities and or Monitoring or Meteorological
Towers shall be set back a minimum distance equal to 1.1 times the overall height of the
Wind Facility from the nearest property line and private or public way and a minimum
distance equal to 2 times the overall height of the Wind Facility from the nearest existing
residential or commercial structure not owned by the applicant seeking to permit the
Community-Scale Wind Facility and or Wind Monitoring or Meteorological Towers. The
setback zone for Community-Scale Wind Facilities and or Wind Monitoring or
Meteorological Towers can fall within the limits of Wetlands Protection Overlay and the
Flood Hazard Overlay Districts.
3) Color and Finish - The Special Permit Granting Authority shall have discretion
over the color of the Community-Scale Wind Facility, although a neutral, non-reflective
exterior color designed to blend with the surrounding environment is encouraged.
4) Lighting and Signage - No lighting shall be permitted on Community-Scale
Wind Facilities and or Monitoring or Meteorological Towers other than lighting required
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Lighting of other parts of the Community-
Scale Wind Facility and or Monitoring or Meteorological Towers, such as appurtenant
structures, shall be limited to that required for safety and operational purposes, and
shall be reasonably shielded from abutting properties. Unless good cause is shown for
an exemption, signs on the Community-Scale Wind Facility and or Monitoring or
Meteorological Towers shall comply with the requirements of Duxburys sign regulations,
and shall be limited to:
(a) Those necessary to identify the owner, provide a 24-hour emergency contact
phone number, and warn of any danger, whether inherent or perceived.
(b) Educational signs providing information about the facility and the benefits of
renewable energy.
Community-Scale Wind Facilities shall not be used for displaying any advertising or
signage.
5) Utility Connections - Utility connections from the Community-Scale Wind
Facility to the utilities power grid shall be located underground. Electrical transformers
for utility interconnections may be above ground if required by the utility provider.
6) Appurtenant Structures - All appurtenant structures to such Community-Scale
Wind Facilities shall be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height
of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and
building coverage requirements. All such appurtenant structures, including but not
limited to, equipment shelters, storage facilities, transformers, and substations, shall be
architecturally compatible with each other and shall be contained within the Wind
Facility tower whenever technically and economically feasible. Structures shall only be
used for housing of equipment for this particular site. Whenever feasible, structures
shall be shielded from view by vegetation or fencing and or located in an underground
vault and joined or clustered to avoid adverse visual impacts.
7) Support Towers - Monopole towers are the preferred type of support for
Community-Scale Wind Facilities, and shall be used unless good cause is shown that a
substantial economic hardship or safety consideration merits an alternative.
616.5 Emergency Services
The applicant shall provide a copy of the project summary and site plan to the local
emergency services entity, as designated by the Special Permit Granting Authority. Upon
request, the applicant shall cooperate with local emergency services in developing an
emergency response plan. Wind turbines or other structures part of a Community-Scale
Wind Facility shall be designed to prevent unauthorized access.
616.6 Specific Environmental Considerations
1) Shadow/Flicker - Community-Scale Wind Facilities shall be sited in a manner
that minimizes shadowing or flicker impacts caused by motion of the rotor blades as
they pass in front of the sun. The applicant has the burden of proving that this effect
does not have significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent uses through either
siting or mitigation. It is acknowledged that a degree of shadow/flicker effect results
from any wind turbine, and that the existence of some shadow flicker alone shall not
be cause for the refusal to permit a Community-Scale Wind Facility.
2) Noise - The Community-Scale Wind Facility and associated equipment shall
conform with the provisions of the Department of Environmental Protections, Division of
Air Quality Noise Regulations (310 CMR 7.10), unless the Department agrees that those
provisions shall not be applicable. A source of sound will be considered to be violating
these regulations if the source:
(a) Increases the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above ambient
level, or
(b) Produces a pure tone condition when an octave band center frequency
sound pressure level exceeds the two adjacent center frequency sound pressure
levels by 3 decibels or more.
These criteria are measured both at the property line and at the nearest inhabited
residence. Ambient is defined as the background A-weighted sound level that is
exceeded 90% of the time measured during equipment hours. The ambient may also be
established by other means with consent from the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). An analysis prepared by a qualified engineer shall be presented to
demonstrate compliance with these noise standards.
3) Land Clearing, Soil Erosion and Habitat Impacts - Clearing of natural
vegetation shall be limited to that which is reasonably necessary for the construction,
operation and maintenance of the Community-Scale Wind Facility and is otherwise
prescribed by applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances. Community-Scale Wind
Facilities shall be designed to minimize land clearing and fragmentation of open space
areas.
616.7 Facility Conditions
The applicant shall maintain the Community-Scale Wind Facility in good condition and as
a condition for the permit, shall submit with the application a plan for maintaining the
Community-Scale Wind Facility in accordance herewith. Maintenance shall include, but
not be limited to, painting, structural repairs, and integrity of security measures. Site
access shall be maintained to a level acceptable to the local Fire Chief and Emergency
Medical Services. The project owner shall be responsible for the cost of maintaining the
Community-Scale Wind Facility and any access road, unless accepted as a public way,
and the cost of repairing any damage occurring as a result of operation and
construction. All material modifications to a Community-Scale Wind Facility made after
issuance of the special permit shall require approval by the Special Permit Granting
Authority as provided in this section.
616.8 Removal
1) Removal Requirements - Any Community-Scale Wind Facility, Wind
Monitoring or Meteorological Tower which has reached the end of its useful life, permit
term or has been abandoned shall be removed by the facility owner. When the
Community-Scale Wind Facility, Wind Monitoring or Meteorological Tower is scheduled to
be decommissioned, the applicant shall notify the Special Permit Granting Authority by
certified mail of the proposed date of discontinued operations and plans for removal.
The owner/operator shall physically remove the Community-Scale Wind Facility, Wind
Monitoring or Meteorological Tower no more than 150 days after the date of
discontinued operations. At the time of removal, the Community-Scale Wind Facility,
Wind Monitoring or Meteorological Tower site shall be restored to the state it was in
before the facility was constructed, or to other less stringent restorative conditions
approved by the Special Permit Granting Authority. More specifically, decommissioning
shall include provision for:
(a) Physical removal of all wind turbines, Wind Monitoring or Meteorological
Tower structures, equipment, security barriers and transmission lines from the
site.
(b) Disposal of all solid and hazardous waste in accordance with local and state
waste disposal regulations.
(c) Stabilization or re-vegetation of the site as necessary to minimize erosion.
The Special Permit Granting Authority may allow the owner to leave landscaping
or designated below-grade foundations in order to minimize erosion and
disruption to vegetation.
2) Abandonment - Absent notice of a proposed date of decommissioning, the
Community-Scale Wind Facility shall be considered abandoned when the facility fails to
operate for more than one year without the written consent of the Special Permit
Granting Authority. The Special Permit Granting Authority shall determine in its sole
discretion what proportion of the facility is inoperable for the facility to be considered
abandoned. If the applicant fails to remove the Community-Scale Wind Facility in
accordance with the requirements of this section within 150 days of abandonment or the
proposed date of decommissioning, the Town shall have the authority to enter the
property and physically remove the facility and be indemnified for the costs and all other
liabilities associated with the removal.
3) Surety- A performance bond equal to the removal cost of the proposed wind
facility and restoration of the site may be required as a condition of approval, such bond
to be submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer prior to issuance of a building permit,
and held by the Treasurer.
616.9 Duration
A special permit issued for a Community-Scale Wind Facility shall be valid for the
projected useful life of the facilities as determined by the Special Permit Granting
Authority based on submissions of the applicant, but in any case not more than 25
years, unless extended or renewed. The time period may be extended or the permit
renewed by the Special Permit Granting Authority upon satisfactory operation of the
facility. Request for renewal must be submitted at least 180 days prior to the expiration
date of the Special Permit. Submitting a renewal request shall allow for continued
operation of the facility until the Special Permit Granting Authority acts. At the end of
that period (including extensions and renewals), the Community-Scale Wind Facility shall
be removed as required by this section.
616.10 Application Procedures
1) General - The application for a Community-Scale Wind Facility shall be filed in
accordance with section 906 of this Bylaw and the rules and regulations of the Special
Permit Granting Authority concerning special permits as the same maybe revised from
time to time, including such revisions and requirements as may be imposed that are
consistent with this section and including the items set forth below. Each application for
a Special Permit shall be filed by the applicant with the Duxbury Town Clerk pursuant to
Massachusetts General Laws.
2) Required Compliance Documents - The applicant shall provide the Special
Permit Granting Authority with seven copies of the application and all required exhibits.
All plans and maps shall be prepared, stamped and signed by a professional engineer or
surveyor licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Included in the
application shall be:
(a) Name, address, phone number and signature of the applicant, as well as all co
-applicants or property owners, if any;
(b) The name, contact information and signature of any agents representing the
applicant;
(c) A textual description of the project, including the names of all contractors and
control persons and a consent to the publications of such description in the local
newspaper;
(d) Documentation of the legal right to use the Community-Scale Wind Facility site;
and
(e) Detailed architectural and structural plans of the proposed Community-Scale
Wind Facility including foundation plans and structural calculations.
(f) Proof of liability insurance that satisfies section 616.3.3;
(g) Certification of height approval from the FAA,
(h) A statement that satisfies section 616.6.2, listing existing and maximum
projected noise levels from the Community-Scale Wind Facility,
3) Siting and Design Unless otherwise waived by the Special Permit Granting
Authority, the applicant shall provide the Special Permit Granting Authority with a
description of the property which shall include:
(a) Copy of a portion of the most recent USGS Quadrangle Map, at a scale of
1:25,000, showing the proposed facility site, including turbine sites, and the area
within at least two miles from the facility. Zoning district designation for the
subject parcel and surrounding parcels shall be included.
(b) A one inch equals 40 feet site plan of the proposed Community-Scale Wind
Facility site, with contour intervals of no more than two (2) feet, showing the
following:
(i@. Special Permitting Granting Authority) Property lines for the subject
parcel and adjacent parcels within 500 feet;
(ii) Outline of all existing buildings, including purpose (e.g. residence, garage,
etc.) on subject parcel and all adjacent parcels within 500 feet. Include
distances from the Community-Scale Wind Facility to each building shown;
(iii) Location of all roads, public and private on the site parcel and adjacent
parcels within 500 feet, and proposed roads or driveways, either temporary
or permanent, including any associated drainage facilities;
(iv) Existing areas of tree cover, including average height of trees, on the site
parcel and adjacent parcels within 500 feet;
(v) Proposed location and design of Community-Scale Wind Facility, including
all turbines, ground equipment, appurtenant structures, transmission
infrastructure, access, fencing, exterior lighting, etc; and
(vi) Location of viewpoints referenced below in 616.10.4 of this section.
4) Visualizations - The Special Permit Granting Authority shall select between
three and six sight lines, including from the nearest building with a view of the
Community-Scale Wind Facility, for pre-and post-construction view representations. Sites
for the view representations shall be selected from populated areas or public ways
within a 2-mile radius of the Community-Scale Wind Facility. View representations shall
have the following characteristics:
(a) View representations shall be in color and shall include actual pre-construction
photographs and accurate post-construction simulations of the height and breadth
of the Community-Scale Wind Facility (e.g. superimpositions of the Community-
Scale Wind Facility onto photographs of existing views); and
(b) All view representations will include existing, or proposed, buildings or tree
coverage.
5) Landscape Plan - The applicant shall submit a landscape plan indicating all
proposed changes to the landscape of the site, including temporary or permanent roads
or driveways, grading, vegetation clearing and planting, exterior lighting, screening
vegetation or structures. Lighting, other than required by the FAA, shall be designed to
minimize glare onto abutting properties and be directed downward with full cut-off
fixtures to reduce light pollution.
6) Development, Operation and Maintenance Plan - The applicant shall
submit a plan for the development of the Community-Scale Wind Facility (including the
specifications for the Community-Scale Wind Facility and the development timeline and
process from ground breaking to commissioning), as well as a plan for maintenance of
access roads and storm water controls, and general procedures for operational
maintenance of the Community-Scale Wind Facility.
7) Independent Consultants - Upon submission of an application for a Special
Permit, the Special Permit Granting Authority will be authorized to hire outside
consultants pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws. The applicant shall be required to
pay all reasonable costs associated with the consultant reviews required by the Special
Permit Granting Authority. Such costs shall be pre-paid by the applicant per the rules
and regulations of the Special Permit Granting Authority.
616.11 RIGHT OF APPEAL
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Special Permit Granting Authority may take
an appeal to the courts in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws.
Moved and seconded that the Town vote to amend Section 616 in the following
sections:
1. Section 616.2-Special Permit Granting Authority was changed from Zoning Board of
Appeals to the Planning Board
2. Section 616.3-1)Special Permit Granting Authority last sentence of the first paragraph
A Special Permit may be granted if the Special Permit Granting Authority finds that:
Shall was changed to may.
3) 616.3-1(e)-the requirements of section 616.3-616.10 are complied with in all respects.
The change removed and replaced this sequence.616.4, 616.5 and 616.6 with the above.
Amendment passed.
4) 616.8 (3)-Surety-A performance bond equal to the removal costs of the proposed wind
facility and restoration of the site may be required as a condition of approval, such bond
to be submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer prior to issuance of a building
permit, and held by the Town Treasurer.
All amendments are included in the complete text above.
A report was given by the Planning Board.
A hearing was held on Jan. 11, 2010
A 2/3 vote is required-Received the requisite 2/3 vote called by the Moderator.
Voted at the Monday, March 15th session.
A true copy, Attest:
Nancy M. Oates
Duxbury Town Clerk

APPENDIX G
Shadow Flicker Analysis

Project:
Duxbury WP Model
Printed/Page
9/20/2011 11:42 AM / 1
Licensed user:
SED, Inc.
317 State Route 104
4738
Calculated:
9/19/2011 4:08 PM/2.7.486
SHADOW - Main Result
Calculation: Shadow - PW 56 Site 1
Assumptions for shadow calculations
Maximum distance for influence
Calculate only when more than 20 % of sun is covered by the blade
Please look in WTG table
Minimum sun height over horizon for influence 3
Day step for calculation 1 days
Time step for calculation 1 minutes
The calculated times are "worst case" given by the following assumptions:
The sun is shining all the day, from sunrise to sunset
The rotor plane is always perpendicular to the line from the WTG to the
sun
The WTG is always operating
A ZVI (Zones of Visual Influence) calculation is performed before flicker
calculation so non visible WTG do not contribute to calculated flicker values.
A WTG will be visible if it is visible from any part of the receiver window. The
ZVI calculation is based on the following assumptions:
Height contours used: DEM
Obstacles used in calculation
Eye height: 1.5 m
Grid resolution: 10 m
Scale 1:7,500
New WTG Shadow receptor
WTGs
UTM WGS84 Zone: 19 WTG type Shadow data
East North Z Row Valid Manufact. Type-generator Power, Rotor Hub height Calculation RPM
data/Description rated diameter distance
UTM WGS84 Zone: 19 [m] [kW] [m] [m] [m] [RPM]
1 359,186 4,655,940 24.1 Site 1 - PW900 Yes PowerWind PowerWind 56-900 900 56.0 71.0 1,142 0.0
Shadow receptor-Input
UTM WGS84 Zone: 19
No. Name East North Z Width Height Height Degrees from Slope of Direction mode
a.g.l. south cw window
[m] [m] [m] [m] [] []
A SR1 359,711 4,655,767 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
B SR2 359,652 4,655,758 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
C SR3 359,638 4,655,800 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
D SR4 359,700 4,655,806 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
E SR5 359,680 4,655,869 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
F SR6 359,734 4,655,920 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
G SR7 359,703 4,655,953 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
H SR8 359,685 4,655,991 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
Calculation Results
Shadow receptor
Shadow, worst case
No. Name Shadow hours Shadow days Max shadow
per year per year hours per day
[h/year] [days/year] [h/day]
A SR1 15:40 49 0:25
B SR2 31:23 82 0:28
C SR3 21:45 59 0:29
D SR4 13:56 43 0:26
E SR5 13:06 38 0:27
F SR6 9:51 32 0:24
To be continued on next page...
Project:
Duxbury WP Model
Printed/Page
9/20/2011 11:42 AM / 2
Licensed user:
SED, Inc.
317 State Route 104
4738
Calculated:
9/19/2011 4:08 PM/2.7.486
Calculation: Shadow - PW 56 Site 1
...continued from previous page
Shadow, worst case
G SR7 10:27 32 0:25
H SR8 11:08 34 0:26
Total amount of flickering on the shadow receptors caused by each WTG
No. Name Worst case Expected
[h/year] [h/year]
1 Site 1 - PW900 93:39
Project:
Duxbury WP Model
Printed/Page
9/20/2011 11:40 AM / 1
Licensed user:
SED, Inc.
317 State Route 104
4738
Calculated:
9/19/2011 5:26 PM/2.7.486
Calculation: Site 3 PW 56 Shadow
Assumptions for shadow calculations
Maximum distance for influence
Calculate only when more than 20 % of sun is covered by the blade
Please look in WTG table
Minimum sun height over horizon for influence 3
Day step for calculation 1 days
Time step for calculation 1 minutes
The calculated times are "worst case" given by the following assumptions:
The sun is shining all the day, from sunrise to sunset
The rotor plane is always perpendicular to the line from the WTG to the
sun
The WTG is always operating
A ZVI (Zones of Visual Influence) calculation is performed before flicker
calculation so non visible WTG do not contribute to calculated flicker values.
A WTG will be visible if it is visible from any part of the receiver window. The
ZVI calculation is based on the following assumptions:
Height contours used: DEM
Obstacles used in calculation
Eye height: 1.5 m
Grid resolution: 10 m
Scale 1:12,500
New WTG Shadow receptor
WTGs
UTM WGS84 Zone: 19 WTG type Shadow data
East North Z Row Valid Manufact. Type-generator Power, Rotor Hub height Calculation RPM
data/Description rated diameter distance
UTM WGS84 Zone: 19 [m] [kW] [m] [m] [m] [RPM]
1 359,435 4,655,353 24.4 Site 3 - PW 900 Yes PowerWind PowerWind 56-900 900 56.0 71.0 1,142 0.0
Shadow receptor-Input
UTM WGS84 Zone: 19
No. Name East North Z Width Height Height Degrees from Slope of Direction mode
a.g.l. south cw window
[m] [m] [m] [m] [] []
A SR9 359,789 4,655,713 12.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
B SR10 359,746 4,655,636 14.4 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
C SR11 359,776 4,655,586 18.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
D SR12 359,876 4,655,564 13.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
E SR13 359,898 4,655,304 18.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
F SR14 359,962 4,655,295 17.4 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
G SR15 359,913 4,655,193 18.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
H SR16 359,864 4,655,158 18.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
I SR17 359,923 4,655,102 18.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 -180.0 90.0 "Green house mode"
Calculation Results
Shadow receptor
Shadow, worst case
A SR9 11:31 38 0:23
B SR10 35:40 74 0:33
C SR11 25:23 60 0:33
D SR12 13:45 39 0:27
E SR13 14:23 39 0:28
To be continued on next page...
Project:
Duxbury WP Model
Printed/Page
9/20/2011 11:40 AM / 2
Licensed user:
SED, Inc.
317 State Route 104
4738
Calculated:
9/19/2011 5:26 PM/2.7.486
Calculation: Site 3 PW 56 Shadow
...continued from previous page
Shadow, worst case
F SR14 11:09 34 0:25
G SR15 19:25 56 0:27
H SR16 28:31 66 0:30
I SR17 15:49 48 0:24
Total amount of flickering on the shadow receptors caused by each WTG
No. Name Worst case Expected
[h/year] [h/year]
1 Site 3 - PW 900 144:16

APPENDIX H
Output Pages from Cash Flow Models

CONFIDENTIAL to Sustainable Energy Developments, Inc.
Project Economics - Town of Duxbury Scenario 1(USER INPUTS IN BLUE) Contact: Kevin Schulte 585 265 2384
kevin@sed-net.com
Prepared for: Town of Duxbury Powerind PW 56 Location: Duxbury, MA
Date: 10/20/2011
Project Assumptions Cost Summary Equity Summary Tax & Financial Assumptions
Turbine Version B Turbine Cost (per turbine) 1,664,000 $ Discount Rate (for NPV) 5.5%
Number of Turbines 1 Tower Cost (per turbine) - $ Percentage Equity 0%
Total Installed Capacity (kW) 900 Installation Cost 1,106,500 $ Amount of Debt 2,669,830 $ Customer Tax Rate (State+Fed) 0.0%
Average Wind Speed (m/s) 6.2 Development Costs 249,830 $ Amount Equity - $
Wind Speed mph 13.8 Subtotal 3,020,330 $ Equity Term (years) 7 Investment Tax Credit (%) 0%
Annual Energy Output (kWh) 1,693,000 State Grant (350,500) $ Equity Interest Rate (annual) 10.0% Investment Tax Credit ($) - $
Capacity Factor 12.9% State Grant (%) 12% Annual Equity Payment - $ PTC ($/kWh) - $
Maintenance ($/kWh) 0.023 $ Net Installed Cost 2,669,830 $ Monthly Equity Payment - $ PTC Inflation 0.0%
Warranty Period Maintenance Cost 25,000 $ Cost/kW 2,966 $ PTC Yrs Qualified -
Annual Maintenance Cost 38,939 $ Cash In Summary 1 Debt Summary Results
Escalation Rate 3.0% Cash In Summary 0% Percentage Debt 0% Internal Rate of Return 9.2%
Annual Maintenance Reserve 24,375 $ Amount to be Financed 2,669,830 $ Remaining Amount 2,669,830 $ Payback (years) 9.33
Annual Insurance Cost 9,000 $ Cash In Total - $ Amount of Debt - $ NPV at 5.5% 946,608 $
Escalation Rate 3.0% Term of Cash Repayment (years) 3 Debt Term (years) 10 Lifetime Net Savings 3,578,101 $
Power Purchase Price ($/kWh) 0.160 $ Cash Interest Rate (annual) 12.0% Debt Interest Rate (annual) 7.0% Lifetime Energy Output (kWh) 33,860,000
Annual Energy Value 271,557 $ Annual Cash Payback - $ Annual Debt Payment - $ Average Lifetime Cost/kWh of Grid Power 0.222 $
Power Purchase Escalator 0.030 $ Monthly Cash Payback - $ Monthly Debt Payment - $ Lifetime Fixed Cost/kWh of Wind Energy 0.116 $
REC (Green Tag) Value (enter below)
Detailed Project Economics Estimate for Town of Duxbury
Total Levelized Cost Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year <HDU Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
/ kWh 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Costs
Up-Front Cost/Down Payment (2,669,830) $ ($0.079) (2,669,830) $ (2,669,830) $
Annual Cash Payments - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Annual Equity Payments - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Annual Debt Payments - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Maintenance Variable (961,735) $ ($0.028) (25,000) $ (25,000) $ (38,939) $ (40,107) $ (41,310) $ (42,550) $ (43,826) $ (45,141) $ (46,495) $ (47,890) $ (49,327) $ (50,807) $ (52,331) $ (53,901) $ (55,518) $ (57,183) $ (58,899) $ (60,666) $ (62,486) $ (64,360) $ (961,735) $
Maintenance Reserve (487,500) $ ($0.014) (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (24,375) $ (487,500) $
Insurance (241,833) $ ($0.007) (9,000) $ (9,270) $ (9,548) $ (9,835) $ (10,130) $ (10,433) $ (10,746) $ (11,069) $ (11,401) $ (11,743) $ (12,095) $ (12,458) $ (12,832) $ (13,217) $ (13,613) $ (14,022) $ (14,442) $ (14,876) $ (15,322) $ (15,782) $ (241,833) $
PILOT Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Land Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Costs (4,360,898) $ ($0.129) (2,669,830) $ (58,375) $ (58,645) $ (72,862) $ (74,317) $ (75,815) $ (77,358) $ (78,948) $ (80,585) $ (82,271) $ (84,008) $ (85,797) $ (87,640) $ (89,538) $ (91,492) $ (93,506) $ (95,580) $ (97,716) $ (99,916) $ (102,183) $ (104,517) $ (4,360,898) $
PV of Costs (3,635,035) $ ($0.107) (2,669,830) $ (55,332) $ (52,690) $ (62,050) $ (59,990) $ (58,009) $ (56,104) $ (54,272) $ (52,509) $ (50,813) $ (49,181) $ (47,610) $ (46,097) $ (44,640) $ (43,237) $ (41,884) $ (40,581) $ (39,326) $ (38,115) $ (36,947) $ (35,821) $ (3,635,035) $
Benefits
Utility Escalation Rate 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Electricity Sale/Savings Value 7,515,749 $ $0.222 279,704 $ 288,095 $ 296,738 $ 305,640 $ 314,809 $ 324,253 $ 333,981 $ 344,001 $ 354,321 $ 364,950 $ 375,899 $ 387,176 $ 398,791 $ 410,755 $ 423,077 $ 435,770 $ 448,843 $ 462,308 $ 476,177 $ 490,463 $ 7,515,749 $
REC (Green Tag) Value ($/kWh) $0.000 0.025 $ 0.025 $ 0.025 $ 0.025 $ 0.025 $ 0.025 $ 0.025 $ 0.025 $ 0.025 $ 0.025 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0 $
REC (Green Tag) Value ($) 423,250 $ $0.013 42,325 $ 42,325 $ 42,325 $ 42,325 $ 42,325 $ 42,325 $ 42,325 $ 42,325 $ 42,325 $ 42,325 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 423,250 $
Flip Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Income 7,938,999 $ $0.234 322,029 $ 330,420 $ 339,063 $ 347,965 $ 357,134 $ 366,578 $ 376,306 $ 386,326 $ 396,646 $ 407,275 $ 375,899 $ 387,176 $ 398,791 $ 410,755 $ 423,077 $ 435,770 $ 448,843 $ 462,308 $ 476,177 $ 490,463 $ 7,938,999 $
PV of Income 4,581,644 $ $0.135 305,241 $ 296,867 $ 288,751 $ 280,883 $ 273,256 $ 265,860 $ 258,687 $ 251,729 $ 244,980 $ 238,431 $ 208,590 $ 203,647 $ 198,821 $ 194,110 $ 189,510 $ 185,020 $ 180,635 $ 176,355 $ 172,176 $ 168,096 $ 4,581,644 $
Income Tax Impact
Investment Tax Credit - $ - $ - $
5-yr MACRS Double Declining Balance Sched. 60.00% 16.00% 9.60% 5.76% 5.76% 2.88%
Tax Value of MACRS 5-year Depreciation - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Tax Value of Production Tax Credit - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Income 7,938,999 $ $0.234 322,029 $ 330,420 $ 339,063 $ 347,965 $ 357,134 $ 366,578 $ 376,306 $ 386,326 $ 396,646 $ 407,275 $ 375,899 $ 387,176 $ 398,791 $ 410,755 $ 423,077 $ 435,770 $ 448,843 $ 462,308 $ 476,177 $ 490,463 $ 7,938,999 $
Maintenance + Insurance (1,203,568) $ ($0.036) (34,000) $ (34,270) $ (48,487) $ (49,942) $ (51,440) $ (52,983) $ (54,573) $ (56,210) $ (57,896) $ (59,633) $ (61,422) $ (63,265) $ (65,163) $ (67,117) $ (69,131) $ (71,205) $ (73,341) $ (75,541) $ (77,808) $ (80,142) $ (1,203,568) $
Interest Expense - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Tax Benefit (Charge) due to Net Change in Income - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Tax Benefit (Charge) - $ $0.199 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
PV of Tax Impact - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Summary
Cash Flow after Tax (2,669,830) $ 263,654 $ 271,775 $ 266,201 $ 273,648 $ 281,319 $ 289,220 $ 297,358 $ 305,741 $ 314,374 $ 323,267 $ 290,102 $ 299,536 $ 309,253 $ 319,262 $ 329,571 $ 340,190 $ 351,127 $ 362,392 $ 373,995 $ 385,946 $ 3,578,101 $
Accumulated Cash Flow 3,578,101 $ $0.305 (2,669,830) $ (2,406,176) $ (2,134,401) $ (1,868,200) $ ######### (1,313,233) $ (1,024,012) $ (726,654) $ (420,913) $ (106,539) $ 216,728 $ 506,830 $ 806,366 $ 1,115,619 $ 1,434,881 $ 1,764,453 $ 2,104,642 $ 2,455,769 $ 2,818,161 $ 3,192,155 $ 3,578,101 $ 3,578,101 $
PV of Cash Flow (2,669,830) $ 249,909 $ 244,177 $ 226,700 $ 220,893 $ 215,247 $ 209,756 $ 204,415 $ 199,220 $ 194,167 $ 189,250 $ 160,980 $ 157,550 $ 154,182 $ 150,874 $ 147,626 $ 144,438 $ 141,310 $ 138,240 $ 135,229 $ 132,275 $ 946,608 $
NPV at 5.5% 946,608 $
Payback Yrs 9.33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IRR 9.22%
$(3,000,000)
$(2,000,000)
$(1,000,000)
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Project Economics - Unleveraged - Scenario 2 (USER INPUTS IN BLUE) Contact: Kevin Schulte 585 265 2384
kevin@sed-net.com
Prepared for: Town of Duxbury Northwind 450 Location: Duxbury, MA
Date: 10/20/2011
Turbine Version B Turbine Cost (per turbine) 997,000 $ Discount Rate (for NPV) 5.5%
Total Installed Capacity (kW) 450 Installation Cost 882,000 $ Amount of Debt 2,203,860 $ Customer Tax Rate (State+Fed) 0.0%
/ kWh 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Costs
Insurance (120,917) $ ($0.006) (4,500) $ (4,635) $ (4,774) $ (4,917) $ (5,065) $ (5,217) $ (5,373) $ (5,534) $ (5,700) $ (5,871) $ (6,048) $ (6,229) $ (6,416) $ (6,608) $ (6,807) $ (7,011) $ (7,221) $ (7,438) $ (7,661) $ (7,891) $ (120,917) $
PILOT Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Land Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Costs (3,286,966) $ ($0.152) (2,203,860) $ (34,500) $ (34,635) $ (46,774) $ (47,727) $ (48,709) $ (49,720) $ (50,762) $ (51,835) $ (52,940) $ (54,078) $ (55,250) $ (56,458) $ (57,702) $ (58,983) $ (60,302) $ (61,661) $ (63,061) $ (64,503) $ (65,988) $ (67,518) $ (3,286,966) $
PV of Costs (2,819,567) $ ($0.131) (2,203,860) $ (32,701) $ (31,118) $ (39,833) $ (38,526) $ (37,269) $ (36,059) $ (34,896) $ (33,776) $ (32,697) $ (31,659) $ (30,659) $ (29,696) $ (28,768) $ (27,873) $ (27,011) $ (26,180) $ (25,379) $ (24,606) $ (23,860) $ (23,140) $ (2,819,567) $
Benefits
Flip Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Income 5,064,453 $ $0.234 205,429 $ 210,782 $ 216,295 $ 221,974 $ 227,823 $ 233,848 $ 240,054 $ 246,445 $ 253,028 $ 259,809 $ 239,794 $ 246,987 $ 254,397 $ 262,029 $ 269,890 $ 277,987 $ 286,326 $ 294,916 $ 303,763 $ 312,876 $ 5,064,453 $
PV of Income 2,922,726 $ $0.135 194,719 $ 189,377 $ 184,200 $ 179,181 $ 174,315 $ 169,597 $ 165,022 $ 160,583 $ 156,278 $ 152,100 $ 133,064 $ 129,911 $ 126,832 $ 123,827 $ 120,893 $ 118,028 $ 115,231 $ 112,500 $ 109,834 $ 107,232 $ 2,922,726 $
Income Tax Impact
Income 5,064,453 $ $0.234 205,429 $ 210,782 $ 216,295 $ 221,974 $ 227,823 $ 233,848 $ 240,054 $ 246,445 $ 253,028 $ 259,809 $ 239,794 $ 246,987 $ 254,397 $ 262,029 $ 269,890 $ 277,987 $ 286,326 $ 294,916 $ 303,763 $ 312,876 $ 5,064,453 $
Maintenance + Insurance (783,106) $ ($0.036) (19,500) $ (19,635) $ (31,774) $ (32,727) $ (33,709) $ (34,720) $ (35,762) $ (36,835) $ (37,940) $ (39,078) $ (40,250) $ (41,458) $ (42,702) $ (43,983) $ (45,302) $ (46,661) $ (48,061) $ (49,503) $ (50,988) $ (52,518) $ (783,106) $
PV of Tax Impact - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Summary
Accumulated Cash Flow 1,777,487 $ $0.281 (2,203,860) $ (2,032,931) $ (1,856,784) $ (1,687,263) $ ######### (1,333,902) $ (1,149,774) $ (960,483) $ (765,872) $ (565,784) $ (360,052) $ (175,509) $ 15,020 $ 211,716 $ 414,762 $ 624,349 $ 840,675 $ 1,063,940 $ 1,294,353 $ 1,532,128 $ 1,777,487 $ 1,777,487 $
PV of Cash Flow (2,203,860) $ 162,018 $ 158,260 $ 144,367 $ 140,655 $ 137,046 $ 133,538 $ 130,126 $ 126,808 $ 123,581 $ 120,441 $ 102,405 $ 100,215 $ 98,065 $ 95,953 $ 93,881 $ 91,848 $ 89,852 $ 87,895 $ 85,975 $ 84,091 $ 103,159 $
NPV at 5.5% 103,159 $
Payback Yrs 11.92 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IRR 6.02%
$(2,500,000)
$(2,000,000)
$(1,500,000)
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Project Economics - Town of Duxbury Scenario 3(USER INPUTS IN BLUE) Contact: Kevin Schulte 585 265 2384
kevin@sed-net.com
Date: 10/20/2011
/ kWh 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Costs
Insurance (241,833) $ ($0.007) (9,000) $ (9,270) $ (9,548) $ (9,835) $ (10,130) $ (10,433) $ (10,746) $ (11,069) $ (11,401) $ (11,743) $ (12,095) $ (12,458) $ (12,832) $ (13,217) $ (13,613) $ (14,022) $ (14,442) $ (14,876) $ (15,322) $ (15,782) $ (241,833) $
PILOT Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Land Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Costs (4,471,378) $ ($0.128) (2,954,490) $ (58,375) $ (58,645) $ (65,423) $ (66,655) $ (67,923) $ (69,229) $ (70,575) $ (71,961) $ (73,389) $ (74,859) $ (76,374) $ (77,933) $ (79,540) $ (81,195) $ (82,900) $ (84,656) $ (86,464) $ (88,327) $ (90,245) $ (92,221) $ (4,471,378) $
PV of Costs (3,825,970) $ ($0.109) (2,954,490) $ (55,332) $ (52,690) $ (55,715) $ (53,805) $ (51,970) $ (50,208) $ (48,516) $ (46,890) $ (45,327) $ (43,825) $ (42,380) $ (40,992) $ (39,656) $ (38,370) $ (37,134) $ (35,943) $ (34,797) $ (33,694) $ (32,631) $ (31,607) $ (3,825,970) $
Benefits
Flip Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Income 8,206,290 $ $0.234 332,871 $ 341,545 $ 350,478 $ 359,680 $ 369,158 $ 378,920 $ 388,976 $ 399,332 $ 410,000 $ 420,987 $ 388,554 $ 400,211 $ 412,217 $ 424,584 $ 437,321 $ 450,441 $ 463,954 $ 477,873 $ 492,209 $ 506,975 $ 8,206,290 $
PV of Income 4,735,898 $ $0.135 315,518 $ 306,862 $ 298,472 $ 290,340 $ 282,456 $ 274,810 $ 267,396 $ 260,205 $ 253,228 $ 246,459 $ 215,613 $ 210,504 $ 205,515 $ 200,645 $ 195,891 $ 191,249 $ 186,717 $ 182,292 $ 177,973 $ 173,755 $ 4,735,898 $
Income Tax Impact
Income 8,206,290 $ $0.234 332,871 $ 341,545 $ 350,478 $ 359,680 $ 369,158 $ 378,920 $ 388,976 $ 399,332 $ 410,000 $ 420,987 $ 388,554 $ 400,211 $ 412,217 $ 424,584 $ 437,321 $ 450,441 $ 463,954 $ 477,873 $ 492,209 $ 506,975 $ 8,206,290 $
PV of Tax Impact - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Summary
PV of Cash Flow (2,954,490) $ 260,186 $ 254,172 $ 242,757 $ 236,535 $ 230,485 $ 224,602 $ 218,880 $ 213,315 $ 207,901 $ 202,634 $ 173,232 $ 169,512 $ 165,860 $ 162,275 $ 158,757 $ 155,306 $ 151,920 $ 148,599 $ 145,342 $ 142,148 $ 909,928 $
NPV at 5.5% 909,928 $
Payback Yrs 9.65 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IRR 8.74%
Cash Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equity Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00%
3.00%
$(3,000,000)
$(2,000,000)
$(1,000,000)
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Project Economics - Scenario 4 (USER INPUTS IN BLUE) Contact: Kevin Schulte 585 265 2384
kevin@sed-net.com
Date: 10/20/2011
/ kWh 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Costs
Insurance (120,917) $ ($0.005) (4,500) $ (4,635) $ (4,774) $ (4,917) $ (5,065) $ (5,217) $ (5,373) $ (5,534) $ (5,700) $ (5,871) $ (6,048) $ (6,229) $ (6,416) $ (6,608) $ (6,807) $ (7,011) $ (7,221) $ (7,438) $ (7,661) $ (7,891) $ (120,917) $
PILOT Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Land Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Costs (3,183,259) $ ($0.139) (2,063,860) $ (34,500) $ (34,635) $ (48,324) $ (49,324) $ (50,353) $ (51,414) $ (52,507) $ (53,632) $ (54,791) $ (55,984) $ (57,214) $ (58,480) $ (59,785) $ (61,128) $ (62,512) $ (63,937) $ (65,406) $ (66,918) $ (68,475) $ (70,080) $ (3,183,259) $
PV of Costs (2,699,096) $ ($0.118) (2,063,860) $ (32,701) $ (31,118) $ (41,153) $ (39,815) $ (38,527) $ (37,288) $ (36,095) $ (34,946) $ (33,840) $ (32,775) $ (31,749) $ (30,760) $ (29,806) $ (28,887) $ (28,001) $ (27,147) $ (26,322) $ (25,527) $ (24,759) $ (24,018) $ (2,699,096) $
Benefits
Flip Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Income 5,355,190 $ $0.234 217,222 $ 222,882 $ 228,712 $ 234,717 $ 240,902 $ 247,273 $ 253,834 $ 260,593 $ 267,554 $ 274,724 $ 253,560 $ 261,166 $ 269,001 $ 277,071 $ 285,383 $ 293,945 $ 302,763 $ 311,846 $ 321,202 $ 330,838 $ 5,355,190 $
PV of Income 3,090,512 $ $0.135 205,898 $ 200,249 $ 194,774 $ 189,468 $ 184,322 $ 179,333 $ 174,495 $ 169,802 $ 165,249 $ 160,832 $ 140,703 $ 137,369 $ 134,113 $ 130,935 $ 127,833 $ 124,803 $ 121,846 $ 118,959 $ 116,140 $ 113,388 $ 3,090,512 $
Income Tax Impact
Income 5,355,190 $ $0.234 217,222 $ 222,882 $ 228,712 $ 234,717 $ 240,902 $ 247,273 $ 253,834 $ 260,593 $ 267,554 $ 274,724 $ 253,560 $ 261,166 $ 269,001 $ 277,071 $ 285,383 $ 293,945 $ 302,763 $ 311,846 $ 321,202 $ 330,838 $ 5,355,190 $
PV of Tax Impact - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Summary
Accumulated Cash Flow 2,171,931 $ $0.294 (2,063,860) $ (1,881,138) $ (1,692,891) $ (1,512,502) $ ######### (1,136,560) $ (940,702) $ (739,374) $ (532,413) $ (319,649) $ (100,909) $ 95,436 $ 298,122 $ 507,339 $ 723,282 $ 946,153 $ 1,176,161 $ 1,413,518 $ 1,658,447 $ 1,911,173 $ 2,171,931 $ 2,171,931 $
PV of Cash Flow (2,063,860) $ 173,196 $ 169,131 $ 153,621 $ 149,653 $ 145,795 $ 142,046 $ 138,400 $ 134,856 $ 131,409 $ 128,057 $ 108,954 $ 106,609 $ 104,307 $ 102,048 $ 99,831 $ 97,657 $ 95,524 $ 93,432 $ 91,381 $ 89,369 $ 391,416 $
NPV at 5.5% 391,416 $
Payback Yrs 10.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IRR 7.56%
Cash Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equity Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00%
3.00%
$(2,500,000)
$(2,000,000)
$(1,500,000)
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Project Economics -Town of Duxbury Scenario 5 (USER INPUTS IN BLUE) Contact: Kevin Schulte 585 265 2384
kevin@sed-net.com
Prepared for: Town of Duxbury PowerWind 900kW Location: Duxbury, MA
Date: 10/20/2011
Annual Insurance Cost 9,000 $ Cash In Total - $ Amount of Debt - $ NPV at 5.5% 1,078,508 $
/ kWh 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Costs
Insurance (241,833) $ ($0.007) (9,000) $ (9,270) $ (9,548) $ (9,835) $ (10,130) $ (10,433) $ (10,746) $ (11,069) $ (11,401) $ (11,743) $ (12,095) $ (12,458) $ (12,832) $ (13,217) $ (13,613) $ (14,022) $ (14,442) $ (14,876) $ (15,322) $ (15,782) $ (241,833) $
PILOT Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Land Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Costs (4,305,700) $ ($0.123) (2,788,390) $ (58,375) $ (58,645) $ (65,441) $ (66,673) $ (67,942) $ (69,249) $ (70,595) $ (71,982) $ (73,410) $ (74,881) $ (76,396) $ (77,957) $ (79,564) $ (81,220) $ (82,925) $ (84,682) $ (86,491) $ (88,355) $ (90,274) $ (92,251) $ (4,305,700) $
PV of Costs (3,660,097) $ ($0.105) (2,788,390) $ (55,332) $ (52,690) $ (55,731) $ (53,820) $ (51,985) $ (50,223) $ (48,530) $ (46,903) $ (45,340) $ (43,838) $ (42,393) $ (41,004) $ (39,668) $ (38,382) $ (37,145) $ (35,954) $ (34,808) $ (33,704) $ (32,641) $ (31,617) $ (3,660,097) $
Benefits
Flip Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Income 8,210,979 $ $0.234 333,061 $ 341,740 $ 350,679 $ 359,886 $ 369,369 $ 379,137 $ 389,198 $ 399,561 $ 410,234 $ 421,228 $ 388,776 $ 400,440 $ 412,453 $ 424,827 $ 437,571 $ 450,698 $ 464,219 $ 478,146 $ 492,490 $ 507,265 $ 8,210,979 $
PV of Income 4,738,605 $ $0.135 315,698 $ 307,037 $ 298,643 $ 290,506 $ 282,617 $ 274,968 $ 267,549 $ 260,353 $ 253,373 $ 246,600 $ 215,736 $ 210,624 $ 205,633 $ 200,760 $ 196,003 $ 191,358 $ 186,824 $ 182,396 $ 178,074 $ 173,854 $ 4,738,605 $
Income Tax Impact
Income 8,210,979 $ $0.234 333,061 $ 341,740 $ 350,679 $ 359,886 $ 369,369 $ 379,137 $ 389,198 $ 399,561 $ 410,234 $ 421,228 $ 388,776 $ 400,440 $ 412,453 $ 424,827 $ 437,571 $ 450,698 $ 464,219 $ 478,146 $ 492,490 $ 507,265 $ 8,210,979 $
PV of Tax Impact - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Summary
PV of Cash Flow (2,788,390) $ 260,366 $ 254,347 $ 242,912 $ 236,686 $ 230,632 $ 224,745 $ 219,019 $ 213,450 $ 208,032 $ 202,762 $ 173,343 $ 169,620 $ 165,965 $ 162,378 $ 158,858 $ 155,404 $ 152,015 $ 148,692 $ 145,433 $ 142,237 $ 1,078,508 $
NPV at 5.5% 1,078,508 $
Payback Yrs 9.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IRR 9.51%
Cash Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equity Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00%
3.00%
$(3,000,000)
$(2,000,000)
$(1,000,000)
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Project Economics - Scenario 6 (USER INPUTS IN BLUE) Contact: Kevin Schulte 585 265 2384
kevin@sed-net.com
Date: 10/20/2011
/ kWh 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Costs
Insurance (120,917) $ ($0.005) (4,500) $ (4,635) $ (4,774) $ (4,917) $ (5,065) $ (5,217) $ (5,373) $ (5,534) $ (5,700) $ (5,871) $ (6,048) $ (6,229) $ (6,416) $ (6,608) $ (6,807) $ (7,011) $ (7,221) $ (7,438) $ (7,661) $ (7,891) $ (120,917) $
PILOT Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Land Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Costs (3,043,942) $ ($0.132) (1,919,860) $ (34,500) $ (34,635) $ (48,524) $ (49,530) $ (50,566) $ (51,633) $ (52,732) $ (53,864) $ (55,029) $ (56,230) $ (57,467) $ (58,741) $ (60,054) $ (61,405) $ (62,797) $ (64,231) $ (65,708) $ (67,229) $ (68,796) $ (70,410) $ (3,043,942) $
PV of Costs (2,557,616) $ ($0.111) (1,919,860) $ (32,701) $ (31,118) $ (41,324) $ (39,981) $ (38,690) $ (37,446) $ (36,250) $ (35,097) $ (33,988) $ (32,919) $ (31,889) $ (30,897) $ (29,940) $ (29,018) $ (28,129) $ (27,271) $ (26,444) $ (25,646) $ (24,875) $ (24,132) $ (2,557,616) $
Benefits
Flip Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Income 5,392,705 $ $0.234 218,744 $ 224,444 $ 230,314 $ 236,361 $ 242,590 $ 249,005 $ 255,613 $ 262,418 $ 269,428 $ 276,649 $ 255,336 $ 262,996 $ 270,886 $ 279,012 $ 287,383 $ 296,004 $ 304,884 $ 314,031 $ 323,452 $ 333,155 $ 5,392,705 $
PV of Income 3,112,162 $ $0.135 207,340 $ 201,652 $ 196,139 $ 190,795 $ 185,614 $ 180,590 $ 175,717 $ 170,992 $ 166,407 $ 161,959 $ 141,689 $ 138,331 $ 135,053 $ 131,853 $ 128,728 $ 125,678 $ 122,700 $ 119,792 $ 116,953 $ 114,182 $ 3,112,162 $
Income Tax Impact
Income 5,392,705 $ $0.234 218,744 $ 224,444 $ 230,314 $ 236,361 $ 242,590 $ 249,005 $ 255,613 $ 262,418 $ 269,428 $ 276,649 $ 255,336 $ 262,996 $ 270,886 $ 279,012 $ 287,383 $ 296,004 $ 304,884 $ 314,031 $ 323,452 $ 333,155 $ 5,392,705 $
PV of Tax Impact - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Summary
Accumulated Cash Flow 2,348,763 $ $0.301 (1,919,860) $ (1,735,616) $ (1,545,808) $ (1,364,017) $ ######### (985,162) $ (787,789) $ (584,908) $ (376,354) $ (161,955) $ 58,464 $ 256,332 $ 460,587 $ 671,419 $ 889,026 $ 1,113,612 $ 1,345,385 $ 1,584,561 $ 1,831,362 $ 2,086,018 $ 2,348,763 $ 2,348,763 $
PV of Cash Flow (1,919,860) $ 174,639 $ 170,534 $ 154,815 $ 150,814 $ 146,924 $ 143,143 $ 139,468 $ 135,894 $ 132,419 $ 129,040 $ 109,799 $ 107,434 $ 105,113 $ 102,834 $ 100,599 $ 98,406 $ 96,256 $ 94,146 $ 92,078 $ 90,050 $ 554,546 $
NPV at 5.5% 554,546 $
Payback Yrs 9.73 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IRR 8.58%
Cash Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equity Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00%
$(2,000,000)
$(1,500,000)
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Project Economics - Town of Duxbury Scenario 1 - Bonded (USER INPUTS IN BLUE) Contact: Kevin Schulte585 265 2384
kevin@sed-net.com
Date: 10/20/2011
Escalation Rate 3.0% Cash In Summary 0% Percentage Debt 100% Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!
Annual Maintenance Reserve 24,375 $ Amount to be Financed 2,669,830 $ Remaining Amount - $ Payback (years) 0.00
Annual Insurance Cost 9,000 $ Cash In Total - $ Amount of Debt 2,669,830 $ NPV at 5.5% 3,298,804 $
Annual Energy Value 271,557 $ Annual Cash Payback - $ Annual Debt Payment 187,003 $ Average Lifetime Cost/kWh of Grid Power 0.336 $
Power Purchase Escalator 0.066 $ Monthly Cash Payback - $ Monthly Debt Payment 15,584 $ Lifetime Fixed Cost/kWh of Wind Energy 0.142 $
Ownership Flip Structure PILOT Payment Summary Land Payment Summary
Flip Year - PILOT Payment ($/MW) - $ Land Payment (%) 0.0%
Percentage of Original Installed Cost 0.0% Total Payment ($) - $ Total Payment ($) - $
Total Flip Payment - $ PILOT Escalation Rate (%) 3.0%
/ kWh 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Costs
Up-Front Cost/Down Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $
Annual Debt Payments (3,740,065) $ ($0.110) (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (187,003) $ (3,740,065) $
Insurance (241,833) $ ($0.007) (9,000) $ (9,270) $ (9,548) $ (9,835) $ (10,130) $ (10,433) $ (10,746) $ (11,069) $ (11,401) $ (11,743) $ (12,095) $ (12,458) $ (12,832) $ (13,217) $ (13,613) $ (14,022) $ (14,442) $ (14,876) $ (15,322) $ (15,782) $ (241,833) $
PILOT Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Land Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Costs (5,232,930) $ ($0.155) - $ (245,378) $ (245,648) $ (251,400) $ (252,601) $ (253,838) $ (255,111) $ (256,423) $ (257,775) $ (259,167) $ (260,600) $ (262,077) $ (263,598) $ (265,165) $ (266,778) $ (268,440) $ (270,152) $ (271,915) $ (273,731) $ (275,602) $ (277,529) $ (5,232,930) $
PV of Costs (3,093,314) $ ($0.091) - $ (232,586) $ (220,703) $ (214,096) $ (203,904) $ (194,220) $ (185,019) $ (176,275) $ (167,966) $ (160,069) $ (152,563) $ (145,429) $ (138,648) $ (132,201) $ (126,071) $ (120,243) $ (114,701) $ (109,431) $ (104,419) $ (99,652) $ (95,117) $ (3,093,314) $
Benefits
Flip Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Income 11,798,352 $ $0.348 331,832 $ 350,969 $ 371,370 $ 393,120 $ 416,307 $ 441,028 $ 467,382 $ 495,478 $ 525,431 $ 557,365 $ 549,084 $ 585,378 $ 624,072 $ 665,323 $ 709,301 $ 756,186 $ 806,169 $ 859,457 $ 916,267 $ 976,833 $ 11,798,352 $
PV of Income 6,392,117 $ $0.189 314,533 $ 315,329 $ 316,264 $ 317,333 $ 318,531 $ 319,853 $ 321,295 $ 322,853 $ 324,522 $ 326,298 $ 304,692 $ 307,898 $ 311,138 $ 314,411 $ 317,719 $ 321,062 $ 324,440 $ 327,854 $ 331,303 $ 334,789 $ 6,392,117 $
Income Tax Impact
Income 11,798,352 $ $0.348 331,832 $ 350,969 $ 371,370 $ 393,120 $ 416,307 $ 441,028 $ 467,382 $ 495,478 $ 525,431 $ 557,365 $ 549,084 $ 585,378 $ 624,072 $ 665,323 $ 709,301 $ 756,186 $ 806,169 $ 859,457 $ 916,267 $ 976,833 $ 11,798,352 $
Interest Expense (1,070,235) $ ($0.032) (92,109) $ (88,835) $ (85,448) $ (81,945) $ (78,320) $ (74,571) $ (70,692) $ (66,679) $ (62,528) $ (58,234) $ (53,791) $ (49,195) $ (44,441) $ (39,522) $ (34,434) $ (29,171) $ (23,725) $ (18,092) $ (12,265) $ (6,236) $ (1,070,235) $
PV of Tax Impact - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Summary
Cash Flow after Tax - $ 86,454 $ 105,320 $ 119,970 $ 140,519 $ 162,470 $ 185,916 $ 210,958 $ 237,703 $ 266,265 $ 296,764 $ 287,007 $ 321,780 $ 358,907 $ 398,545 $ 440,861 $ 486,034 $ 534,254 $ 585,726 $ 640,665 $ 699,304 $ 6,565,422 $
Accumulated Cash Flow 6,565,422 $ $0.481 - $ 86,454 $ 191,774 $ 311,744 $ 452,263 $ 614,732 $ 800,648 $ 1,011,606 $ 1,249,310 $ 1,515,574 $ 1,812,339 $ 2,099,346 $ 2,421,126 $ 2,780,033 $ 3,178,578 $ 3,619,439 $ 4,105,472 $ 4,639,726 $ 5,225,452 $ 5,866,118 $ 6,565,422 $ 6,565,422 $
PV of Cash Flow - $ 81,947 $ 94,625 $ 102,168 $ 113,429 $ 124,311 $ 134,835 $ 145,020 $ 154,887 $ 164,453 $ 173,735 $ 159,263 $ 169,251 $ 178,937 $ 188,340 $ 197,476 $ 206,361 $ 215,009 $ 223,434 $ 231,651 $ 239,672 $ 3,298,804 $
NPV at 5.5% 3,298,804 $
Payback Yrs 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IRR #DIV/0!
Cash Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equity Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Principal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Calculations
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Balance (2,669,830) (2,574,936) (2,476,768) (2,375,213) (2,270,155) (2,161,472) (2,049,039) (1,932,728) (1,812,404) (1,687,929) (1,559,159) (1,425,947) (1,288,139) (1,145,576) (998,095) (845,526) (687,694) (524,416) (355,505) (180,767) 0
Payment (3,740,065) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003) (187,003)
Principal (94,894) (98,168) (101,555) (105,058) (108,683) (112,432) (116,311) (120,324) (124,475) (128,770) (133,212) (137,808) (142,562) (147,481) (152,569) (157,833) (163,278) (168,911) (174,738) (180,767)
Interest (92,109) (88,835) (85,448) (81,945) (78,320) (74,571) (70,692) (66,679) (62,528) (58,234) (53,791) (49,195) (44,441) (39,522) (34,434) (29,171) (23,725) (18,092) (12,265) (6,236)
0.00%
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Project Economics - Lessee (USER INPUTS IN BLUE) Contact: Kevin Schulte 585 265 2384
kevin@sed-net.com
Prepared for: Town of Duxbury PowerWind 56 900kW Location: Duxbury, MA
Date: 10/20/2011
Capacity Factor State Grant (%) 12% Annual Equity Payment - $ PTC ($/kWh) - $
Escalation Rate 3.0% Cash In Summary 0% Percentage Debt 0% Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!
Annual Insurance Cost 9,000 $ Cash In Total - $ Amount of Debt - $ NPV at 5.5% 1,190,663 $
/ kWh 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total
Costs
Lease Payments (3,531,249) $ ($0.104) (270,000) $ (270,000) $ (270,000) $ (270,000) $ (270,000) $ (270,000) $ (270,000) $ (270,000) $ (270,000) $ ######### - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (3,531,249) $
Insurance (241,833) $ ($0.007) (9,000) $ (9,270) $ (9,548) $ (9,835) $ (10,130) $ (10,433) $ (10,746) $ (11,069) $ (11,401) $ (11,743) $ (12,095) $ (12,458) $ (12,832) $ (13,217) $ (13,613) $ (14,022) $ (14,442) $ (14,876) $ (15,322) $ (15,782) $ (241,833) $
PILOT Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Land Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Costs (5,024,114) $ ($0.148) - $ (328,375) $ (328,645) $ (334,397) $ (335,598) $ (336,834) $ (338,108) $ (339,420) $ (340,772) $ (342,163) $ ######### (75,074) $ (76,595) $ (78,161) $ (79,775) $ (81,437) $ (83,149) $ (84,912) $ (86,728) $ (88,599) $ (90,525) $ (5,024,114) $
PV of Costs (3,380,351) $ ($0.100) - $ (311,256) $ (295,272) $ (284,777) $ (270,900) $ (257,724) $ (245,212) $ (233,330) $ (222,046) $ (211,330) $ (687,791) $ (41,659) $ (40,287) $ (38,968) $ (37,699) $ (36,478) $ (35,303) $ (34,173) $ (33,084) $ (32,035) $ (31,026) $ (3,380,351) $
Benefits
Flip Payment - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Income 7,920,256 $ $0.234 321,331 $ 329,702 $ 338,323 $ 347,203 $ 356,349 $ 365,770 $ 375,473 $ 385,468 $ 395,762 $ 406,365 $ 374,961 $ 386,210 $ 397,796 $ 409,730 $ 422,022 $ 434,683 $ 447,723 $ 461,155 $ 474,990 $ 489,239 $ 7,920,256 $
PV of Income 4,571,014 $ $0.135 304,580 $ 296,221 $ 288,120 $ 280,268 $ 272,655 $ 265,273 $ 258,114 $ 251,170 $ 244,434 $ 237,899 $ 208,070 $ 203,139 $ 198,326 $ 193,626 $ 189,038 $ 184,558 $ 180,185 $ 175,915 $ 171,746 $ 167,677 $ 4,571,014 $
Income Tax Impact
Income 7,920,256 $ $0.234 321,331 $ 329,702 $ 338,323 $ 347,203 $ 356,349 $ 365,770 $ 375,473 $ 385,468 $ 395,762 $ 406,365 $ 374,961 $ 386,210 $ 397,796 $ 409,730 $ 422,022 $ 434,683 $ 447,723 $ 461,155 $ 474,990 $ 489,239 $ 7,920,256 $
Maintenance + Insurance+Lease (4,536,614) $ ($0.134) (304,000) $ (304,270) $ (310,022) $ (311,223) $ (312,459) $ (313,733) $ (315,045) $ (316,397) $ (317,788) $ ######### (50,699) $ (52,220) $ (53,786) $ (55,400) $ (57,062) $ (58,774) $ (60,537) $ (62,353) $ (64,224) $ (66,150) $ (4,536,614) $
PV of Tax Impact - $ $0.000 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Summary
Cash Flow after Tax - $ (7,044) $ 1,057 $ 3,926 $ 11,605 $ 19,515 $ 27,662 $ 36,053 $ 44,696 $ 53,598 $ (768,481) $ 299,887 $ 309,615 $ 319,635 $ 329,955 $ 340,585 $ 351,534 $ 362,811 $ 374,427 $ 386,391 $ 398,714 $ 2,896,143 $
Accumulated Cash Flow 2,896,143 $ $0.185 - $ (7,044) $ (5,987) $ (2,061) $ 9,544 $ 29,059 $ 56,720 $ 92,773 $ 137,469 $ 191,068 $ (577,413) $ (277,526) $ 32,090 $ 351,725 $ 681,680 $ 1,022,265 $ 1,373,799 $ 1,736,611 $ 2,111,038 $ 2,497,429 $ 2,896,143 $ 2,896,143 $
PV of Cash Flow - $ (6,676) $ 949 $ 3,343 $ 9,368 $ 14,931 $ 20,062 $ 24,784 $ 29,124 $ 33,104 $ (449,892) $ 166,411 $ 162,852 $ 159,357 $ 155,927 $ 152,559 $ 149,255 $ 146,012 $ 142,831 $ 139,711 $ 136,651 $ 1,190,663 $
NPV at 5.5% 1,190,663 $
Payback Yrs 5.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary
Recommended
Wind Turbine:
Rated Capacity 900 kW
Rotor Diameter 56 m
Hub Height 59 m
Wind Speed
Current Price of Power $0.180 per kWh
Total Installed Cost $100,000
State Grants and Incentives $0.105
Renewable Energy Credits $0.25 per kWh for 10
Warranty Term 2 Years
Year 1 Maintenance $0 Per Year
Post Buyout Maintenance $0 Per Year
Annual Energy Production 1,693,000 kWh
PPA Price Escalation Rate
Scenario 1 -With ITC 0.125 $ 3.00%
Scenario 1 - Without ITC 0.195 $ 0.00%
Scenario 1 - With ITC 0.125 $ 3.00%
Scenario 1 - Without ITC 0.245 $ 0.00%
3,358,700 $
311,300 $
20 Year Savings at 3% Energy
Escalation
2,920,557 $
(263,851) $
Third Party Output Sheet
Analysis Results
Project Inputs and Assumptions
Operation and Maintenance
(After Buyout)
per kWh
years
PowerWind 900kW
Town of Duxbury Scenario 1
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Financial Summary Scenario 1 wth ITC

SED Duxbury Wind Feasibility Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SED Duxbury Wind Feasibility Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR ON-SITE WIND GENERATION- DRAFT REPORT

Town of Duxbury, Massachusetts

You might also like