STATE OF NEW YORK

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

At a session of the Public Service

Commission held in the City of
Albany on October 14, 2010

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Garry A. Brown, Chairman

Patricia L. Acampora
Maureen F. Harris
Robert E. Curry, Jr.
James L. Larocca

CASE 10-E-0149 - In the Matter of the Investigation of the March 6, 2009 Turbine
Failure at a Noble Environmental Power, LLC Windpark.

ORDER CLOSING INVESTIGATION

(Issued and Effective October 18, 2010)

BY THE COMMISSION:

Background

On the Morning of March 6, 2009, the Noble Altona Windpark (located in

Clinton County) 1 experienced the unintended loss of electric power. The turbines are
designed to automatically go into a “safe” mode upon loss of electric power and most of
the turbines on the affected circuit (circuit #3) did so in response to the March 6 event;
however, two units, designated as Turbines 42 and 59, did not move into safe mode. The
rotor and blades of Turbine 42 spun at approximately three times the operational design
speed, and blades apparently contacted the tower structure, which ultimately collapsed.
Oil in the nacelle of the turbine caught fire and the unit was heavily damaged. The blades
on turbine 59 also spun freely, resulting in damage to one of the composite blades.
Personnel at the site restored electric power to circuit #3 and succeeded in placing
Turbine 59 into safe mode before it sustained any additional damage.

1
An Order Granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Providing for
Lightened Regulation was issued to Noble Altona Windpark, LLC in Case 06-E-0216
on November 9, 2006 (the CPCN).
CASE 10-E-0149

An investigation team from the Department of Public Service (DPS)

prepared a report summarizing its investigation into the March 6, 2009 incident. As a
result, we issued an Order to Show Cause (on May 13, 2010) 2 requiring Noble
Environmental Power, LLC (Noble or NEP) to show cause why it should not be required
to demonstrate, through a third-party certification or otherwise, that its affiliated electric
corporations operating in New York are providing safe wholesale electric service,
instrumentalities and facilities, and that all Quality Assurance/Quality Control program
measures and manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of
turbines, towers and related facilities have been implemented for the facilities they are
operating in New York State. 3 By letter dated June 28, 2010, Noble submitted its
Response to clause 1 of the Show Cause Order.
Response by Noble

The response by Noble summarizes the facts surrounding the March 6,

2009 turbine failure at the Noble Altona Windpark. Noble indicates that the only damage
resulting from the incident was to the two turbines and associated equipment and states
that the two turbines had subsequently been replaced. Noble reports further on its efforts
to assure that its wind turbine fleet was safe to operate, its coordination with turbine
manufacturer General Electric (GE) into the cause of the turbine failures, and the results
of that investigation.

Noble recites its commitments to the safe operation of its wind energy
facilities, and to providing safe wholesale electric service, fulfilling all manufacturer’s
specifications and recommendations for the inspection and maintenance of turbines,
towers and related facilities. Noble points to its selection of GE 1.5 sle model turbines
which, with over 13,000 units installed worldwide, it characterizes as the industry-leading
power generation equipment. Noble also notes its employment of qualified operations
personnel, its training programs, and its operations and maintenance procedures, which

2
Case 10-E-0149, In the Matter of the Investigation of the March 6, 2010 Turbine
Failure at a Noble Environmental Power, LLC Windpark, Order to Show Cause (Issued
May 13, 2010) (the Show Cause Order).
3
Case 10-E-0149, supra, p. 4.
-2-
CASE 10-E-0149

reportedly meet or exceed industry standards and manufacturer’s recommendations.

Lastly, Noble points to its turbine setback requirements, which provide adequate
clearances from other facilities and which assure public safety in the event of turbine
failure or other operating problems.

Noble’s response sets forth specific measures it institutes for the safe
provision of wholesale electric service, including testing, analysis and diagnostic
maintenance forecasting protocols, performance of manufacturer’s prescribed
maintenance on all operating turbines, compliance with the requirements of the
Northamerican Electric Reliability Council for plant owners and operators, and
maintaining site security equipment, practices and procedures at all facilities. As part of
the development of its response, Noble requested that GE review its operations and
maintenance procedures to provide independent verification of compliance with
manufacturer’s and industry standards for facility operations and maintenance.

Noble provided a report by GE Wind Energy’s Manager of Product Service

Engineering, which listed the review topics, records and procedures that were
characterized as following an International Standards Organization (ISO) audit format
(including ISO 9000 requirements). Safety procedures and incident investigations are fed
back in a continuous improvement process. Operations site procedures were reviewed
and found to accord with industry standards. Personnel training protocols were noted.
Record-keeping and standard revision controls were reviewed and identified as
appropriate. GE reviewed details of maintenance and record-keeping methods and
protocols. Operations processes and controls were reviewed and found to comply with
GE's recommended practices for both manual and remote fault resetting, as well as
Noble-developed operational monitoring, data collection and operational reporting.

In summary, GE inspectors reported:

Overall GE found the processes and controls in place at Noble to be

in accordance with all recommendations made by GE for unit operation and
maintenance. Their site access and control processes meet or exceed that of

-3-
CASE 10-E-0149

other wind farm operators. Their quality and safety practices mirror those
of industry standards like ISO 9000. (Noble Response, Appendix B.)

Noble provided an Appendix to its Response that contained representative

turbine inspection and maintenance checklists for one of the turbines at the Altona
Windpark, including Break-In Maintenance (dated April 2009), Semi-Annual Turbine
Inspection (dated July 2009) and Annual Maintenance (dated “3-1” and “3-2”) Checklists
for Turbine A-19.

DPS Staff's follow-up investigation

Site visit and records review

Following review of Noble's Response, the DPS Staff investigation team

determined that the reporting by Noble regarding maintenance records was limited, and
thus warranted follow-up. Furthermore, the DPS Staff team recognized that there were
specifications and maintenance issues related to site access, facility management and
security that were not fully addressed in Noble's Response, and so decided that further
field evaluation was appropriate.

Representatives of the DPS Staff team met with Noble Operations

personnel on August 26, 2010 at Noble’s National Operations Center in Plattsburgh, then
toured the NEP North Country windparks and substation sites; they had a follow-up
meeting and records review at Noble’s North Country Field Office on August 27, 2010.

Based on the field review of the Altona Windpark site, DPS Staff
confirmed that the damaged turbine facilities have been replaced and that the replacement
turbines are fully operational. Turbine 42 has been completely replaced, including the
foundation. A third-party engineering analysis prepared for Noble had identified the
original foundation as having been compromised by the 2009 turbine failure. Turbine 59
has been replaced on the original foundation, which was also analyzed and reportedly
found to be structurally sound.

-4-
CASE 10-E-0149

DPS Staff reports that it did not perform any testing or detailed inspection
of turbine components, but did make visual inspections of several turbines, and observed
serial tensioning markings on turbine bases, which indicate that anchor and tower bolt
tension has been reviewed and adjusted accordingly. Other observations included visual
review of general turbine appearance and listening for anomalous sounds related to blade
surface or turbine bearing defects. DPS Staff indicates that turbines and related
equipment appeared to be in like-new condition, with no apparent grease or fluid leaks,
spills, rust, or broken components or signs of wear.

DPS Staff explains that it found all access road security gates closed and
locked to limit site access at the Altona Windpark. Gates at public road intersections, as
well as internal gates at windpark road system intersections, were all secure. Access
doors to individual wind turbines were locked, limiting access to internal wind tower and
turbine components. 4 The Duly Road substation, which constitutes the interconnection
facilities between the Altona Windpark and the New York Power Authority (NYPA)
transmission system, was also inspected for site security features. 5 The perimeter of the
Ryan Road substation, providing the interconnection to NYPA for the Noble Clinton,
Ellenburg and Chateaugay Windparks was also reviewed for access control and site
security features. 6

4
Noble personnel noted the automatic shutdown command that is implemented when the
hatchway between the first and second tower internal access levels is opened with the
turbine in operating mode: the turbine blades immediately feather to shut-down
position and the turbine automatically goes out of service, coming to a stop within a
matter of seconds.
5
In the course of DPS Staff finalizing its investigation, it determined that Noble plans to
transfer ownership of its Clinton County interconnection substations to NYPA. We
expect that Noble will provide proper notice and documentation in accordance with the
CPCN and PSL §70. Staff further reports that site restoration measures at the Duly
Road substation site appear to have been completed since its prior site investigation in
April 2009.
6
DPS Staff further notes that overhead electric line poles were observed to be
appropriately numbered and marked with the project owner’s name and numbering in
accordance with pole marking requirements in 16 NYCRR §217.2.
-5-
CASE 10-E-0149

In reviewing the project area and individual turbine structures, substations

and electrical collection systems, DPS Staff reports that it observed several instances of
vegetation encroachment into the wire security zone of the overhead electric lines. This
encroachment has the potential to interrupt power flow and safe and reliable facility
operation. Staff states that when it brought this issue to the attention of operations
personnel, Noble responded that it was in the process of scheduling for contract
vegetation management services from a reputable electrical utility clearing and vegetation
management company. According to DPS Staff, Noble represented that a recently-
retained vegetation contractor has completed review of vegetation status at overhead lines
throughout the project area and that clearances will be compliant with appropriate
specifications by the end of November.

Staff conducted a similar review at Noble’s Western New York projects on

September 21, 2010. Staff interviewed site management and the Lead Technicians for
the Noble Bliss and the Noble Wethersfield Windparks, reviewed inspection and
maintenance records, and made visual and audible inspections at turbines, overhead
electric lines, and switchyard and substation locations with Noble personnel.

Staff observed that substation site access and perimeter security measures
accord with appropriate design criteria. 7 Turbine site access includes multiple-use roads
also utilized by farmland operators. With the Bliss and Wethersfield projects located
primarily in active agricultural lands, many roadway access gates are frequently left open
to afford ready access for ongoing agricultural harvesting activities. Individual turbines
were securely locked as appropriate to preclude unauthorized access.

Vegetation clearances from electrical facilities were observed to be

appropriate; however, some minor invasion of herbaceous species was noted within the
Wethersfield substation yard, which could become problematic if left unattended. The
Western New York Operations Plant Manager stated that the site will be treated to

7
Staff notes that site restoration at the Wethersfield Switchyard has been completed
since a prior site review in May, 2010.

-6-
CASE 10-E-0149

appropriate specifications by reputable utility contractors. Other minor electric collection

line vegetation clearance issues at the Noble Bliss project are scheduled for review at the
start of the 2011 growing season. One wind turbine was noted to emit an audible
whistling sound, which the Lead Technician indicated represented a minor defect in a
blade skin or blocked drain port at the blade tip. He reported that this condition had
previously been noted and stated that this condition was scheduled for inspection and
maintenance this year.

Interview of Noble Operations management and field personnel

In the course of the discussion and review of operational controls, safety

features and maintenance protocols, the Noble Operations Manager clarified an important
point regarding turbine commissioning and acceptance testing. Wind generating facility
commissioning procedures are undertaken solely by the turbine manufacturer’s (GE)
representatives, without the facility owner (Noble) or other representative being present
within the turbine structure as witnesses. Noble operations personnel maintain that only
GE personnel conducted Preliminary and Final Commissioning Acceptance Testing
(PCAT and FCAT) review and certification. Thus, Noble maintains that the turbines
were accepted by the owner following completion of turbine reliability tests and
certification by the manufacturer as being properly commissioned.

Noble management personnel explained that since the start of the turbine
failure investigation, Noble now maintains access records to the windpark sites, and has
instituted a stringent sign-in-sign-out procedure for monitoring personnel presence within
the windpark, which corresponds with facility maintenance records for an additional level
of site security and personnel accountability.

Noble’s North Country Plant Leader explained that access to wind park
sites for maintenance and inspection is monitored by the field office management
personnel. All access is noted on schedules with the reason for access stated. Noble
monitors weather conditions and will clear all personnel from turbine sites if lightning is
detected within 50 miles of the wind parks. Ice buildup on turbine blades is monitored

-7-
CASE 10-E-0149

and may result in turbine shutdown and institution of safety warnings or site access
limitations.

Noble personnel explained that its operations center maintains continuous

comprehensive turbine data collected on all of Noble's turbines. Each turbine can be
monitored for conditions such as oil temperature, bearing condition, and variances in
production and operating status. As a preventive maintenance measure which exceeds
manufacturer’s requirements, NEP samples turbine gearbox oil on a semi-annual basis,
and has the oil analyzed for chemical and physical predictors of component wear.

Records review

DPS Staff explains that it reviewed records and maintenance logs housed at
the Noble North Country Field Offices in Churubusco, and the Western New York Field
Offices in the Town of Eagle, Wyoming County. Maintenance records for randomly
selected individual turbines from each windpark were reviewed, including records
indicating completion of break-in maintenance; periodic pre-tensioning maintenance of
anchor bolts at the tower; semi-annual inspection and maintenance, including oil
spectrum analysis; and annual maintenance for components at the tower, nacelle, tower
group and base tensioning.

Minor omissions and inconsistencies in certain aspects of records were

noted, but cross-reference checks showed that appropriate inspection and maintenance
intervals were observed. For all the North Country project records reviewed, the turbine
manufacturer’s recommended maintenance practices were recorded as fulfilled at the
indicated service intervals. DPS Staff noted evidence of the electronic work-order
process for scheduling and assigning maintenance responsibilities that Noble has
instituted as reported in its Response to the Show Cause Order.

Staff noted some distinctions among the several windpark project

inspection and maintenance records. NEP’s Operations Manager later explained that the
distinction among project records is due to the difference in vintage of the projects. The
Bliss Windpark was installed in 2007, and is no longer within the manufacturer’s
-8-
CASE 10-E-0149

warranty period: for the older vintage projects, NEP has developed a more detailed
inspection and maintenance checklist than that required by GE for use during the initial
warranty period. The Wethersfield Windpark remains subject to the warranty, and
records of facility inspection and maintenance were recorded on the GE forms. Records
review indicated that all scheduled Semi-Annual and Annual inspections and
maintenance measures were reported as performed.

While observing that the Wethersfield inspection forms reviewed were

neither dated nor initialed by field personnel, Staff noted that the forms do not explicitly
require those indications. (Staff was able to cross-reference related forms and work-
orders to determine the dates that inspection and maintenance checks had been
performed.) The NEP Operations Manager later explained that Noble’s standard practice
is to have inspection and maintenance personnel take necessary field notes on the GE lists
and then make electronic data entries upon completion of field activities, and record
annotations of the personnel providing the maintenance activities and dates completed.

NEP's Lead Technician for the Bliss facility reviewed with Staff the
formats used for data entry of maintenance measures including formats for turbine yaw
puck wear measurements, as well as the NEP Annual Turbine Maintenance checklist, and
explained that the annotations provided detailed guidance to maintenance technicians for
complete turbine facility review and upkeep.

Discussion

The GE report provided by Noble represents a significant assessment of

Noble’s operations and maintenance controls and procedures, data collection and records
management, quality assessment and documentation procedures. GE reported that its
review followed the format of an ISO type review. DPS Staff inspected Noble‘s turbine
inspection and maintenance records and field conditions, and concluded that records
indicate that manufacturer’s inspection and maintenance recommendations have been
fulfilled. While neither GE nor DPS Staff performed any testing or detailed inspection of
internal turbine components, there were visual and audible inspections of several

-9-
CASE 10-E-0149

turbines. In issuing the Show Cause Order, we did not envision that detailed internal
inspections of turbines and individual components performed by Staff or other third party
inspectors would be necessary to demonstrate compliance with inspection and
maintenance procedures, including record-keeping.

Staff reports on field conditions indicate that access and security facilities
and requirements of Noble operating plans as specified in the CPCN and supporting
documentation are installed and maintained. Turbines are reported to be reasonably
secure against attempts at illicit entry, and outside of active agricultural operations on
adjacent lands, access roads are gated and locked against undesirable entry. Substation
security was designed and installed to interconnecting utility specifications.

Field review of the Clinton County Windparks indicates that Noble's

vegetation maintenance was not fully compliant with clearance specifications in Noble's
operating plans. DPS Staff advises that Noble opted not to utilize vegetation control
herbicides as part of its initial construction, which has resulted in rapid sprout growth
from cut tree-stumps. With stump sprout height growth at some locations exceeding six
feet in the first year, the appropriate vegetation clearance cycle may be quite short.
According to DPS Staff, Noble has indicated that it is reviewing its policy of not using
herbicides otherwise appropriate for vegetation growth control in proximity to overhead
electric lines.

While the current vegetation growth near these private utility lines may
affect windpark reliability, the public safety is not compromised at this point. Noble
should be mindful that vegetation maintenance practices and specifications are important
aspects of electric corporation operations for a variety of reasons. We will require that
Noble provide notice to Staff in the Office of Energy Efficiency and the Environment of
the status of completion of line clearance activities through the end of November of this
year. Further, any future changes to the previously-approved vegetation clearance
specifications and procedures must be reported.

-10-
CASE 10-E-0149

NEP has implemented advances in inspection and maintenance procedures

and electronic record-keeping, beyond those specified by the turbine manufacturer.
NEP’s semi-annual oil analysis procedure is an important component of its facility
maintenance program, and will forecast maintenance and reliability concerns in a turbine
component subject to great operational stress. NEP uses annotated turbine inspection
checklists that list specific component criteria and specifications for review, upkeep and
maintenance. Staff advises that these detailed inspection protocols represent quality
assurance – quality control criteria that meet or exceed the manufacturer’s requirements.

Noble has reviewed its emergency response plan and maintains that no
changes are pending since the revisions implemented in response to the March 6, 2009
incident. We expect that, in the event of future outages due to emergencies at any of its
New York State windparks, Noble will provide timely notice to DPS Staff in accordance
with the revised Emergency Response Plan and procedures.

We are encouraged by the steps that Noble has taken to implement robust
site control and internal reporting and scheduling procedures subsequent to the Altona
turbine failure investigation. This enhanced security and record-keeping provides for a
greater degree of accountability in maintenance and site security recording.

Conclusion

The reports by GE and DPS Staff were based on independent reviews of

Noble’s records, management protocols, operations and maintenance procedures, and site
conditions. GE’s conclusion regarding compliance with all recommendations for unit
operation and maintenance provides a significant level of assurance regarding the
adequacy of Noble’s operation and maintenance program. These assessments of
procedures and records allow us to conclude that the Noble facilities have been inspected
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Moreover, we
conclude that Noble has demonstrated that it is in compliance with appropriate
specifications and procedures for inspection, maintenance, public safety and site security

-11-
CASE 10-E-0149

as required in the CPCN granted in connection with the projects constructed and operated
by its affiliates.

We are mindful that site security and public safety require ongoing
diligence and adaptation of procedures as technology advances. We note that in response
to the March 6, 2009 turbine failure incident, the turbine manufacturer, GE, has
implemented appropriate product and process improvements to preclude a repetition of
the circumstances that led to the incident. We expect Noble to keep working to
continually make certain that its electric plant and facilities are secure, and that public
safety outside of the turbine setback areas is reasonably assured.

The Commission orders:

1. Noble Environmental Power, LLC shall:

a. Provide notice to Staff in the Office of Energy Efficiency and the

Environment of the status of completion of line clearance activities by
December 1, 2010; and
b. Report any future changes to the previously-approved vegetation clearance
specifications and procedures as modifications to the specifications and
procedures employed by its affiliated electric corporations.
2. The Secretary, at her sole discretion, may extend the deadline set forth in this
order.

3. Upon compliance with the requirement in condition 1(a) above, this proceeding
will be closed.

By the Commission,
Jaclyn A. Brilling
Digitally Signed by Secretary
New York Public Service Commission

JACLYN A. BRILLING
Secretary

-12-