A failed generator on one of Geneseo's two municipal wind turbines has prompted city officials to begin what could become one of the most significant energy infrastructure decisions the City has faced in years.
Rather than asking the City Council to choose a course of action immediately, Electric Director Eric Rowold used Tuesday night's Committee of the Whole meeting to outline the condition of Wind Turbine No. 1, explain the financial implications of several possible paths forward, and begin framing what will likely be months of analysis before a final recommendation is made.
The discussion centered on a question that extends well beyond replacing a broken generator: Should the City invest in extending the life of a 17-year-old turbine, retire it altogether, or pursue an entirely different approach to local power generation?
Generator Failure Raises Bigger Questions
Wind Turbine No. 1 is approximately 17 years old and was originally designed with a 20-year life expectancy, although Rowold said it may be possible to extend that lifespan to 25 or even 30 years.
Doing so, however, would require much more than simply replacing the failed generator.
"We need to look at the structural concerns," Rowold said.
That includes evaluating:
the foundation and tower,
the blades,
the main bearing,
the pitch system,
the yaw system,
the electrical system,
the braking system, and
numerous other components that have experienced nearly two decades of wear.
Rowold noted that replacing only the generator could expose the City to another expensive repair if another major component fails shortly afterward.
"You could change a generator today and have blade bearing failure tomorrow," he said.
Aging Equipment Creates New Challenges
One of the largest concerns discussed Tuesday wasn't simply age—it was parts availability.
Rowold explained that although the manufacturer still supports the turbine model, newer versions have replaced Geneseo's equipment.
As a result:
replacement parts are becoming harder to source,
fewer technicians specialize in older models,
European parts must meet U.S. certification requirements before installation,
and international shipping, tariffs and customs delays have increased uncertainty.
"The longer that we go with the wind turbine, the more we're going to have troubles sourcing some of those parts," Rowold said.
What the Turbine Produces
Despite its age, Wind Turbine No. 1 remains an important part of the City's electric system.
According to Rowold, the turbine produces roughly:
3 million kilowatt-hours annually
about $420,000 worth of electricity each year
approximately 5 to 6 percent of the City's total energy needs.
If the turbine remains offline, purchasing that same electricity from MISO would increase annual costs by roughly $150,000, although Rowold noted market prices fluctuate significantly.
He also emphasized another benefit of locally generated power.
"When you're looking at $420,000, that energy is produced locally, there's no fuel being burnt and we're not paying transmission," he said.
Insurance Covers Much—But Not Everything
Replacing the generator is expected to cost approximately $955,161, according to estimates from Vestas USA and West Engineering.
The City's insurance carrier has already approved approximately $855,161, leaving the City responsible for a $100,000 deductible.
Officials are also awaiting a separate business interruption claim worth approximately $50,000 for lost electrical production while the turbine remains offline.
Even if the City proceeds, replacement won't happen quickly.
Rowold said delivery of a new generator is currently estimated at eight to ten months, with supply chain disruptions continuing to affect availability. The replacement generator would carry a three-year warranty.
Could Solar Replace It?
Council members asked whether expanding the City's solar array might eliminate the need to repair the turbine.
Rowold said replacing the turbine's production with solar would be difficult.
The City currently operates roughly one megawatt of solar generation on about five acres.
Replacing the turbine's output would require roughly three additional megawatts.
"You would have to cover every inch of that ground," Rowold said, noting the site's rolling terrain and reduced winter sunlight also limit production.
While additional solar could be added, he said it would not fully replace the turbine's output by itself.
"Do You Revive the Dead Duck?"
Council members spent much of the discussion weighing the long-term value of investing additional money into aging equipment.
Councilmember Martin Rothschild summarized the dilemma with a memorable analogy.
"The biggest thing is that we have a dead duck sitting there," Rothschild said. "Do you revive the dead duck or do you just put him to rest? That's the ultimate question."
Rowold stressed that he is not advocating for either outcome.
Instead, he said staff is trying to understand the full condition of the turbine before recommending whether replacing the generator makes financial sense.
"I am not," Rowold replied when asked if he wanted to abandon the turbine. "I am only showing you what the concerns are."
Decommissioning Remains an Option
If the City decides not to repair the turbine, removing it would also come with significant costs.
Rowold said preliminary estimates place decommissioning at approximately $214,000.
That proposal would involve cutting the tower down rather than dismantling it piece by piece.
The estimate includes:
removing and recycling the tower,
removing the generator,
disposing of the blades,
site cleanup,
but does not include removing the concrete foundation, which would remain underground.
Wind Turbine No. 2 Also Nearing End of Design Life
The discussion also highlighted that Wind Turbine No. 2 will soon face many of the same questions.
Although it continues operating, Rowold said both turbines are approaching the end of their original design life.
Earlier this year, the City hired consultants to begin evaluating long-term options, including:
extending turbine life,
repowering with newer equipment,
decommissioning,
and broader electric system planning.
That planning effort originally focused on the City's electric plant and distribution system but has expanded following the unexpected generator failure.
No Decision Yet
No action was requested Tuesday.
Instead, council members directed staff to continue gathering information, including updated repair estimates and long-term financial projections comparing the costs of repairing, replacing or retiring the turbine.
Rowold said those future presentations will examine projected revenues, maintenance costs and purchased power expenses over roughly the next 25 years before any recommendation is brought forward for council consideration.