For 40 years, NYSEG residential electricity customers have benefited from an allocation of power from the New York Power Authority's Niagara and St. Lawrence hydroelectric plants. Because of the low cost of this power, NYSEG residential customers will see a nillion benefit in 2006.
Some people are now suggesting that this power should be shifted to economic development instead of using it to benefit residential customers.
We strongly disagree and here's why; If we lose this low-cost power when the contracts for it expire on August 31,2007, NYSEG residential electricity rates would increase 12% to 14.5%.
We're fighting to keep this power for our residential customers and we'll keep you informed about our efforts.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Proposed wind farm canceled
Atlantic Renewable has dropped its plans to build 14 wind turbines in Springwater.
PPM spokeswoman Jan Johnson said Tuesday that the company’s options on property in the town have expired. “We decided to focus our efforts on the development of wind projects in other parts of New York,” Johnson said. In early 2005, PPM — owned by a Scottish parent company — proposed building the 397- foot windmills along two miles of ridge east of Strutt Street. Informally called the Bishop wind farm, it would have been visible from parts of Canadice in Ontario County.
The project raised objections in Springwater and prompted officials in Canadice to start working on wind-farm regulations in the event that an energy company started looking for turbine sites there. Canadice will hold a hearing on that law as early as February.
Earlier this year, PPM Energy opened the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County — 120 turbines, each 320 feet tall.
PPM spokeswoman Jan Johnson said Tuesday that the company’s options on property in the town have expired. “We decided to focus our efforts on the development of wind projects in other parts of New York,” Johnson said. In early 2005, PPM — owned by a Scottish parent company — proposed building the 397- foot windmills along two miles of ridge east of Strutt Street. Informally called the Bishop wind farm, it would have been visible from parts of Canadice in Ontario County.
The project raised objections in Springwater and prompted officials in Canadice to start working on wind-farm regulations in the event that an energy company started looking for turbine sites there. Canadice will hold a hearing on that law as early as February.
Earlier this year, PPM Energy opened the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County — 120 turbines, each 320 feet tall.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Partial Supplemental Draft Environment Impact - Phase I
COHOCTON WIND POWER PROJECT is the name being used for the UPC Cohocton Phase I project.
NOTE: the size has been increased to a 90 MW project for just Phase I.
Appendices and figures are not available; there is no Dutch Hill. There is no inclusion of the hearings of the DEIS, nor interested/involved agency list and communication, no response to public and interested/involved agency input and correspondence as well as the highly important Germanischer Lloyd certifying engineer agency technical data and recommendations as per Clipper Website.
There is also no notification of hearing and deadlines for public submission.
(click on this UPC link for the PDF file)
NOTE: the size has been increased to a 90 MW project for just Phase I.
Appendices and figures are not available; there is no Dutch Hill. There is no inclusion of the hearings of the DEIS, nor interested/involved agency list and communication, no response to public and interested/involved agency input and correspondence as well as the highly important Germanischer Lloyd certifying engineer agency technical data and recommendations as per Clipper Website.
There is also no notification of hearing and deadlines for public submission.
(click on this UPC link for the PDF file)
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Cohocton Wind Watch Media/Press release - sues Town of Cohocton
COHOCTON WIND WATCH GROUP SUES TOWN OVER WINDMILL LAW
On December 20, 2006, Cohocton Wind Watch and a number of Cohocton residents filed a lawsuit against the Town to annul the passage of Local Law #2 of 2006, which purports to regulate the siting, construction and operation of windmills within the Town. The petitioners claim that the law was passed without required environmental review, and violated various other zoning procedures.
The law that the petitioners seek to void would allow construction of industrial size windmills of up to 500 feet in height, that would be lighted with strobe lights all night long, 365 days per year, and that might cause safety hazards by ice throw or stray electricity. The siting and construction of these windmills would also cause significant environmental damage through bird kill, wetland destruction, and loss of prime agricultural land.
James Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch and a petitioner in the lawsuit stated that "we all live in Cohocton because we love and appreciate the beautiful rural and agricultural nature of our Town. These huge industrial windmills will destroy this quality of life."
The case has been assigned to Judge Mary Anne Furfure, and will be heard at the Steuben County Courthouse in Bath on January 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM.
Richard Lippes, Buffalo NY and David Miller, Naples, NY are the attorneys for the petitioners.
Cohocton Wind Watch Inquiries:
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
(585) 534-5581
Emails to: cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
On December 20, 2006, Cohocton Wind Watch and a number of Cohocton residents filed a lawsuit against the Town to annul the passage of Local Law #2 of 2006, which purports to regulate the siting, construction and operation of windmills within the Town. The petitioners claim that the law was passed without required environmental review, and violated various other zoning procedures.
The law that the petitioners seek to void would allow construction of industrial size windmills of up to 500 feet in height, that would be lighted with strobe lights all night long, 365 days per year, and that might cause safety hazards by ice throw or stray electricity. The siting and construction of these windmills would also cause significant environmental damage through bird kill, wetland destruction, and loss of prime agricultural land.
James Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch and a petitioner in the lawsuit stated that "we all live in Cohocton because we love and appreciate the beautiful rural and agricultural nature of our Town. These huge industrial windmills will destroy this quality of life."
The case has been assigned to Judge Mary Anne Furfure, and will be heard at the Steuben County Courthouse in Bath on January 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM.
Richard Lippes, Buffalo NY and David Miller, Naples, NY are the attorneys for the petitioners.
Cohocton Wind Watch Inquiries:
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
(585) 534-5581
Emails to: cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Plan may put wind farms in Empire Zones by MARY PERHAM
HAMMONDSPORT | A new state incentive could bring i new revenues to Steuben County, .and the towns and schools in areas pegged for wind farm development. James Sherron, county Industrial Development Agency executive director, recently told the SCIDA "board the state intends to place all existing and proposed wind farms in Empire Zones.
Under the plan, wind farm develbpers would pay their property taxes and then would be reimbursed by the state. The proposal means towns, school districts and the county would receive their full share of taxes from developers.
Currently, the county agency provides some tax breaks that allows developers to pay a reduced amount of their taxes. As a result, local governments don't receive the full amount they are owed.
"This is a real windfall for these towns and schools," said James Griffin, a board member and executive director of the Hornell IDA. "In these rural areas that don't have much of a way to increase their revenues, this is going to make a huge difference."
Sherron said the new incentive requires an amendment to existing state regulations and would not change zones already in place in the county.
He said there was nb estimate how much new revenue placing wind farms in Empire Zones would produce, but guessed it would amount to "millions and millions.'' Steuben County would still . insist wind farm developers conform to environment study requirements, Sherron said.
Sherron said the county can still offer other tax, breaks as an option, or in the event the amendment is vetoed by Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer after he takes office Jan. 1, 2007.
Wind farm development in the county- has been-. the source of controversy since Global Winds first proposed a site in the town of Prattsburgh in 2002. Supporters claim the 400-foot-tall turbines provide an essential source of renewable energy and local revenue. Opponents charge the .turbines do not generate significant amounts of electricity and threaten people and the environment. Sherron told the board the proposed developments throughout the county are picking up speed, particularly in the town of Prattsburgh where the first two projects were proposed.
Sherron said EcoGen wants to break ground for a 53-turbine project this spring but must submit environmental studies on each site for review. A lawsuit filed by residents of the town against EcoGen and SCIDA is still being considered by the state appellate court, said SCIDA Attorney John Leyden.
The other Prattsburgh developer, Global Winds, is ready to submit its final environmental impact statement on its 44-turbtne wind farm to SCIDA in January, Sherron said.
The two developers are rivals for the same turf, since a nearby power substation can only accommodate energy, from one wind farm.
Developers fpr separate projects in the towns of Hornby, Howard, and Hartsville and Hornellsville, are completing their draft environmental studies, Sherron told the board.
The town of Howard is now being sued by four residents who claim the town should not have named SCIDA as the chief supervisor of the project.
Howard successfully defended an earlier legal challenge some board members owned land being considered for turbines and were illegally using their position to encourage developers and promote, personal financial gain.
Plans in Hartsville are unsettled since the uproar over wind farm development there led to the recent resignations of the town supervisor and deputy supervisor.
Under the plan, wind farm develbpers would pay their property taxes and then would be reimbursed by the state. The proposal means towns, school districts and the county would receive their full share of taxes from developers.
Currently, the county agency provides some tax breaks that allows developers to pay a reduced amount of their taxes. As a result, local governments don't receive the full amount they are owed.
"This is a real windfall for these towns and schools," said James Griffin, a board member and executive director of the Hornell IDA. "In these rural areas that don't have much of a way to increase their revenues, this is going to make a huge difference."
Sherron said the new incentive requires an amendment to existing state regulations and would not change zones already in place in the county.
He said there was nb estimate how much new revenue placing wind farms in Empire Zones would produce, but guessed it would amount to "millions and millions.'' Steuben County would still . insist wind farm developers conform to environment study requirements, Sherron said.
Sherron said the county can still offer other tax, breaks as an option, or in the event the amendment is vetoed by Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer after he takes office Jan. 1, 2007.
Wind farm development in the county- has been-. the source of controversy since Global Winds first proposed a site in the town of Prattsburgh in 2002. Supporters claim the 400-foot-tall turbines provide an essential source of renewable energy and local revenue. Opponents charge the .turbines do not generate significant amounts of electricity and threaten people and the environment. Sherron told the board the proposed developments throughout the county are picking up speed, particularly in the town of Prattsburgh where the first two projects were proposed.
Sherron said EcoGen wants to break ground for a 53-turbine project this spring but must submit environmental studies on each site for review. A lawsuit filed by residents of the town against EcoGen and SCIDA is still being considered by the state appellate court, said SCIDA Attorney John Leyden.
The other Prattsburgh developer, Global Winds, is ready to submit its final environmental impact statement on its 44-turbtne wind farm to SCIDA in January, Sherron said.
The two developers are rivals for the same turf, since a nearby power substation can only accommodate energy, from one wind farm.
Developers fpr separate projects in the towns of Hornby, Howard, and Hartsville and Hornellsville, are completing their draft environmental studies, Sherron told the board.
The town of Howard is now being sued by four residents who claim the town should not have named SCIDA as the chief supervisor of the project.
Howard successfully defended an earlier legal challenge some board members owned land being considered for turbines and were illegally using their position to encourage developers and promote, personal financial gain.
Plans in Hartsville are unsettled since the uproar over wind farm development there led to the recent resignations of the town supervisor and deputy supervisor.
Cherry Valley adopts tough wind ordinance
December 15, 2006 in The Freeman's Journal
The bleachers were filled at the old high school gym and applause erupted when the Cherry Valley town board Thursday, Dec. 14, voted, 2-1, in favor of a "gold standard" wind ordinance that may stop Reunion Power from building 24 turbines on East Hill.
Supervisor Tom Garretson and Town Board member Jim Johnson voted in favor of the measure, while retiring board member Fabian Bressett III voted nay.
This was also the last meeting for Bressett, who is retiring after 33 years on the town board. The board "selected" Mark Cornwell, who works in the SUNY Cobleskill fisheries and wildlife program. He and his wife, Christine, have opposed the windmill development. Cornwell will be confirmed in the job next month.
While Bressett voted against the ordinance, he paved the way for the ordinance's adoption by making the motion to put the question into play.
Web link: http://thefreemansjournal.com/
The bleachers were filled at the old high school gym and applause erupted when the Cherry Valley town board Thursday, Dec. 14, voted, 2-1, in favor of a "gold standard" wind ordinance that may stop Reunion Power from building 24 turbines on East Hill.
Supervisor Tom Garretson and Town Board member Jim Johnson voted in favor of the measure, while retiring board member Fabian Bressett III voted nay.
This was also the last meeting for Bressett, who is retiring after 33 years on the town board. The board "selected" Mark Cornwell, who works in the SUNY Cobleskill fisheries and wildlife program. He and his wife, Christine, have opposed the windmill development. Cornwell will be confirmed in the job next month.
While Bressett voted against the ordinance, he paved the way for the ordinance's adoption by making the motion to put the question into play.
Web link: http://thefreemansjournal.com/
Friday, December 15, 2006
WIND ORDINANCE VOTE IS THURSDAY by JIM AUSTIN
CHERRY VALLEY _ A vote on a controversial local wind ordinance is on the agenda for Thursday night's Cherry Valley town board meeting.
The ordinance, which sets standards for the installation of wind turbines in the town, threatens to short circuit Reunion Power's plan to erect two dozen turbines East Hill in the town of Cherry Valley.
Reunion Power's project manager David Little said in September that they had serious concerns about the law and has proposed compromises so that the project can move ahead.
``In essence, the current draft amounts to a permanent moratorium,'' Little wrote in a letter to town board members.
He claimed noise limits and the required setbacks from property lines and residences was ``by far in excess of standards contained in any scientifically-based ordinances or local laws that have been passed by at least fifteen other communities within the state of New York.''
The ordinance, he wrote, ``would make it impossible for any developer to site even a single windmill on the East Hill.''
But the town planning board disagrees. Its members developed the law with the assistance of consulting engineers and Syracuse attorney Tom Fucillo. In a letter to town supervisor Tom Garretson, the board said the ordinance provided ``a strong basis to appropriately control wind energy systems in our town and to balance the benefits of such systems with the potential impacts of such systems on the citizens of this town and the environment.''
The planning board's letter also specifically addressed the 1,200-foot setback from property lines and 2,000-foot setback from residences for the wind turbines.
``We believe that the larger setbacks are both reasonable and necessary to protect adjacent landowners from the potential impact of such large industrial projects,'' the board's stated.
Earlier this fall, Garreston said the town needed a law ``that's going to protect the town. That comes first.'' He went on to say that if one developer finds they can not work within the confines of the town's proposed wind ordinance then perhaps another developer can.
Now, with two public hearings and some revisions behind them, the town board is set to vote on the ordinance.
And Reunion Power's East Hill Wind Farm is running an ad in local newspapers this week making a last-minute plea for a compromise on the wind ordinance.
``A compromise position has been offered that would result in Cherry Valley having the most restrictive wind ordinance in New York State and will still allow for a limited version of the project to move forward. The development team of the East Hill Wind Farm respectfully requests that the town board consider the proposed compromise and allow the town and its residents to benefit from the East Hill Wind Farm,'' the ad states.
Another ad is undersigned by 28 town residents and asks the community to urge the town board to reject the wind ordinance.
``If you believe in a better future for our children and the opportunity for all of the Townís residents to receive the benefits, let the Town Board know you support the project and encourage them to seek a compromise,'' the ad states.
On the eve of the vote, the Advocates for Cherry Valley, who oppose the project, remain optimistic the board will listen to the recommendation of the planning board and adopt the ordinance.
``We have made every appeal to reason and to the board's sense of fair play. In the process we have by far made the best case. I hope we are not disappointed,'' Advocates spokesman Andy Minnig said Wednesday morning.
``By approving the ordinance the board would return the town of Cherry Valley to a tradition of responsible government. If they fail to approve it, they would deny their own planning board's wisdom and the expressed will of the community. Calls for defeat of the ordinance and for "compromise" being made by the developer are analogous to the thief in your house saying, `let's negotiate.'''
Garretson said Tuesday that he plans on asking for a motion to adopt the wind ordinance Thursday night.
``If we can get this ordinance in place, we'll be in the driver's seat where we belong,'' he said.
The supervisor said he also plans to select a replacement Thursday night for board member Fabian Bressett III, who announced his intention to resign effective at the end of the year.
Garretson said there is some uncertainty and he is researching whether or not the board must wait until a vacancy actually exists before making the official appointment.
The meeting will be Thurs., Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. in the old school gymnasium.
The ordinance, which sets standards for the installation of wind turbines in the town, threatens to short circuit Reunion Power's plan to erect two dozen turbines East Hill in the town of Cherry Valley.
Reunion Power's project manager David Little said in September that they had serious concerns about the law and has proposed compromises so that the project can move ahead.
``In essence, the current draft amounts to a permanent moratorium,'' Little wrote in a letter to town board members.
He claimed noise limits and the required setbacks from property lines and residences was ``by far in excess of standards contained in any scientifically-based ordinances or local laws that have been passed by at least fifteen other communities within the state of New York.''
The ordinance, he wrote, ``would make it impossible for any developer to site even a single windmill on the East Hill.''
But the town planning board disagrees. Its members developed the law with the assistance of consulting engineers and Syracuse attorney Tom Fucillo. In a letter to town supervisor Tom Garretson, the board said the ordinance provided ``a strong basis to appropriately control wind energy systems in our town and to balance the benefits of such systems with the potential impacts of such systems on the citizens of this town and the environment.''
The planning board's letter also specifically addressed the 1,200-foot setback from property lines and 2,000-foot setback from residences for the wind turbines.
``We believe that the larger setbacks are both reasonable and necessary to protect adjacent landowners from the potential impact of such large industrial projects,'' the board's stated.
Earlier this fall, Garreston said the town needed a law ``that's going to protect the town. That comes first.'' He went on to say that if one developer finds they can not work within the confines of the town's proposed wind ordinance then perhaps another developer can.
Now, with two public hearings and some revisions behind them, the town board is set to vote on the ordinance.
And Reunion Power's East Hill Wind Farm is running an ad in local newspapers this week making a last-minute plea for a compromise on the wind ordinance.
``A compromise position has been offered that would result in Cherry Valley having the most restrictive wind ordinance in New York State and will still allow for a limited version of the project to move forward. The development team of the East Hill Wind Farm respectfully requests that the town board consider the proposed compromise and allow the town and its residents to benefit from the East Hill Wind Farm,'' the ad states.
Another ad is undersigned by 28 town residents and asks the community to urge the town board to reject the wind ordinance.
``If you believe in a better future for our children and the opportunity for all of the Townís residents to receive the benefits, let the Town Board know you support the project and encourage them to seek a compromise,'' the ad states.
On the eve of the vote, the Advocates for Cherry Valley, who oppose the project, remain optimistic the board will listen to the recommendation of the planning board and adopt the ordinance.
``We have made every appeal to reason and to the board's sense of fair play. In the process we have by far made the best case. I hope we are not disappointed,'' Advocates spokesman Andy Minnig said Wednesday morning.
``By approving the ordinance the board would return the town of Cherry Valley to a tradition of responsible government. If they fail to approve it, they would deny their own planning board's wisdom and the expressed will of the community. Calls for defeat of the ordinance and for "compromise" being made by the developer are analogous to the thief in your house saying, `let's negotiate.'''
Garretson said Tuesday that he plans on asking for a motion to adopt the wind ordinance Thursday night.
``If we can get this ordinance in place, we'll be in the driver's seat where we belong,'' he said.
The supervisor said he also plans to select a replacement Thursday night for board member Fabian Bressett III, who announced his intention to resign effective at the end of the year.
Garretson said there is some uncertainty and he is researching whether or not the board must wait until a vacancy actually exists before making the official appointment.
The meeting will be Thurs., Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. in the old school gymnasium.
Cohocton Town attorney response to CWW ethic complaints on Councilman Wayne Hunt
Patrick F. McAllister
Attorney at Law
31 Main Street, P.O. Box 338
Wayland, New York 14572
(585)728-2110
Fax: (585)728-2715
e-mail: patmclaw@frontiernet.net
December 7, 2006
RE: Town of Cohocton
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am in receipt of your letters dated October 2, 2006 and November 29, 2006, addressed to the Town of Cohocton Board of Ethics.
Pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of Local Law No. 1 of 1970 of the Town of Cohocton, the Town Board of Ethics may render advisory opinions to officers and employees of the Town. See also General Municipal Law § 808. Article III Section 2 of Local Law No. 1 of 1970 also requires that such opinions be held confidential by authorized persons and agencies of the Town.
You may want to contact your attorney or the New York State Department of State, Division of Local Governments concerning the remainder of the issues identified in the October 2, 2006 and November 29, 2006 letters.
Thank you. Yours very truly,
Patrick F. McAllister PFM:amd
cc: David P. Miller, Esq.
Attorney at Law
31 Main Street, P.O. Box 338
Wayland, New York 14572
(585)728-2110
Fax: (585)728-2715
e-mail: patmclaw@frontiernet.net
December 7, 2006
RE: Town of Cohocton
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am in receipt of your letters dated October 2, 2006 and November 29, 2006, addressed to the Town of Cohocton Board of Ethics.
Pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of Local Law No. 1 of 1970 of the Town of Cohocton, the Town Board of Ethics may render advisory opinions to officers and employees of the Town. See also General Municipal Law § 808. Article III Section 2 of Local Law No. 1 of 1970 also requires that such opinions be held confidential by authorized persons and agencies of the Town.
You may want to contact your attorney or the New York State Department of State, Division of Local Governments concerning the remainder of the issues identified in the October 2, 2006 and November 29, 2006 letters.
Thank you. Yours very truly,
Patrick F. McAllister PFM:amd
cc: David P. Miller, Esq.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
No welcome mat for wind farms in Canadice by LENORE FRIEND
The town of Canadice proposes regulations for windmills, with the greatest restrictions on industrial turbines.
By LENORE FRIEND
Messenger Post Staff
CANADICE — Canadice is not outlawing wind farms, but the town wants to make it pretty difficult for any 400-foot turbines to get built here.
That’s the gist of a proposed windfarm law up for public inspection on Monday, Dec. 11, at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall. It’s not the official hearing that precedes a Town Board vote; that could come in January. But it is the first time the public can read and comment on a full text that the Wind Farm Study Group has been revising
over the last year.
The 11-page law would prohibit industrial towers in places where the Planning Board feels they would detract from the view. “We live in a very scenic town,” said Charlie Gray, co-chairman of the Wind Farm Study Group. “If they put (towers) across Bald Hill overlooking the two watershed lakes, we might consider that detrimental.”
The law does not name any specific protected views though Gray said that could come later. The law limits industrial turbines, meaning those built to sell electricity
to the grid, to the same height as telecommunications towers: 195 feet. It limits their output to three-tenths of a megawatt.
That is half the height and a fraction of the output of the turbines proposed in nearby Prattsburgh and Cohocton, meaning a wind-energy company would likely have to apply for variances at the outset. The extra step was intentional. “Why would we not want to have that control?” Gray asked.
The law imposes fewer requirements on smaller windmills meant to power a single home or business. “We’re not trying to restrict the private towers,” Gray said.
The height restriction of 60 feet may also require a home or business owner to get a variance before putting up a windmill, however.
Richard Gammell, owner of Canadice Construction, a commercial framing operation, is seeking state certification to install windmills. He has completed class work and now needs field experience helping erect a single windmill, which he said are typically 100 feet tall with up to a 20-kilowatt output.
“I think that’s a little low,” he said of the 60-foot limit. “If they went with 120 to 130 feet, I would say it would be fine.”
To review a copy of the current proposal, stop by the Town Hall or visit www.canadice.org. Scroll to the Wind Farm Study Group in the upper right corner of the home page. Click on “Draft Changes to Town Code to Regulate Potential Wind Farms.” Then, scroll to the bottom of the page and look for “Click here to review
proposed changes.”
Contact Lenore Friend at (585)
394-0770, Ext. 256 or at
lfriend@mpnewspapers.com.
By LENORE FRIEND
Messenger Post Staff
CANADICE — Canadice is not outlawing wind farms, but the town wants to make it pretty difficult for any 400-foot turbines to get built here.
That’s the gist of a proposed windfarm law up for public inspection on Monday, Dec. 11, at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall. It’s not the official hearing that precedes a Town Board vote; that could come in January. But it is the first time the public can read and comment on a full text that the Wind Farm Study Group has been revising
over the last year.
The 11-page law would prohibit industrial towers in places where the Planning Board feels they would detract from the view. “We live in a very scenic town,” said Charlie Gray, co-chairman of the Wind Farm Study Group. “If they put (towers) across Bald Hill overlooking the two watershed lakes, we might consider that detrimental.”
The law does not name any specific protected views though Gray said that could come later. The law limits industrial turbines, meaning those built to sell electricity
to the grid, to the same height as telecommunications towers: 195 feet. It limits their output to three-tenths of a megawatt.
That is half the height and a fraction of the output of the turbines proposed in nearby Prattsburgh and Cohocton, meaning a wind-energy company would likely have to apply for variances at the outset. The extra step was intentional. “Why would we not want to have that control?” Gray asked.
The law imposes fewer requirements on smaller windmills meant to power a single home or business. “We’re not trying to restrict the private towers,” Gray said.
The height restriction of 60 feet may also require a home or business owner to get a variance before putting up a windmill, however.
Richard Gammell, owner of Canadice Construction, a commercial framing operation, is seeking state certification to install windmills. He has completed class work and now needs field experience helping erect a single windmill, which he said are typically 100 feet tall with up to a 20-kilowatt output.
“I think that’s a little low,” he said of the 60-foot limit. “If they went with 120 to 130 feet, I would say it would be fine.”
To review a copy of the current proposal, stop by the Town Hall or visit www.canadice.org. Scroll to the Wind Farm Study Group in the upper right corner of the home page. Click on “Draft Changes to Town Code to Regulate Potential Wind Farms.” Then, scroll to the bottom of the page and look for “Click here to review
proposed changes.”
Contact Lenore Friend at (585)
394-0770, Ext. 256 or at
lfriend@mpnewspapers.com.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Focus on Monroe County Future
On March 22, our Monroe Copunty Board of Supervisors passed a Wind Energy Facility Zoning Ordinance.
The ordinance proposed by our county board will not adequately protect the citizens of this couty. We need a stronger ordinance.
Expert opinion on what's wrong with the ordinance:
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3
A Stronger Ordinance is Needed.
Please, call your Monroe County Supervisor.
Tell them to veto the proposed ordinance. Tell them you want an ordinance that protects the health, safety, general welfare, and private property rights of Monroe County citizens.
Tell Them: Do It Right--or don't do it at all.
Resource Information:
Monroe County Wind Ordinance
Shawano County Wind Ordinance (an example of a better wind ordinance)
National Wind Watch
Stop Ill Wind
Glebe Mountain Group
How big are they?About us | Contact | Resource Links
The ordinance proposed by our county board will not adequately protect the citizens of this couty. We need a stronger ordinance.
Expert opinion on what's wrong with the ordinance:
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3
A Stronger Ordinance is Needed.
Please, call your Monroe County Supervisor.
Tell them to veto the proposed ordinance. Tell them you want an ordinance that protects the health, safety, general welfare, and private property rights of Monroe County citizens.
Tell Them: Do It Right--or don't do it at all.
Resource Information:
Monroe County Wind Ordinance
Shawano County Wind Ordinance (an example of a better wind ordinance)
National Wind Watch
Stop Ill Wind
Glebe Mountain Group
How big are they?About us | Contact | Resource Links
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Wind Energy Will NOT Reduce US Oil Dependence – December 2006 Update
One of the false claims made by “wind energy” advocates is that greater use of wind energy would reduce US dependence on oil, including oil imports.
In fact, adding more wind turbines will have no significant impact on US oil consumption.
Unfortunately, many well-meaning people (including reporters) and some regulators and political leaders have accepted – and repeated -- the wind advocates’ false claims about reductions in oil use. This brief paper explains why the reduced oil use claim is false.
(The claim about reduced oil dependence is only one of many false and misleading claims made by the wind industry, US Department of Energy (DOE), DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) and other wind advocates. Other such claims are discussed elsewhere.1)
Facts about oil use in electric generation in the US
1. The only potential use of wind turbines is to produce electricity.
2. Very little oil is used in the US to produce electricity. In 2005, only 3.0% of the electricity generated in the US was produced by using oil.2 Oil use was up slightly in 2004 and 2005 from 2003 because of high natural gas prices which made it more economical for some generating companies to use oil. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects that the share of electricity generated by oil will drop to 1.85% by 2030.3
3. Most of the use of oil in the US for electricity generation occurs in a few states. As shown in the attached table, in 2005, 3 states (Florida, New York and Hawaii) accounted for more than 57% of all the electricity in the US generated by using oil.
4. Oil accounted for more than 5% of electric generation in only 11 states and the District of Columbia. Those states are Hawaii, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
5. Oil accounted for less than 1% of electric generation in 29 states. Twenty-four of those were less than ½ of 1%.
Reasons why wind energy will have no significant impact on oil use for electric generation
6. Even in those few states where oil accounts for more than 1% of electricity generation, adding wind turbines would have very little, if any, impact on oil consumption. The facts supporting this conclusion are complex and many of those who have believed the false claims might be forgiven for their errors. However, the complexity does not excuse officials from DOE, NREL or the wind industry who should know better. But, in any case, here is why wind energy is highly unlikely to reduce to reduce oil use in electric generation:
a. About 9.7% of the oil used in electric generation in 2005 was “distillate” oil4
used in combustion turbine and internal combustion electric generating units.5
The cost of this oil is high and such units are used almost exclusively in times when electricity demand is at its highest level (e.g., during hot weekday afternoons in July and August). Little if any wind generated electricity is available during those times.
b. Most of the remaining 90% of the oil used in electric generation was “residual oil” (#4 & #5) that is used in older, oil-fired steam-electric generating units (oil is burned to heat water and create steam to drive a turbine).
c. These older oil-fired steam-electric units are quite unlikely to be the units that are backed down or ramped up to adjust for the intermittent, highly volatile (output often varies widely minute to minute) and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines – which produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range.6
d. Instead, the generating units that are likely to be used to “back up” the intermittent wind turbines will be units that are either:
1) Designed and designated to serve in an Automatic Generation Control (AGC) mode to keep an electric grid in balance (i.e., frequency and voltage),
2) Producing at less than full capacity and capable of ramping up or down on short notice, or
3) Operating in a “spinning reserve” mode.7
Electricity supply and demand must be kept in balance. Electricity production is constantly adjusted to meet electricity demand. The generating units that serve best in backing up intermittent, volatile wind turbines are hydropower units because the output from these units can be increased or decreased almost instantaneously. The next best alternatives are gas-fired turbine-based generating units (e.g., combined-cycle or larger simple cycle). Oil-fired units are less likely to be used in the required balancing role for wind turbines because (a) the oil-fired combustion turbine and internal combustion units are unlikely to be running except in times of peak demand, and (b) the oil-fired steamelectric units are likely to have slower response times than is necessary to back up wind turbines.
e. The generating units used to “back up” intermittent and volatile wind generation will depend on the generating mix and other conditions in the grid control area that is receiving the electricity from wind turbines. In the Pacific-Northwest, for example, hydro power would likely serve in the balancing role – with no savings in oil. In New England, with its heavy dependence on natural gas and a significant amount of newer gas-fired generating capacity, a gas-fired unit would likely serve in the balancing role, again with little or no savings in oil use.
7. In summary, there is very little likelihood that any oil use in electric generation would be reduced by adding wind turbines. This would certainly be true in the states with only small shares of their electric generation from oil.
The electric industry officials who will have the exact data on the generating units that are run to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines are those who handle the day to day management and control of electric grids and transmission systems; i.e., depending on the region of the US, electric utility, the power pool, the independent system operator (ISO), or the regional transmission organization (RTO). Where is most oil used in the US?
During 2005, US oil use8 averaged 20,802,000 barrels per day.9 The shares of US oil consumption by sector were as follows:10
• Transportation. - 67.5%
• Industrial - 23.8%
• Residential - 3.7%
• Electric Generation - 3.0%
• Commercial - 1.9%
Total - 100%
As the above table suggests, those seeking a reduction in US oil consumption will need to focus primarily on oil use in transportation.
Glenn R. Schleede *
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
Attachment: 2005 Electric Generation by State & US Total – All energy sources & petroleum
Endnotes:
1 For facts about other false and misleading claims, see my paper entitled: “Facing up to the true costs and benefits of
wind energy,” June 24, 2004, and others that can be found at http://www.windaction.org/, or http://www.windwatch.
org/ or www.tsaugust.org .
2 US Energy Information Administration, Electricity Data Base, Generation.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html
3 US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Table A8.
4 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 7.3b.
5 A small amount of distillate oil may be used as a start up fuel in oil or coal-fired steam electric generating units or
occasionally to assist in flame stabilization.
6 Larger wind turbines now being installed begin producing electricity when wind is around 6 miles per hour, reach
rated capacity at around 33 MPH and are shut down to avoid equipment damage around 56 MPH.
7 That is, running and synchronized with the grid but not inputting electricity.
8 Technically, “products delivered.”
9 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 3.1b.
10 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Tables 2.2 – 2.6.
______________________________________________
* GLENN R. SCHLEEDE is semi-retired after working on energy and related matters in government and the private
sector for over 30 years. He now devotes a significant portion of his time to self-financed analysis of and writing about
(a) government policies, programs and regulations that are detrimental to the interests of consumers and taxpayers, and
(b) government or private sector programs and projects that are presented to the media, public and government
officials in a false or misleading way. “Wind energy” is a frequent topic.
2005 Electric Generation by State and US Total*
All Energy Sources & Petroleum in Kilowatt-hours & Percent Petroleum
Kilowatt-hours Kilowatt-hours % of State's State Share of
Generated -- generated by using Electric Generation US oil-fired electric
All Energy Sources Petroleum from Petroleum Generation
State
FL 220,256,412,000 37,229,508,000 16.90% 30.39%
NY 146,887,419,000 24,044,258,000 16.37% 19.62%
HI 11,522,805,000 9,076,427,000 78.77% 7.41%
MA 47,515,443,000 7,119,369,000 14.98% 5.81%
PA 218,091,125,000 4,965,387,000 2.28% 4.05%
VA 78,943,045,000 4,276,268,000 5.42% 3.49%
MD 52,661,600,000 3,817,584,000 7.25% 3.12%
KY 97,822,419,000 3,680,685,000 3.76% 3.00%
LA 92,616,878,000 3,485,935,000 3.76% 2.85%
CT 33,549,747,000 3,156,048,000 9.41% 2.58%
CA 200,292,818,000 2,576,322,000 1.29% 2.10%
TX 396,668,722,000 1,613,248,000 0.41% 1.32%
ME 18,843,978,000 1,611,697,000 8.55% 1.32%
MS 45,067,453,000 1,444,848,000 3.21% 1.18%
OH 156,976,323,000 1,390,649,000 0.89% 1.14%
NH 23,735,290,000 1,357,142,000 5.72% 1.11%
DE 8,136,568,000 1,216,423,000 14.95% 0.99%
NJ 60,549,583,000 1,106,561,000 1.83% 0.90%
GA 136,667,892,000 1,019,233,000 0.75% 0.83%
KS 45,862,696,000 986,408,000 2.15% 0.81%
MI 121,619,771,000 897,881,000 0.74% 0.73%
MN 53,018,995,000 783,358,000 1.48% 0.64%
AK 6,576,659,000 760,118,000 11.56% 0.62%
WI 61,824,664,000 724,230,000 1.17% 0.59%
SC 102,514,665,000 672,803,000 0.66% 0.55%
NC 129,748,578,000 485,079,000 0.37% 0.40%
MT 27,938,778,000 413,991,000 1.48% 0.34%
IL 194,120,146,000 326,024,000 0.17% 0.27%
IN 130,371,573,000 279,038,000 0.21% 0.23%
AL 137,948,581,000 234,880,000 0.17% 0.19%
TN 97,117,165,000 230,527,000 0.24% 0.19%
DC 226,042,000 226,042,000 100.00% 0.18%
WV 93,626,285,000 223,552,000 0.24% 0.18%
AR 47,794,509,000 206,675,000 0.43% 0.17%
MO 90,828,230,000 168,418,000 0.19% 0.14%
IA 44,156,160,000 149,537,000 0.34% 0.12%
OR 49,325,003,000 78,191,000 0.16% 0.06%
OK 68,607,827,000 70,333,000 0.10% 0.06%
WA 101,965,850,000 64,181,000 0.06% 0.05%
RI 6,053,294,000 55,814,000 0.92% 0.05%
AZ 101,478,654,000 43,208,000 0.04% 0.04%
WY 45,567,307,000 42,295,000 0.09% 0.03%
UT 38,165,131,000 40,909,000 0.11% 0.03%
NM 35,135,642,000 36,909,000 0.11% 0.03%
ND 31,932,615,000 34,207,000 0.11% 0.03%
NE 31,464,734,000 31,234,000 0.10% 0.03%
SD 6,520,769,000 20,785,000 0.32% 0.02%
NV 40,213,752,000 20,500,000 0.05% 0.02%
CO 49,616,694,000 17,046,000 0.03% 0.01%
VT 5,716,755,000 10,179,000 0.18% 0.01%
ID 10,824,984,000 5,000 0.00% 0.00%
US-TOTAL 4,054,688,028,000 122,521,949,000 3.02% 100.00%
Data Source: US Energy Information administration, Electricity Data Base, Generation
* All electric generation including utilities, non-utility generators & combined heat & power.
In fact, adding more wind turbines will have no significant impact on US oil consumption.
Unfortunately, many well-meaning people (including reporters) and some regulators and political leaders have accepted – and repeated -- the wind advocates’ false claims about reductions in oil use. This brief paper explains why the reduced oil use claim is false.
(The claim about reduced oil dependence is only one of many false and misleading claims made by the wind industry, US Department of Energy (DOE), DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) and other wind advocates. Other such claims are discussed elsewhere.1)
Facts about oil use in electric generation in the US
1. The only potential use of wind turbines is to produce electricity.
2. Very little oil is used in the US to produce electricity. In 2005, only 3.0% of the electricity generated in the US was produced by using oil.2 Oil use was up slightly in 2004 and 2005 from 2003 because of high natural gas prices which made it more economical for some generating companies to use oil. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects that the share of electricity generated by oil will drop to 1.85% by 2030.3
3. Most of the use of oil in the US for electricity generation occurs in a few states. As shown in the attached table, in 2005, 3 states (Florida, New York and Hawaii) accounted for more than 57% of all the electricity in the US generated by using oil.
4. Oil accounted for more than 5% of electric generation in only 11 states and the District of Columbia. Those states are Hawaii, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
5. Oil accounted for less than 1% of electric generation in 29 states. Twenty-four of those were less than ½ of 1%.
Reasons why wind energy will have no significant impact on oil use for electric generation
6. Even in those few states where oil accounts for more than 1% of electricity generation, adding wind turbines would have very little, if any, impact on oil consumption. The facts supporting this conclusion are complex and many of those who have believed the false claims might be forgiven for their errors. However, the complexity does not excuse officials from DOE, NREL or the wind industry who should know better. But, in any case, here is why wind energy is highly unlikely to reduce to reduce oil use in electric generation:
a. About 9.7% of the oil used in electric generation in 2005 was “distillate” oil4
used in combustion turbine and internal combustion electric generating units.5
The cost of this oil is high and such units are used almost exclusively in times when electricity demand is at its highest level (e.g., during hot weekday afternoons in July and August). Little if any wind generated electricity is available during those times.
b. Most of the remaining 90% of the oil used in electric generation was “residual oil” (#4 & #5) that is used in older, oil-fired steam-electric generating units (oil is burned to heat water and create steam to drive a turbine).
c. These older oil-fired steam-electric units are quite unlikely to be the units that are backed down or ramped up to adjust for the intermittent, highly volatile (output often varies widely minute to minute) and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines – which produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range.6
d. Instead, the generating units that are likely to be used to “back up” the intermittent wind turbines will be units that are either:
1) Designed and designated to serve in an Automatic Generation Control (AGC) mode to keep an electric grid in balance (i.e., frequency and voltage),
2) Producing at less than full capacity and capable of ramping up or down on short notice, or
3) Operating in a “spinning reserve” mode.7
Electricity supply and demand must be kept in balance. Electricity production is constantly adjusted to meet electricity demand. The generating units that serve best in backing up intermittent, volatile wind turbines are hydropower units because the output from these units can be increased or decreased almost instantaneously. The next best alternatives are gas-fired turbine-based generating units (e.g., combined-cycle or larger simple cycle). Oil-fired units are less likely to be used in the required balancing role for wind turbines because (a) the oil-fired combustion turbine and internal combustion units are unlikely to be running except in times of peak demand, and (b) the oil-fired steamelectric units are likely to have slower response times than is necessary to back up wind turbines.
e. The generating units used to “back up” intermittent and volatile wind generation will depend on the generating mix and other conditions in the grid control area that is receiving the electricity from wind turbines. In the Pacific-Northwest, for example, hydro power would likely serve in the balancing role – with no savings in oil. In New England, with its heavy dependence on natural gas and a significant amount of newer gas-fired generating capacity, a gas-fired unit would likely serve in the balancing role, again with little or no savings in oil use.
7. In summary, there is very little likelihood that any oil use in electric generation would be reduced by adding wind turbines. This would certainly be true in the states with only small shares of their electric generation from oil.
The electric industry officials who will have the exact data on the generating units that are run to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines are those who handle the day to day management and control of electric grids and transmission systems; i.e., depending on the region of the US, electric utility, the power pool, the independent system operator (ISO), or the regional transmission organization (RTO). Where is most oil used in the US?
During 2005, US oil use8 averaged 20,802,000 barrels per day.9 The shares of US oil consumption by sector were as follows:10
• Transportation. - 67.5%
• Industrial - 23.8%
• Residential - 3.7%
• Electric Generation - 3.0%
• Commercial - 1.9%
Total - 100%
As the above table suggests, those seeking a reduction in US oil consumption will need to focus primarily on oil use in transportation.
Glenn R. Schleede *
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
Attachment: 2005 Electric Generation by State & US Total – All energy sources & petroleum
Endnotes:
1 For facts about other false and misleading claims, see my paper entitled: “Facing up to the true costs and benefits of
wind energy,” June 24, 2004, and others that can be found at http://www.windaction.org/, or http://www.windwatch.
org/ or www.tsaugust.org .
2 US Energy Information Administration, Electricity Data Base, Generation.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sprdshts.html
3 US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Table A8.
4 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 7.3b.
5 A small amount of distillate oil may be used as a start up fuel in oil or coal-fired steam electric generating units or
occasionally to assist in flame stabilization.
6 Larger wind turbines now being installed begin producing electricity when wind is around 6 miles per hour, reach
rated capacity at around 33 MPH and are shut down to avoid equipment damage around 56 MPH.
7 That is, running and synchronized with the grid but not inputting electricity.
8 Technically, “products delivered.”
9 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 3.1b.
10 US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Tables 2.2 – 2.6.
______________________________________________
* GLENN R. SCHLEEDE is semi-retired after working on energy and related matters in government and the private
sector for over 30 years. He now devotes a significant portion of his time to self-financed analysis of and writing about
(a) government policies, programs and regulations that are detrimental to the interests of consumers and taxpayers, and
(b) government or private sector programs and projects that are presented to the media, public and government
officials in a false or misleading way. “Wind energy” is a frequent topic.
2005 Electric Generation by State and US Total*
All Energy Sources & Petroleum in Kilowatt-hours & Percent Petroleum
Kilowatt-hours Kilowatt-hours % of State's State Share of
Generated -- generated by using Electric Generation US oil-fired electric
All Energy Sources Petroleum from Petroleum Generation
State
FL 220,256,412,000 37,229,508,000 16.90% 30.39%
NY 146,887,419,000 24,044,258,000 16.37% 19.62%
HI 11,522,805,000 9,076,427,000 78.77% 7.41%
MA 47,515,443,000 7,119,369,000 14.98% 5.81%
PA 218,091,125,000 4,965,387,000 2.28% 4.05%
VA 78,943,045,000 4,276,268,000 5.42% 3.49%
MD 52,661,600,000 3,817,584,000 7.25% 3.12%
KY 97,822,419,000 3,680,685,000 3.76% 3.00%
LA 92,616,878,000 3,485,935,000 3.76% 2.85%
CT 33,549,747,000 3,156,048,000 9.41% 2.58%
CA 200,292,818,000 2,576,322,000 1.29% 2.10%
TX 396,668,722,000 1,613,248,000 0.41% 1.32%
ME 18,843,978,000 1,611,697,000 8.55% 1.32%
MS 45,067,453,000 1,444,848,000 3.21% 1.18%
OH 156,976,323,000 1,390,649,000 0.89% 1.14%
NH 23,735,290,000 1,357,142,000 5.72% 1.11%
DE 8,136,568,000 1,216,423,000 14.95% 0.99%
NJ 60,549,583,000 1,106,561,000 1.83% 0.90%
GA 136,667,892,000 1,019,233,000 0.75% 0.83%
KS 45,862,696,000 986,408,000 2.15% 0.81%
MI 121,619,771,000 897,881,000 0.74% 0.73%
MN 53,018,995,000 783,358,000 1.48% 0.64%
AK 6,576,659,000 760,118,000 11.56% 0.62%
WI 61,824,664,000 724,230,000 1.17% 0.59%
SC 102,514,665,000 672,803,000 0.66% 0.55%
NC 129,748,578,000 485,079,000 0.37% 0.40%
MT 27,938,778,000 413,991,000 1.48% 0.34%
IL 194,120,146,000 326,024,000 0.17% 0.27%
IN 130,371,573,000 279,038,000 0.21% 0.23%
AL 137,948,581,000 234,880,000 0.17% 0.19%
TN 97,117,165,000 230,527,000 0.24% 0.19%
DC 226,042,000 226,042,000 100.00% 0.18%
WV 93,626,285,000 223,552,000 0.24% 0.18%
AR 47,794,509,000 206,675,000 0.43% 0.17%
MO 90,828,230,000 168,418,000 0.19% 0.14%
IA 44,156,160,000 149,537,000 0.34% 0.12%
OR 49,325,003,000 78,191,000 0.16% 0.06%
OK 68,607,827,000 70,333,000 0.10% 0.06%
WA 101,965,850,000 64,181,000 0.06% 0.05%
RI 6,053,294,000 55,814,000 0.92% 0.05%
AZ 101,478,654,000 43,208,000 0.04% 0.04%
WY 45,567,307,000 42,295,000 0.09% 0.03%
UT 38,165,131,000 40,909,000 0.11% 0.03%
NM 35,135,642,000 36,909,000 0.11% 0.03%
ND 31,932,615,000 34,207,000 0.11% 0.03%
NE 31,464,734,000 31,234,000 0.10% 0.03%
SD 6,520,769,000 20,785,000 0.32% 0.02%
NV 40,213,752,000 20,500,000 0.05% 0.02%
CO 49,616,694,000 17,046,000 0.03% 0.01%
VT 5,716,755,000 10,179,000 0.18% 0.01%
ID 10,824,984,000 5,000 0.00% 0.00%
US-TOTAL 4,054,688,028,000 122,521,949,000 3.02% 100.00%
Data Source: US Energy Information administration, Electricity Data Base, Generation
* All electric generation including utilities, non-utility generators & combined heat & power.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Cohocton makes another mistake!
Steuben County - The Town of Cohocton Town Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed Local Law No. 2 of 2006 will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. The action involves the adoption of a local law to allow "Residential and/or Commercial Windmills' and "Windmill Facilities" in the AG_R. LDR, GB, I_C, and I Town Zoning Districts, and "Industrial Windmills" and "Windmill Facilities" in the AG_R Town Zoning District. All windmills and windmill facilities will be subject to special use permit and site plan review as set forth under Local Law No. 2 of 2006, and sections 720 and 730 of the Town of Cohocton Zoning Law. Local Law No. 2 of 2006 also regulates the placement and operation of windmills and windmill facilities throughout the Town of Cohocton, including, but not limited to height, color, type and other features of windmills and windmill facilities now or hereafter sited in the Town.
TESTING THE WIND - GOLDMAN BETS ON HIGH PRICE FOR ENERGY UNIT
December 4, 2006 -- Goldman Sachs is putting its Horizon Wind Energy subsidiary up for sale, in a bet that the market for renewable energy is nearing a top.
According to energy news Web site Sparkspread.com, which first reported the sale, Goldman might get around $1.5 billion for the Houston, Tex.-based company. The firm bought Horizon - which was then known as Zilkha Renewable Energy - last year for an undisclosed amount.
To get that pile of cash, Goldman is making some gale force assumptions about Horizon, a sales memorandum obtained by The Post shows.
Goldman is pitching the company as possibly being able to throw off $800 million in adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization by 2011. A more traditional financial valuation, Ebitda, is expected to come in at around $400 million by then.
To get that cash flow from wind energy, Goldman is assuming that Horizon will control 14 percent of all wind generation developed in the U.S. since 2000. Those figures also assume that 2,100 megawatts of additional generation capacity is added by 2010.
Goldman is also telling prospective buyers that legislation might blow their way.
"National greenhouse gas legislation, widely expected to be adopted in the next five years, would improve the cost competitiveness of renewable energy," the sales document said.
Better still, as the "exclusive financial adviser" for Horizon, Goldman's merger department is slated for a handsome multi-million dollar payday.
To be fair, Goldman is selling into a market that has seen plenty of interest from major power producers in wind generation. BP, NRG Energy and Iberdrola have each spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past year buying U.S.-based wind power assets.
A Goldman spokesman refused to comment on the transaction.
According to energy news Web site Sparkspread.com, which first reported the sale, Goldman might get around $1.5 billion for the Houston, Tex.-based company. The firm bought Horizon - which was then known as Zilkha Renewable Energy - last year for an undisclosed amount.
To get that pile of cash, Goldman is making some gale force assumptions about Horizon, a sales memorandum obtained by The Post shows.
Goldman is pitching the company as possibly being able to throw off $800 million in adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization by 2011. A more traditional financial valuation, Ebitda, is expected to come in at around $400 million by then.
To get that cash flow from wind energy, Goldman is assuming that Horizon will control 14 percent of all wind generation developed in the U.S. since 2000. Those figures also assume that 2,100 megawatts of additional generation capacity is added by 2010.
Goldman is also telling prospective buyers that legislation might blow their way.
"National greenhouse gas legislation, widely expected to be adopted in the next five years, would improve the cost competitiveness of renewable energy," the sales document said.
Better still, as the "exclusive financial adviser" for Horizon, Goldman's merger department is slated for a handsome multi-million dollar payday.
To be fair, Goldman is selling into a market that has seen plenty of interest from major power producers in wind generation. BP, NRG Energy and Iberdrola have each spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past year buying U.S.-based wind power assets.
A Goldman spokesman refused to comment on the transaction.
Goldman Sachs has decided to get out of the windpower industry
Reported this am @ 8:00 AM on radio station WLEA 1480 AM by Kevin Doran that Goldman Sachs has decided to get out of the windpower industry and other investors are likely to follow. Of course money is basis for their decision which they deemed source (Fed Gov) will soon end.
Goldman puts wind up energy sector
December 5, 2006 by Tom Bawden in The Times
Concerns are mounting that the renewable energy market in America may be close to its peak after Goldman Sachs, a barometer of the industry, put its Horizon Wind Energy business up for sale for an estimated $1.5 billion (£760 million).
The reasons for the proposed sale, after just 18 months of ownership, were not clear, although many analysts said that it could be in response to huge uncertainty surrounding the wind power industry.
Will Ainger, co-editor of SparkSpread, the online US power industry resource, said: “Lots of bankers look at Goldman Sachs as the weathercock of the energy industry and so many are assuming that it is now calling the top of the market.”
Rudolf Stützle, director of project finance at HypoVereinsbank in New York, said: “There is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the industry . . . and this is causing a good deal of concern among its leading players.”
(Read more at: http://www.windaction.org/news/6671)
Concerns are mounting that the renewable energy market in America may be close to its peak after Goldman Sachs, a barometer of the industry, put its Horizon Wind Energy business up for sale for an estimated $1.5 billion (£760 million).
The reasons for the proposed sale, after just 18 months of ownership, were not clear, although many analysts said that it could be in response to huge uncertainty surrounding the wind power industry.
Will Ainger, co-editor of SparkSpread, the online US power industry resource, said: “Lots of bankers look at Goldman Sachs as the weathercock of the energy industry and so many are assuming that it is now calling the top of the market.”
Rudolf Stützle, director of project finance at HypoVereinsbank in New York, said: “There is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the industry . . . and this is causing a good deal of concern among its leading players.”
(Read more at: http://www.windaction.org/news/6671)
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Jeff Goldthwait 'Fifth Letter' to the Town Board - November 21, 2006
Date: November 21, 2006
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents, property owners and taxpayers.
I respectfully submit a FIFTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The four previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, 8/15 and 10/23/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. which requires “Periodic review”.
Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC Wind Turbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” has been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC? Why does that same legal counsel openly appear to aggressively be pursuing UPC’s accelerated time schedule and one sided financial interests? Isn’t it the sole legal ethical obligation of said counsel to serve and protect the civil, property and financial legal rights of all Cohocton residents via the town boards of the Town of Cohocton at Town and Planning Board meetings?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the now resigned Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
14. Why have the fatally flawed noise studies done to date by UPC not been independently investigated and addressed by the Town Board and Planning Board prior to the consideration of passing any local windmill law? These serious, health threatening, noise study defects have specifically been documented and brought to the attention of the Town Board and Planning Board in oral and written expert opinions presented both during and after the public hearing on proposed Local Law #2.
To rely exclusively on the information and advice of consultants selected and paid for by UPC, the clearly biased windmill project applicant in this matter, is clearly wrong and a dereliction of the duty of each board member. Lack of action on this issue alone, which directly affects the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Cohocton, is nothing less than recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence, and beyond the scope of employment of each and every member of the Town Board and Planning Board.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FIFTH
TIME IN WRITING and at least the TENTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers before any local windmill law is enacted. The Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially with honest due diligence, instead of recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence well beyond each board members entrusted scope of employment.
On November 17th, 2006 I filed with the Town Clerk, for immediate delivery to the Town Board for consideration at the November 21, 2006 Town Board meeting prior to any vote on any windmill law, a duly executed affidavit with true and correct copies of two duly executed and witnessed petitions attached thereto.
The PETITION FOR MORATORIUM ON ALL INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE PROJECTS IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, N.Y. has 215 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y.
The PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW, REVISION AND UPDATE OF THE “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN’ for THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON, New York” has 196 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”. And
“..ask that the review, revision and update be jointly undertaken with the Town and Village Planning Board and the full participation, input and assistance of a 20 member ‘Citizens Master Plan Review Committee’ to be appointed by and selected from the following signers of this petition.”
The number of signatories on each of these recently started and ongoing petitions already represents respectively, 27 percent and 25 percent of the total number of Cohocton voters in the recent November 8, 2006 election. They also represent over 12 percent of all the residents in the Town of Cohocton over the age of 18.
I respectfully submit to the Town Board that these two petitions represent the true voices and will of the citizens of Cohocton and request that the Board declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y. and take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”.
You, each and every member of the Town Board of Cohocton, have reached a “point of no return”. For any member of the Town Board who votes in favor of Local Law #2 regulating windmills in its current form “there is no going back”. You will be held accountable for your actions and omissions by the people you took an oath to serve.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents, property owners and taxpayers.
I respectfully submit a FIFTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The four previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, 8/15 and 10/23/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date (i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. which requires “Periodic review”.
Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC Wind Turbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” has been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC? Why does that same legal counsel openly appear to aggressively be pursuing UPC’s accelerated time schedule and one sided financial interests? Isn’t it the sole legal ethical obligation of said counsel to serve and protect the civil, property and financial legal rights of all Cohocton residents via the town boards of the Town of Cohocton at Town and Planning Board meetings?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the now resigned Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
14. Why have the fatally flawed noise studies done to date by UPC not been independently investigated and addressed by the Town Board and Planning Board prior to the consideration of passing any local windmill law? These serious, health threatening, noise study defects have specifically been documented and brought to the attention of the Town Board and Planning Board in oral and written expert opinions presented both during and after the public hearing on proposed Local Law #2.
To rely exclusively on the information and advice of consultants selected and paid for by UPC, the clearly biased windmill project applicant in this matter, is clearly wrong and a dereliction of the duty of each board member. Lack of action on this issue alone, which directly affects the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Cohocton, is nothing less than recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence, and beyond the scope of employment of each and every member of the Town Board and Planning Board.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FIFTH
TIME IN WRITING and at least the TENTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers before any local windmill law is enacted. The Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially with honest due diligence, instead of recklessness, willful and wanton gross negligence well beyond each board members entrusted scope of employment.
On November 17th, 2006 I filed with the Town Clerk, for immediate delivery to the Town Board for consideration at the November 21, 2006 Town Board meeting prior to any vote on any windmill law, a duly executed affidavit with true and correct copies of two duly executed and witnessed petitions attached thereto.
The PETITION FOR MORATORIUM ON ALL INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE PROJECTS IN THE TOWN OF COHOCTON, N.Y. has 215 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y.
The PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW, REVISION AND UPDATE OF THE “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN’ for THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON, New York” has 196 signatories to date, each of whom “request that the Cohocton Town Board, at the next scheduled Town Board meeting following the receipt of this duly signed petition, take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”. And
“..ask that the review, revision and update be jointly undertaken with the Town and Village Planning Board and the full participation, input and assistance of a 20 member ‘Citizens Master Plan Review Committee’ to be appointed by and selected from the following signers of this petition.”
The number of signatories on each of these recently started and ongoing petitions already represents respectively, 27 percent and 25 percent of the total number of Cohocton voters in the recent November 8, 2006 election. They also represent over 12 percent of all the residents in the Town of Cohocton over the age of 18.
I respectfully submit to the Town Board that these two petitions represent the true voices and will of the citizens of Cohocton and request that the Board declare an immediate six month moratorium on all pending and future proposed projects for industrial wind turbines to be located in the Town of Cohocton, N.Y. and take any and all lawful steps necessary to immediately begin a public process to formally review, revise and update the “COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN For THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF COHOCTON”.
You, each and every member of the Town Board of Cohocton, have reached a “point of no return”. For any member of the Town Board who votes in favor of Local Law #2 regulating windmills in its current form “there is no going back”. You will be held accountable for your actions and omissions by the people you took an oath to serve.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Silent Wind Turbine set to Stormblade the Market
Stormblade Turbine Ltd is a London business start up company and it has designed an ultra-efficient wind turbine which works by accelerating the wind onto the blades and is therefore more efficient at low as well as high wind speeds.
Bird and bat friendly, the design does not have the mechanical noise often associated with commercial wind turbines and, as a result, is very silent in operation. It has fewer parts and higher generating capacity than other models and can theoretically, operate at any wind speed. The maximum wind speed will only be restricted by the materials used in construction.
Stormblade Turbine can convert up to 70% of wind power into electricity, double the current average. Operational wind speed is expected to be 7 mph to 120 mph, double the current average range and the design is less noisy and wildlife friendly.
The propeller blades and all the moving parts are housed within the nacelle and therefore pose no danger to migrating birds or bats. Stormblade is also unique in that it produces less drag, operates at extreme wind speeds, has more power per rotation, requires less maintenance and is a third of the size of comparable industrial wind turbines.
The initial design and virtual testing of the prototype is complete and the company has benefited from the help of the London Manufacturing Advisory Service (London MAS). The London MAS team has provided support in analysing the overall project, advising on company structure and grants available and are currently identifying potential partners to bring the design into production.
Initial market research has identified at least 14 companies and support groups who have expressed an interest in Stormblade’s technology and would like to further explore collaboration opportunities.
London MAS has also helped the company via its extensive database and previous experience on Renewable Projects.
Viktor Jovanovic, Director of Stormblade says:
"London MAS support has been valuable and important. They have made a major contribution to the investment readiness and continued development of our business. They have helped to develop our business plan with a focus on the current wind turbine technology market. I am very grateful to London MAS. We are currently pitching a venture proposal to potential investors."
Lee Woodall, Lead Specialist at London MAS says:
"This is an exciting time for an innovative product design. London MAS has many partners and is well placed to help this innovative start-up London business. The company required a detailed review of their market including information on a potential supply chain, a review of the technical project management and a business plan to secure future funding. Our initial support has enabled them to improve the understanding of their financing routes, supply chain and network. This has led to the development of a detailed business plan and we will be reviewing their progress in five months time."
Bird and bat friendly, the design does not have the mechanical noise often associated with commercial wind turbines and, as a result, is very silent in operation. It has fewer parts and higher generating capacity than other models and can theoretically, operate at any wind speed. The maximum wind speed will only be restricted by the materials used in construction.
Stormblade Turbine can convert up to 70% of wind power into electricity, double the current average. Operational wind speed is expected to be 7 mph to 120 mph, double the current average range and the design is less noisy and wildlife friendly.
The propeller blades and all the moving parts are housed within the nacelle and therefore pose no danger to migrating birds or bats. Stormblade is also unique in that it produces less drag, operates at extreme wind speeds, has more power per rotation, requires less maintenance and is a third of the size of comparable industrial wind turbines.
The initial design and virtual testing of the prototype is complete and the company has benefited from the help of the London Manufacturing Advisory Service (London MAS). The London MAS team has provided support in analysing the overall project, advising on company structure and grants available and are currently identifying potential partners to bring the design into production.
Initial market research has identified at least 14 companies and support groups who have expressed an interest in Stormblade’s technology and would like to further explore collaboration opportunities.
London MAS has also helped the company via its extensive database and previous experience on Renewable Projects.
Viktor Jovanovic, Director of Stormblade says:
"London MAS support has been valuable and important. They have made a major contribution to the investment readiness and continued development of our business. They have helped to develop our business plan with a focus on the current wind turbine technology market. I am very grateful to London MAS. We are currently pitching a venture proposal to potential investors."
Lee Woodall, Lead Specialist at London MAS says:
"This is an exciting time for an innovative product design. London MAS has many partners and is well placed to help this innovative start-up London business. The company required a detailed review of their market including information on a potential supply chain, a review of the technical project management and a business plan to secure future funding. Our initial support has enabled them to improve the understanding of their financing routes, supply chain and network. This has led to the development of a detailed business plan and we will be reviewing their progress in five months time."
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Bob Strasburg letter to the Wayland/Cohocton School Board
Robert C. Strasburg II
60 Maple Ave.
Cohocton, New York 14826
Email rcs2nd@frontiernet.net
Phone 585-384-9318
Cell 585-703-1299
Fax 585-384-9318
November 27, 2006
Wayland Cohocton School Board
Wayland Cohocton School District
Wayland, NY 14572
Re: PILOT PROGRAM FOR UPC WIND PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATIONS WITH STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SCIDA)
Dear School Board Member:
I am writing this letter to voice my strongest objection to any consideration by Wayland Cohocton School District to consider participating in the proposed P.I.L.O.T. program currently being negotiated through SCIDA. I am all for green energy programs that are properly administered in any Host community. I have done considerable research concerning the specifics of this UPC wind program and have discovered it to be nothing short of desperately wanting as a credible and responsible program.
Focusing specifically on the finances of the issue in this letter, I will provide some of the information I have discovered to remove the fallacy that UPC is in need of any subsidies in the form of a P.I.L.O.T. program. UPC is a Limited Liability Corporation composed of unknown investors seeking to reap huge profits in the wind energy industry.
Just the sale of electricity, not including the accelerated depreciation which amounts to millions of additional dollars, will produce $394,200 per turbine x 50 proposed turbines = $19,710,000.00 for the first two phases of the project proposed in Cohocton. This is based on the following formula from the facts I have uncovered thus far and these numbers can be confirmed through SCIDA:
1. UPC as best as I can determine will sell each Kilowatt of electricity produced from each turbine for .04 per Kilowatt hour.
2. N.Y.S.E.R.D.A. will provide an addition .02 per Kilowatt hour as a tax supported subsidy
3. Each Turbine has a 2.5 Megawatts capacity
4. UPC is projecting a 30% output of each turbines rated capacity due to the fact that the wind does not blow all the time.
5. UPC is currently proposing 50 turbines in Cohocton
6. 2.5 Megawatt Turbine reduced to 30% capacity = .75 Megawatts of potential output per hour
7. Each Megawatt is 1000 Kilowatts
.75 x 1000 = 750 kilowatts per hour x 24 hours in a day = 18,000 kilowatts x 365 days per year = 6,570,000 kilowatts per year x .06 per kilowatt = $394,200 per turbine per year x 50 turbines = $19,710,000.00 per year just on Phase one and two of the proposed project.
According to the attached release from SCIDA, they are currently negotiating the P.I.L.O.T. program to pay out only $500 per megawatt for the first year. This is $62,500.00 for the first year ($500 per megawatt x 2.5 Megawatts per turbine = $1250 per turbine x 50 turbines = $62,500). This $62,500 will then need to be divided amongst the Town, the County, and the School. This $62,500 represents only 3/10ths of 1 percent of the projected annual income just from the sale of the electricity. THIS IS A SCAM IN MY BOOK!
I respectfully urge you to due all you can to stop this abuse of us as taxpayers and demand that this profit seeking corporation pay FULL INDUSTRIAL TAXATION for each turbine it puts up. I am not against profit for corporations, but I am against us taxpayers subsidizing private corporate profits at this absurd level.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
60 Maple Ave.
Cohocton, New York 14826
Email rcs2nd@frontiernet.net
Phone 585-384-9318
Cell 585-703-1299
Fax 585-384-9318
November 27, 2006
Wayland Cohocton School Board
Wayland Cohocton School District
Wayland, NY 14572
Re: PILOT PROGRAM FOR UPC WIND PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATIONS WITH STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SCIDA)
Dear School Board Member:
I am writing this letter to voice my strongest objection to any consideration by Wayland Cohocton School District to consider participating in the proposed P.I.L.O.T. program currently being negotiated through SCIDA. I am all for green energy programs that are properly administered in any Host community. I have done considerable research concerning the specifics of this UPC wind program and have discovered it to be nothing short of desperately wanting as a credible and responsible program.
Focusing specifically on the finances of the issue in this letter, I will provide some of the information I have discovered to remove the fallacy that UPC is in need of any subsidies in the form of a P.I.L.O.T. program. UPC is a Limited Liability Corporation composed of unknown investors seeking to reap huge profits in the wind energy industry.
Just the sale of electricity, not including the accelerated depreciation which amounts to millions of additional dollars, will produce $394,200 per turbine x 50 proposed turbines = $19,710,000.00 for the first two phases of the project proposed in Cohocton. This is based on the following formula from the facts I have uncovered thus far and these numbers can be confirmed through SCIDA:
1. UPC as best as I can determine will sell each Kilowatt of electricity produced from each turbine for .04 per Kilowatt hour.
2. N.Y.S.E.R.D.A. will provide an addition .02 per Kilowatt hour as a tax supported subsidy
3. Each Turbine has a 2.5 Megawatts capacity
4. UPC is projecting a 30% output of each turbines rated capacity due to the fact that the wind does not blow all the time.
5. UPC is currently proposing 50 turbines in Cohocton
6. 2.5 Megawatt Turbine reduced to 30% capacity = .75 Megawatts of potential output per hour
7. Each Megawatt is 1000 Kilowatts
.75 x 1000 = 750 kilowatts per hour x 24 hours in a day = 18,000 kilowatts x 365 days per year = 6,570,000 kilowatts per year x .06 per kilowatt = $394,200 per turbine per year x 50 turbines = $19,710,000.00 per year just on Phase one and two of the proposed project.
According to the attached release from SCIDA, they are currently negotiating the P.I.L.O.T. program to pay out only $500 per megawatt for the first year. This is $62,500.00 for the first year ($500 per megawatt x 2.5 Megawatts per turbine = $1250 per turbine x 50 turbines = $62,500). This $62,500 will then need to be divided amongst the Town, the County, and the School. This $62,500 represents only 3/10ths of 1 percent of the projected annual income just from the sale of the electricity. THIS IS A SCAM IN MY BOOK!
I respectfully urge you to due all you can to stop this abuse of us as taxpayers and demand that this profit seeking corporation pay FULL INDUSTRIAL TAXATION for each turbine it puts up. I am not against profit for corporations, but I am against us taxpayers subsidizing private corporate profits at this absurd level.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Monday, November 27, 2006
Windmills aren't the answer by Colby Cosh
EDMONTON - It's official: The glorious future of abundant free energy has been put on hold. In May, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) announced that the province's grid could not safely accommodate more than 900 megawatts of wind-power generation, a target that will be met late next year. Proposals for 3,000 more MW of production have been thrown into indefinite limbo at an estimated cost to producers of $6-billion; meanwhile, the province is already spending $1-billion to strengthen the transmission system so that even the 900-MW cap can be reached. In Ontario, meanwhile, the grid operator warned late last month that 5,000 MW -- about one-fifth of the province's current peak consumption -- is probably the absolute technological limit. (A total of 1,280 MW of wind capacity is already in operation or being built.)
It is starting to look as though wind cannot meet more than a fraction of our energy demand even if other issues with the technology, like esthetics and wildlife impacts, are ignored. The problem, as engineers skeptical of wind power have been yelping for decades, is that power usage and production constantly have to be balanced in an electrical grid. Adding too much unstable, unpredictable power to the system creates a risk of failure and cascading blackouts. In fact, the EU is investigating the possible role of Germany's heavy wind-dependence in causing a Nov. 6 blackout that hit 10 million Europeans.
The depressing corollary is that even in reaching the modest limits now being laid down by the grid police, Alberta and Ontario are relying implicitly on the relative sluggishness of their neighbours in adopting wind technology, using interconnections with other provinces and states to off-load excess power and cover shortfalls. So the system operators' warnings aren't just a sign that wind has reached a dead end in their home provinces. They also mean that B.C., Saskatchewan and parts of the U.S. Northeast will never be able to get major wind projects off the ground if they are to continue to serve as an energy release-valve for their wind-harnessing neighbours.
The windustry has met the announcements with its usual optimism, pointing out that existing wind installations could be made to co-operate better with the grid if improved region-specific wind forecasting existed. But even assuming such a thing can be wished into existence, predictability is not the same thing as stability. During low-wind, high-demand periods, a drop in output still must be made good by other power sources. Since a nuclear pile can't be switched on and off like a light bulb, Ontario's hydroelectric output is already taxed to the limit and Alberta doesn't have much hydro, guess what technology steps in to fill the void? That's right -- good old Stone Age hydrocarbon burning.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if wind output were naturally synchronized with patterns of maximum power usage. But a report released last Wednesday by Energy Probe, Ontario's independent power think tank, confirms another longstanding taunt of the wind skeptics: Wind is often utterly out of sync with human activity.
Energy Probe's analysis of hour-to-hour capacity factors at Ontario wind farms shows output declining disconcertingly in the morning, just when we greedy energy hogs are getting out of bed, turning on appliances and lights, and going to work. On a month-to-month basis, data from this summer show wind output remaining flattest during the hottest periods. And the AESO has found that in Alberta's southern wind corridor, the turbines spin like crazy when the chinook is blowing and little electricity is needed; in the still air of serious cold snaps, when loads are high, the turbines grind stubbornly to a stop.
The overall result is that much of the theoretical environmental benefit from wind power cannot be realized, especially since the generators that must remain on standby to provide emergency "ramping" tend to produce more pollution per watt than round-the-clock coal and gas facilities.
But at least it's still economically free energy, right? Well, maybe. As an internationally observed rule of thumb, wind farms are expected to deliver, on average, 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. On the basis of partial data, Energy Probe expects the three major farms in its study to come in at 24%-27% over a full 12 months. And that's not even including the showpiece Windshare turbine at Toronto's CNE, which delivered a mean capacity factor of just 14.7% in its first 42 months of operation.
It must be a harrowing time for those who once thought the cool breeze could save us all from the coming ecocide. The expectations of wind advocates have already had to be minimized as they realize there is nothing inherently virtuous about their pet piece of tech. Alas, like recycling fanatics, they are likely to end up praising wind power as a moral enterprise that "instills good habits" and signals "green consciousness," even if the honest cost-benefit analysis goes against them in the long run.
colbycosh@gmail.com
It is starting to look as though wind cannot meet more than a fraction of our energy demand even if other issues with the technology, like esthetics and wildlife impacts, are ignored. The problem, as engineers skeptical of wind power have been yelping for decades, is that power usage and production constantly have to be balanced in an electrical grid. Adding too much unstable, unpredictable power to the system creates a risk of failure and cascading blackouts. In fact, the EU is investigating the possible role of Germany's heavy wind-dependence in causing a Nov. 6 blackout that hit 10 million Europeans.
The depressing corollary is that even in reaching the modest limits now being laid down by the grid police, Alberta and Ontario are relying implicitly on the relative sluggishness of their neighbours in adopting wind technology, using interconnections with other provinces and states to off-load excess power and cover shortfalls. So the system operators' warnings aren't just a sign that wind has reached a dead end in their home provinces. They also mean that B.C., Saskatchewan and parts of the U.S. Northeast will never be able to get major wind projects off the ground if they are to continue to serve as an energy release-valve for their wind-harnessing neighbours.
The windustry has met the announcements with its usual optimism, pointing out that existing wind installations could be made to co-operate better with the grid if improved region-specific wind forecasting existed. But even assuming such a thing can be wished into existence, predictability is not the same thing as stability. During low-wind, high-demand periods, a drop in output still must be made good by other power sources. Since a nuclear pile can't be switched on and off like a light bulb, Ontario's hydroelectric output is already taxed to the limit and Alberta doesn't have much hydro, guess what technology steps in to fill the void? That's right -- good old Stone Age hydrocarbon burning.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if wind output were naturally synchronized with patterns of maximum power usage. But a report released last Wednesday by Energy Probe, Ontario's independent power think tank, confirms another longstanding taunt of the wind skeptics: Wind is often utterly out of sync with human activity.
Energy Probe's analysis of hour-to-hour capacity factors at Ontario wind farms shows output declining disconcertingly in the morning, just when we greedy energy hogs are getting out of bed, turning on appliances and lights, and going to work. On a month-to-month basis, data from this summer show wind output remaining flattest during the hottest periods. And the AESO has found that in Alberta's southern wind corridor, the turbines spin like crazy when the chinook is blowing and little electricity is needed; in the still air of serious cold snaps, when loads are high, the turbines grind stubbornly to a stop.
The overall result is that much of the theoretical environmental benefit from wind power cannot be realized, especially since the generators that must remain on standby to provide emergency "ramping" tend to produce more pollution per watt than round-the-clock coal and gas facilities.
But at least it's still economically free energy, right? Well, maybe. As an internationally observed rule of thumb, wind farms are expected to deliver, on average, 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. On the basis of partial data, Energy Probe expects the three major farms in its study to come in at 24%-27% over a full 12 months. And that's not even including the showpiece Windshare turbine at Toronto's CNE, which delivered a mean capacity factor of just 14.7% in its first 42 months of operation.
It must be a harrowing time for those who once thought the cool breeze could save us all from the coming ecocide. The expectations of wind advocates have already had to be minimized as they realize there is nothing inherently virtuous about their pet piece of tech. Alas, like recycling fanatics, they are likely to end up praising wind power as a moral enterprise that "instills good habits" and signals "green consciousness," even if the honest cost-benefit analysis goes against them in the long run.
colbycosh@gmail.com
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
http://www.knolltowindfarm.org.uk/economic.htm
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
Credible, independent, report by Property experts
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS") report, "The Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land", published in November 2004, is one of a few, if not the only, such studies in the world produced by a credible organisation without a vested interest pro or anti wind farms that is based on market values, and specifically relates to the UK.
This report is attached to this website.
Fall in value reported by the majority
This study clearly indicates that 60% of Chartered Surveyors with experience of transactions impacted by wind farms [transactions of buildings from where the wind farm can be seen] detected a reduction in value compared to similar transactions which were not impacted by a wind farm. In the South-West of England, this percentage increased to 77%.
How much do properties fall in value?
Evidence supporting the size of the fall is harder to find- largely due to wind farms being relatively new phenomena in the UK and also typically being in remote locations.
However, a number of sources do exist, either specifically covering Wind Farms, or similar features and their associated blight on property values.
In a legal case reported in the Times newspaper on January 10th 2004, Judge Michael Buckley ruled that the value of a house in Marton, in the Lake District, fell by 20% due to the construction of a nearby Wind Farm.
A consultant at FPD Savills, the international property agent, has advised a client that a wind farm built near to his property could decrease its value by 30%.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, on the 4th April 2004 the President of Denmark's National Association of Neighbours to Wind Turbines indicated that in Denmark some people living close to wind mills found it impossible to sell their homes. This organisation also claim that "most estate agents" in Denmark estimate a 25% to 30% decrease in property values in wind farms are constructed nearby.
Economists at Hometrack, an independent property research and database company, which maintains the UK's largest database of surveyors valuations provided by UK High Street Lenders [14.5 million valuations at September 2005], produced research in 2003 which indicated that location of a home close to a mobile phone or telephone mast could knock 3% off the value of a property, being close to electricity pylons could reduce value by 9% and being close to a busy road could reduce asking prices by around 12%.
Leading solicitors Irwin Mitchell indicate that there is some evidence that suggests erecting a mobile phone mast close to residential property could knock between 5% and 10% off its value. It also reports the case of Swindon Borough Council being forced to pay compensation to property owners for allowing a mobile phone mast to be erected in the middle of their street.
" The Campaign for Planning Sanity", a Charitable organisation set up in 1999 to assist local communities involved in the planning process., indicate that District Valuers typically agree settlements of between 5% and 10% of value in compensation cases due to altering the status of a main highway to intensive road use near to a house.
These statistics indicate that the risk of the potential destruction of capital in the Sedgemoor economy if a wind farm is built at Inner Farm is therefore very significant, due to the proximity to, and impact on, so many domestic properties.
RICS SHOW THAT WIND FARMS LEAD TO A FALL IN PROPERTY VALUES
Credible, independent, report by Property experts
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS") report, "The Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land", published in November 2004, is one of a few, if not the only, such studies in the world produced by a credible organisation without a vested interest pro or anti wind farms that is based on market values, and specifically relates to the UK.
This report is attached to this website.
Fall in value reported by the majority
This study clearly indicates that 60% of Chartered Surveyors with experience of transactions impacted by wind farms [transactions of buildings from where the wind farm can be seen] detected a reduction in value compared to similar transactions which were not impacted by a wind farm. In the South-West of England, this percentage increased to 77%.
How much do properties fall in value?
Evidence supporting the size of the fall is harder to find- largely due to wind farms being relatively new phenomena in the UK and also typically being in remote locations.
However, a number of sources do exist, either specifically covering Wind Farms, or similar features and their associated blight on property values.
In a legal case reported in the Times newspaper on January 10th 2004, Judge Michael Buckley ruled that the value of a house in Marton, in the Lake District, fell by 20% due to the construction of a nearby Wind Farm.
A consultant at FPD Savills, the international property agent, has advised a client that a wind farm built near to his property could decrease its value by 30%.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, on the 4th April 2004 the President of Denmark's National Association of Neighbours to Wind Turbines indicated that in Denmark some people living close to wind mills found it impossible to sell their homes. This organisation also claim that "most estate agents" in Denmark estimate a 25% to 30% decrease in property values in wind farms are constructed nearby.
Economists at Hometrack, an independent property research and database company, which maintains the UK's largest database of surveyors valuations provided by UK High Street Lenders [14.5 million valuations at September 2005], produced research in 2003 which indicated that location of a home close to a mobile phone or telephone mast could knock 3% off the value of a property, being close to electricity pylons could reduce value by 9% and being close to a busy road could reduce asking prices by around 12%.
Leading solicitors Irwin Mitchell indicate that there is some evidence that suggests erecting a mobile phone mast close to residential property could knock between 5% and 10% off its value. It also reports the case of Swindon Borough Council being forced to pay compensation to property owners for allowing a mobile phone mast to be erected in the middle of their street.
" The Campaign for Planning Sanity", a Charitable organisation set up in 1999 to assist local communities involved in the planning process., indicate that District Valuers typically agree settlements of between 5% and 10% of value in compensation cases due to altering the status of a main highway to intensive road use near to a house.
These statistics indicate that the risk of the potential destruction of capital in the Sedgemoor economy if a wind farm is built at Inner Farm is therefore very significant, due to the proximity to, and impact on, so many domestic properties.
SCIDA Cohocton PILOT figures - 11/17/06
STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November 17,2006
Cohocton Wind Watch
Steve Trude, President
PO Box 52
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Mr. Trude:
Per your FOIL request dated November 14, 2006 I am forwarding for your review a copy of a draft PILOT. Keep in mind this document is for discussion purposes only. Once a PILOT is negotiated the final figures and time tables will be available.
Feel free to request any other documents you may require. Please be specific as to what the document is that you are requesting.
Very truly yours,
James P. Sherron Executive Director
7234 Route 54 North • PO Box 393 • Bath, NY 14810-0393 • Phone: 607-776-3316
Fax: 607-776-5039 • E-mail: lnfo@SteubenCountylDA.com • Web: www.SteubenCountylDA.com
DRAFT
PROPOSED PILOT
PILOT YEAR $ PER MW
1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,512
7 $5,732
8 $5,962
9 $6,200
10 $6,448
11 $6,706
12 $6,974
13 $7,253
14 $7,544
15 $7,845
16 $8,159
17 $8,485
18 $8,825
19 $9,178
20 $9,545
November 17,2006
Cohocton Wind Watch
Steve Trude, President
PO Box 52
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Mr. Trude:
Per your FOIL request dated November 14, 2006 I am forwarding for your review a copy of a draft PILOT. Keep in mind this document is for discussion purposes only. Once a PILOT is negotiated the final figures and time tables will be available.
Feel free to request any other documents you may require. Please be specific as to what the document is that you are requesting.
Very truly yours,
James P. Sherron Executive Director
7234 Route 54 North • PO Box 393 • Bath, NY 14810-0393 • Phone: 607-776-3316
Fax: 607-776-5039 • E-mail: lnfo@SteubenCountylDA.com • Web: www.SteubenCountylDA.com
DRAFT
PROPOSED PILOT
PILOT YEAR $ PER MW
1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,512
7 $5,732
8 $5,962
9 $6,200
10 $6,448
11 $6,706
12 $6,974
13 $7,253
14 $7,544
15 $7,845
16 $8,159
17 $8,485
18 $8,825
19 $9,178
20 $9,545
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Citizen groups still fighting NYRI by FRITZ MAYER
UPPER DELAWARE RIVER VALLEY— When the man who will become the next governor of New York State says a project is dead, people tend to take him at his word. Last week, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said the proposed project to build a 190-mile power line through eight New York counties was dead because there was too much opposition to it.
Just a few weeks earlier on September 30, the current governor, George Pataki, signed legislation that would prevent the company who wants to build the project, New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI), from using eminent domain to acquire land for the project. Pataki said the new law would make it “virtually impossible” to build the power line.
These two events have made fundraising more difficult for citizen groups who have been fighting the NYRI project. At a meeting of the Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition (UDPC) on November 2 at the Inn at Lackawaxen, Lackawaxen, PA, about a dozen people turned up to hear the latest developments in the effort; about 300 people turned up at a meeting in the same location in May.
UDPC officials are concerned that the public has been lulled into a false sense of security about the prospects of the powerline.
Pat Carullo, president of the UDPC, said the group’s lawyers said that the law Pataki signed is very likely to be overturned. There was speculation among the group that NYRI would wait until after the election to challenge the law. UDPC treasurer Troy Bystrom said that the statements from Pataki and Spitzer did not take into account the reality that any decision made at the state level could be overridden at the federal level. (A spokesman for Spitzer told the Norwich Evening Sun on November 2 that Spitzer’s remarks were “pure speculation based on the public and political opposition New York Regional Interconnect Inc. has confronted thus far.”)
In the meantime, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) is awaiting a reply from NYRI executives after asking for amendments to the NYRI power line application. It is not clear when NYRI will forward those amendments; however NYRI executives have made it clear that they will not abandon the project.
Citizens groups are taking NYRI at their word, and they continue to strategize about how best to halt the project. Four such groups have formed a loose alliance toward that shared goal. The groups are the Upstate New York Citizens Alliance in Utica, NY, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com in Norwich, NY, the UDPC in the Upper Delaware River Valley and SAY NO 2 NYRI in Otisville, NY. Among other initiatives, the groups are working on a common legal strategy. The UDPC hired attorney Richard Lippes in May. Lippes has worked on other high-profile environmental cases such as Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Two weeks ago, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com announced it was also hiring Lippes and the other two groups are considering the same move.
The citizens groups, in turn, are connected to Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), which is made up of county and state lawmakers, as well as residents, and is chaired by Chris Cunningham, Chairman of the Sullivan County Legislature. Bystrom said the citizen groups serve as a sort-of “back channel communications network” for the CARI group. Additionally, the groups overlap. For instance, attorney Eve Anne Schwarz, who has taken over as the legal point person for UDPC and STOPNYRI.com, is also on the legal committee of CARI.
A national concern
But the concern about the future of power lines and the energy industry in this country is not limited to eight counties in New York State. One of the biggest sparks for community resistance in the Upper Delaware River Valley was that part of the line’s route would run through land that would otherwise be protected because it is part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Energy Act of 2005, however, provides for the creation of National Interest Electronic Transmission Corridors (NIETC), which might allow for the construction of power lines in the protected river area, as well as other protected areas such as national parks. This has led to national concern among environmentalists.
On September 30, Bystrom gave a presentation about NYRI to members of the Sierra Club at the Pocono Environmental Education Center in Dingmans Ferry, PA. The Sierra Club’s national organization is supporting efforts to stop the NYRI project.
Bystrom has also been in contact with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), which is battling the construction of new power line projects in Virginia. Energy companies there have requested three NIETCS, which, according to the PEC, would run through “44 state and national historic sites and six Civil War battlefields.”
The NIETC provision has also sparked interest from academia. Students from the Columbia University Law Clinic have submitted comments to the Department of Energy regarding the establishment of NIETCs, and other students from the university’s Earth Institute/Urban Lab have visited the Upper Delaware River Valley to look at the environmental impacts of existing power lines, as well as those proposed by NYRI.
Just a few weeks earlier on September 30, the current governor, George Pataki, signed legislation that would prevent the company who wants to build the project, New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI), from using eminent domain to acquire land for the project. Pataki said the new law would make it “virtually impossible” to build the power line.
These two events have made fundraising more difficult for citizen groups who have been fighting the NYRI project. At a meeting of the Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition (UDPC) on November 2 at the Inn at Lackawaxen, Lackawaxen, PA, about a dozen people turned up to hear the latest developments in the effort; about 300 people turned up at a meeting in the same location in May.
UDPC officials are concerned that the public has been lulled into a false sense of security about the prospects of the powerline.
Pat Carullo, president of the UDPC, said the group’s lawyers said that the law Pataki signed is very likely to be overturned. There was speculation among the group that NYRI would wait until after the election to challenge the law. UDPC treasurer Troy Bystrom said that the statements from Pataki and Spitzer did not take into account the reality that any decision made at the state level could be overridden at the federal level. (A spokesman for Spitzer told the Norwich Evening Sun on November 2 that Spitzer’s remarks were “pure speculation based on the public and political opposition New York Regional Interconnect Inc. has confronted thus far.”)
In the meantime, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) is awaiting a reply from NYRI executives after asking for amendments to the NYRI power line application. It is not clear when NYRI will forward those amendments; however NYRI executives have made it clear that they will not abandon the project.
Citizens groups are taking NYRI at their word, and they continue to strategize about how best to halt the project. Four such groups have formed a loose alliance toward that shared goal. The groups are the Upstate New York Citizens Alliance in Utica, NY, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com in Norwich, NY, the UDPC in the Upper Delaware River Valley and SAY NO 2 NYRI in Otisville, NY. Among other initiatives, the groups are working on a common legal strategy. The UDPC hired attorney Richard Lippes in May. Lippes has worked on other high-profile environmental cases such as Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Two weeks ago, STOPNYRI.com STOPNYRI.com announced it was also hiring Lippes and the other two groups are considering the same move.
The citizens groups, in turn, are connected to Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), which is made up of county and state lawmakers, as well as residents, and is chaired by Chris Cunningham, Chairman of the Sullivan County Legislature. Bystrom said the citizen groups serve as a sort-of “back channel communications network” for the CARI group. Additionally, the groups overlap. For instance, attorney Eve Anne Schwarz, who has taken over as the legal point person for UDPC and STOPNYRI.com, is also on the legal committee of CARI.
A national concern
But the concern about the future of power lines and the energy industry in this country is not limited to eight counties in New York State. One of the biggest sparks for community resistance in the Upper Delaware River Valley was that part of the line’s route would run through land that would otherwise be protected because it is part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Energy Act of 2005, however, provides for the creation of National Interest Electronic Transmission Corridors (NIETC), which might allow for the construction of power lines in the protected river area, as well as other protected areas such as national parks. This has led to national concern among environmentalists.
On September 30, Bystrom gave a presentation about NYRI to members of the Sierra Club at the Pocono Environmental Education Center in Dingmans Ferry, PA. The Sierra Club’s national organization is supporting efforts to stop the NYRI project.
Bystrom has also been in contact with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), which is battling the construction of new power line projects in Virginia. Energy companies there have requested three NIETCS, which, according to the PEC, would run through “44 state and national historic sites and six Civil War battlefields.”
The NIETC provision has also sparked interest from academia. Students from the Columbia University Law Clinic have submitted comments to the Department of Energy regarding the establishment of NIETCs, and other students from the university’s Earth Institute/Urban Lab have visited the Upper Delaware River Valley to look at the environmental impacts of existing power lines, as well as those proposed by NYRI.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Jeffrey Goldthwait letter to the Town of Cohocton
Date: October 23, 2006
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents and neighbors.
I respectfully submit a FOURTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The three previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, and 8/15/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date ( i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. Which requires “Periodic review”. Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC WindTurbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” have been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN WRITING and at least the NINTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially and with due diligence.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
To: Town Board, Town Planning Board and Town Attorney of Cohocton
cc: State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government,
Steuben County Planning Board
From: F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
I am a resident, property owner, taxpayer and registered voter in the Town of Cohocton and I speak on behalf of many fellow residents and neighbors.
I respectfully submit a FOURTH written request for a written response by each of the Town Board and the Town Planning Board and Town Attorney to each of the following questions set forth in this document which has been personally delivered to each Board and the Town Attorney. The three previous requests were made on 6/20, 8/10, and 8/15/2006. Not one response from any town official has been received to date. This is a wrong that must be righted.
1. What justification does the Town Board and Planning Board have for not reviewing and updating the town’s negligently, and irresponsibly out of date ( i.e. neither reviewed nor revised since is adoption in 1970) “Comprehensive Master Plan” before making a decision to adopt any new Town Law or Town Zoning Law amendment when such a significant new land issue such as the proposed UPC Wind Turbine Project is being considered? See NYS Town Law Section 272-a, 10. Which requires “Periodic review”. Both the current Town Windmill Law and Local Law #2 as currently proposed and the UPC WindTurbine project as submitted to date are in clear violation of and in direct contradiction to most of the “general objectives which support and complement the specific Comprehensive Plan goals” as set forth in said Plan.
Both Town Boards have a duty to heed and abide by the specific warning as stated in the Comprehensive Master Plan which reads “Misuse of the land can become a community liability for decades to come.”
In addition, NYS Town Law Section 272-a,11.(a) states “All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.” Neither Local Law #1 nor the proposed Local Law #2, both of 2006 and written to “regulate windmills and windmill facilities” have been reviewed to establish whether or not they are “in accordance with” the current Town and Village Master Comprehensive Plan. This must be done prior to the passage of any new “land use regulations. I call upon all Town officials to comply fully with the law as set forth above.
2. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent Legal, Real Estate Appraisal, Financial, Environmental and Small Town Business Development experts whose services the Town Board and/or Planning Board have retained in order to professionally evaluate the proposed UPC project in order to assure all the people of the Town of Cohocton that you are being reasonably prudent, diligent and impartial and thorough in your sworn duty to represent all of the people of Cohocton in a fair, judicious an non negligent manner?
3. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial and insurance experts retained By the Town to independently analyze the financial worth, stability, liability risk factors to the Town and its residents and performance of UPC (with its former ENRON executive(s) and its parent companies?
4. What are the names of the qualified, neutral and independent financial experts retained By the Town that concluded that a PILOT by UPC was financially more beneficial to the Town than other tax options?
5. Just what is UPC’s track record of successful, completed, fully operating and economically viable wind turbine projects to date in the United States?
6. Has the Town Board and/or Town Planning Board contracted with UPC and its related companies to guarantee that full indemnification and insurance coverage is in place to protect every resident and property owner in the Town?
7. Do you fully understand the severe limitations of legal liability to the Town of Cohocton that UPC and its related companies will enjoy at our expense and risk? What are the name(s) of the independent legal counsel, with no connection or relationship, financial or otherwise, to UPC, has the Town retained to represent and protect the legal rights, potential liabilities and property values as well as the right to enjoyment thereof of every property owner and taxpayer in the Town?
8. Why has the Town Board taken an apparent “oath of silence” and not responded to any public questions about the negotiations between the Town and UPC?
9. Why is it that the only expert legal counsel drafting documents and proposed Town laws in this matter is retained and paid for by UPC?
10. Why has the Planning Board made proposed amendments to the proposed Windmill Law without first seeking the assistance of the Town Attorney and why did Sandor Fox the Planning Board’s Chairman refuse to answer that question when it was asked to him at that board’s meeting on August 3, 2006?
11. When will the Town Board and Planning Board address the issues raised as to the legality of some of the meetings held to date?
12. Is not this proposed wind farm project in clear violation of the stated purpose of our newly enacted Zoning Law? Article 1;Sec. 120;2,4,7 which states in part that the “PURPOSE of said law is:
“2. To encourage the most appropriate use of land, to conserve and enhance the value of property:…
4. To provide for open spaces and recreation areas, protect natural resources, agricultural land, scenic areas…
7. To assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisances and noxious conditions disturbing to the senses or harmful to the health, prevent unsightly, obtrusive and noisome activities, and generally enhance the community.”
13. Does not he proposed UPC project also violate Local Law No. 2 of the year 1987, Section 4. which reads:
4. DUTY OF MAINTAINING PRIVATE PROPERTY
No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of or control of any premises within the Town of Cohocton shall maintain or keep any nuisance thereon, nor shall any person keep or maintain such premises in a manner causing substantial diminution in the value of other property in the neighborhood in which such premises are located.
We the people of the Town of Cohocton respectfully request FOR THE FOURTH TIME IN WRITING and at least the NINTH TIME ORALLY answers to all of the above questions by each Board and the Town Attorney IN WRITING. We believe we have a right to the answers and that the Town Board and Planning Board have a legal, ethical and moral duty to provide full honest and accurate responses to the citizens each of you took an oath to serve fairly and impartially and with due diligence.
Very truly yours,
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, J.D.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Ont. bill targets stray voltage from power lines as threat to human health by GREGORY BONNELL
TORONTO (CP) - Canada's dairy cows are acting as "canaries in coal mines" when it comes to detecting stray electricity in the ground that poses a significant threat to human health, experts said Thursday.
While research and courtroom victories suggest stray voltage from power lines can negatively impact on a cow's milk production, there's also a documented case of it claiming a human life.
Cattle herds, to the dismay of dairy farmers, are on the frontlines of detecting the problem, said Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
"We normally hear about this from dairy farmers, because the cow becomes the canary in the coal mine," said Havas, a professor of environmental science.
"The cow, because they milk it twice a day . . .they record how much milk (they) give. If there's a change in that 24-hour period, they can pick it up instantly."
The problem lies in the neutral wires on hydro transmission lines which carry electricity back to the transformer to complete the circuit.
If there isn't a neutral wire, or the one present can't handle the load, then power will stray - travelling through yards, buildings, fields, animals and humans on its way back to the transformer.
"It would knock our cows down," said Lee Montgomery, a former dairy farmer from southwestern Ontario.
"We're were getting (power surges) over 1,000 volts, and I've got the tapes to prove it, I've still got 'em."
In the late 1970s, Montgomery went from being one of the top dairy producers in the Chatham-Kent region of Ontario to ranking near the bottom.
"He went from being a top quantity as well as top quality, then he went right down," said Barry Fraser, a former Ontario agriculture ministry worker assigned to monitor the problems on Montgomery's farm.
That work led the ministry to concede that stray electricity could be a factor. Montgomery sued the province's giant power utility, then called Ontario Hydro, and settled out of court.
"(The power utilities) fail to consider what effect (stray voltage) would have for people and animals who stand on that ground and are exposed to that current," said Havas.
Last week, a jury in Washington State ordered a local power utility to pay $1.1 million in damages to a dairy farmer who argued ground current devastated his business.
The problem isn't solely the concern of farmers.
Two years ago in New York City, a woman walking her dogs was killed by stray voltage when she stepped on a steel plate.
"We want to make sure that it doesn't happen here," said Havas.
"We want to get rid of the problem so that it helps farm animals, it helps farmers but it helps people in urban areas as well, before there's a death (in Canada)."
In the majority of cases, adding a neutral wire where there isn't already one, or a second wire to help handle the load, would solve the problem, said Havas.
To that end, legislation calling for fines of up to $1,000 for each day a utility fails to act on complaints of stray electricity passed second reading Thursday in the Ontario legislature.
The private member's bill originated from the backbenches of the Liberal government. Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said he was "glad" to see a discussion on the "little-known issue."
"We don't have many neutral wires in the province right now," said Duncan.
"We take advice from the legislature, from the people of Ontario, (but) I can't say we'd move on it in a fast time frame."
The problem of stray electricity isn't confined to farm fields and city streets, said Havas.
"When you turn on that tap to get a drink of water, to do your dishes, to have a shower, there is current flowing through from the tap through your body," she said.
"The way it comes into our house is through the plumbing. Everything is grounded to plumbing, that's how our code works."
Electricians measuring stray electricity coming through shower heads have found levels strong enough to seriously harm, or even kill, people, said Havas.
While research and courtroom victories suggest stray voltage from power lines can negatively impact on a cow's milk production, there's also a documented case of it claiming a human life.
Cattle herds, to the dismay of dairy farmers, are on the frontlines of detecting the problem, said Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
"We normally hear about this from dairy farmers, because the cow becomes the canary in the coal mine," said Havas, a professor of environmental science.
"The cow, because they milk it twice a day . . .they record how much milk (they) give. If there's a change in that 24-hour period, they can pick it up instantly."
The problem lies in the neutral wires on hydro transmission lines which carry electricity back to the transformer to complete the circuit.
If there isn't a neutral wire, or the one present can't handle the load, then power will stray - travelling through yards, buildings, fields, animals and humans on its way back to the transformer.
"It would knock our cows down," said Lee Montgomery, a former dairy farmer from southwestern Ontario.
"We're were getting (power surges) over 1,000 volts, and I've got the tapes to prove it, I've still got 'em."
In the late 1970s, Montgomery went from being one of the top dairy producers in the Chatham-Kent region of Ontario to ranking near the bottom.
"He went from being a top quantity as well as top quality, then he went right down," said Barry Fraser, a former Ontario agriculture ministry worker assigned to monitor the problems on Montgomery's farm.
That work led the ministry to concede that stray electricity could be a factor. Montgomery sued the province's giant power utility, then called Ontario Hydro, and settled out of court.
"(The power utilities) fail to consider what effect (stray voltage) would have for people and animals who stand on that ground and are exposed to that current," said Havas.
Last week, a jury in Washington State ordered a local power utility to pay $1.1 million in damages to a dairy farmer who argued ground current devastated his business.
The problem isn't solely the concern of farmers.
Two years ago in New York City, a woman walking her dogs was killed by stray voltage when she stepped on a steel plate.
"We want to make sure that it doesn't happen here," said Havas.
"We want to get rid of the problem so that it helps farm animals, it helps farmers but it helps people in urban areas as well, before there's a death (in Canada)."
In the majority of cases, adding a neutral wire where there isn't already one, or a second wire to help handle the load, would solve the problem, said Havas.
To that end, legislation calling for fines of up to $1,000 for each day a utility fails to act on complaints of stray electricity passed second reading Thursday in the Ontario legislature.
The private member's bill originated from the backbenches of the Liberal government. Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said he was "glad" to see a discussion on the "little-known issue."
"We don't have many neutral wires in the province right now," said Duncan.
"We take advice from the legislature, from the people of Ontario, (but) I can't say we'd move on it in a fast time frame."
The problem of stray electricity isn't confined to farm fields and city streets, said Havas.
"When you turn on that tap to get a drink of water, to do your dishes, to have a shower, there is current flowing through from the tap through your body," she said.
"The way it comes into our house is through the plumbing. Everything is grounded to plumbing, that's how our code works."
Electricians measuring stray electricity coming through shower heads have found levels strong enough to seriously harm, or even kill, people, said Havas.
Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed by Don E. Sandford
To: Town Of Cohocton Town Board Members - November 16, 2006
From : Don E Sandford
Subject: Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed:
1. Obvious collusion with UPC to promote their interest with industrial wind turbines totally ignoring the important quality of life and property value issues of the impacted property owners you should have been representing as your first concern.
2. No knowledgeable, direct discussion with the public by board member to frame the issues openly and honestly as expected and required ONLY.
3. Secrecy, indifference, stonewalling and deception at every stage to legitimate questions and issues raised.
Real leaders set the example of their ability by credible decision making that has EARNED the trust, respect and confidence people placed in them and be willing to follow because of it. You ALL failed by your actions or inactions when giving the opportunity to convince and lead based on truth, facts and respect for others of different but valid view points of the industrial turbine issue. Much “pride in their community” already has been destroyed forever between people because of your lack of competent leadership. How you vote shortly will be your legacy to live with and to eventually explain and are directly responsible for creating and sustaining this sad chapter for the town. I have every confidence history and the court system if necessary will ultimately reveal the truth for all to see.
Enclosed find article entitled: ”Wind Energy: A Crash Course in Six Paragraphs” by Mike McGrady. Read it and reflect on the information know by many others, then combine it with the concerns raised by citizens of your town opposing the industrial turbines and LL#2 as now written and it presents resounding and clear reasons for opposing LL#2 and needing a moratorium NOW.
Are each of you really independent thinking leaders, basing your decisions on facts,truth and fairness and willing to stand up alone if necessary or merely a complacent follower as witnessed to so far. The content of your character will soon be known to all and more importantly to you, as a part of your own conscience to live with for what you have or have not intentionally and knowingly done, effecting so many. Make the right decision for us all. Vote NO to LL#2 in favor of a needed moratorium.
Respectfully Submitted.
From : Don E Sandford
Subject: Observations of Past 6 Months Board Meetings Revealed:
1. Obvious collusion with UPC to promote their interest with industrial wind turbines totally ignoring the important quality of life and property value issues of the impacted property owners you should have been representing as your first concern.
2. No knowledgeable, direct discussion with the public by board member to frame the issues openly and honestly as expected and required ONLY.
3. Secrecy, indifference, stonewalling and deception at every stage to legitimate questions and issues raised.
Real leaders set the example of their ability by credible decision making that has EARNED the trust, respect and confidence people placed in them and be willing to follow because of it. You ALL failed by your actions or inactions when giving the opportunity to convince and lead based on truth, facts and respect for others of different but valid view points of the industrial turbine issue. Much “pride in their community” already has been destroyed forever between people because of your lack of competent leadership. How you vote shortly will be your legacy to live with and to eventually explain and are directly responsible for creating and sustaining this sad chapter for the town. I have every confidence history and the court system if necessary will ultimately reveal the truth for all to see.
Enclosed find article entitled: ”Wind Energy: A Crash Course in Six Paragraphs” by Mike McGrady. Read it and reflect on the information know by many others, then combine it with the concerns raised by citizens of your town opposing the industrial turbines and LL#2 as now written and it presents resounding and clear reasons for opposing LL#2 and needing a moratorium NOW.
Are each of you really independent thinking leaders, basing your decisions on facts,truth and fairness and willing to stand up alone if necessary or merely a complacent follower as witnessed to so far. The content of your character will soon be known to all and more importantly to you, as a part of your own conscience to live with for what you have or have not intentionally and knowingly done, effecting so many. Make the right decision for us all. Vote NO to LL#2 in favor of a needed moratorium.
Respectfully Submitted.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Judith Hall letter to the Town Board of Cohocton
November 16, 2006
Town Supervisor
Town Councilmen
15 Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Sirs,
This week I spoke with Mr. John Kuehn of the Sprague Insurance Company, who carries the town insurance policy. Amazingly he has not spoken to one representative for the town prior to our conversation!
He stated that if the local law #2 is passed as written ignoring manufacturer as well as NYS Department of Health minimum setbacks for turbine safety from blade and ice throw the insurance company could use the zoning land use changes as a basis for not insuring the town against damages caused by the turbines. Without having knowledge of any proposed project or ordinance he also stated that the insurance carriers would certainly be looking at large rate increases for Ag land changed to industrial. Mr. Kuehn also stated the town would definitely need to require the developer to provide suitable “hold harmless” protection for neighboring properties, which should be addressed in the law, for both the town and residents protection.
Is it not incredible that your expensive legal counsel as well as consultants would not have advised you of these needed protections. The town may soon find that the few thousand dollars now being offered in the PILOT program will not even cover the additional insurance premiums the town will incur because of improper setbacks and lack of protection written into the law. What makes you think a company that thus far has used four different names, erected towers without permits, circumvented town and state law as they deem necessary, and has conducted business with the board before they were even legal entities in NY state will do the right thing in the future if not forced to do so by your windmill law? It is not a town board’s luxury to hope for the best, it is your sworn duty to protect the health and safety of every resident in your jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Judith Hall
5029 Moore Rd
Cohocton, NY
Town Supervisor
Town Councilmen
15 Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Sirs,
This week I spoke with Mr. John Kuehn of the Sprague Insurance Company, who carries the town insurance policy. Amazingly he has not spoken to one representative for the town prior to our conversation!
He stated that if the local law #2 is passed as written ignoring manufacturer as well as NYS Department of Health minimum setbacks for turbine safety from blade and ice throw the insurance company could use the zoning land use changes as a basis for not insuring the town against damages caused by the turbines. Without having knowledge of any proposed project or ordinance he also stated that the insurance carriers would certainly be looking at large rate increases for Ag land changed to industrial. Mr. Kuehn also stated the town would definitely need to require the developer to provide suitable “hold harmless” protection for neighboring properties, which should be addressed in the law, for both the town and residents protection.
Is it not incredible that your expensive legal counsel as well as consultants would not have advised you of these needed protections. The town may soon find that the few thousand dollars now being offered in the PILOT program will not even cover the additional insurance premiums the town will incur because of improper setbacks and lack of protection written into the law. What makes you think a company that thus far has used four different names, erected towers without permits, circumvented town and state law as they deem necessary, and has conducted business with the board before they were even legal entities in NY state will do the right thing in the future if not forced to do so by your windmill law? It is not a town board’s luxury to hope for the best, it is your sworn duty to protect the health and safety of every resident in your jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Judith Hall
5029 Moore Rd
Cohocton, NY
Thursday, November 16, 2006
SPECIAL MEETING of the Cohocton Planning Board
NOTICE to all that you need to attend this Special Meeting of the Cohocton Planning Board Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 7:30 PM. The location is at the CDC Grange Building on 71 Maples Ave, Cohocton, NY.
Attorney Todd Mathes will be present. The purpose of this Special Meeting is to review the site locations for Eight wind turbine on Phase I of the UPC Project, along Pine Hill.
CWW is challenging this meeting since the Town building inspector has determined that NO ACTION should be undertaken at this time on site locations, since the Windmill Local Law #2 has not been voted upon.
Attorney Todd Mathes will be present. The purpose of this Special Meeting is to review the site locations for Eight wind turbine on Phase I of the UPC Project, along Pine Hill.
CWW is challenging this meeting since the Town building inspector has determined that NO ACTION should be undertaken at this time on site locations, since the Windmill Local Law #2 has not been voted upon.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Final Version of Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2
Cohocton Town Board will vote on WLL #2 on Tuesday November 21, 2006. Be sure to attend this meeting.
WLL2111406.rtf
WLL2111406.rtf
Support Cohocton Wind Watch - raffle for a stay at the Villa Serendip Bed and Breakfast
Our elegant and upscale Victorian Villa a Finger Lakes Bed and Breakfast is located just off I-390 and only a few minutes from the charming village of Naples. Whether you are looking for a romantic getaway or the perfect place to spend your vacation you will be glad you chose the Villa Serendip Bed and Breakfast.
Contact a CWW member to support this raffle.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Wind energy: A crash course in six paragraphs
Dear 60 Minutes:
Kudos for your story on Rep. Jeff Flake and his efforts to stem Congressional "earmarking" (11/5/06). "60 Minutes" has always excelled at investigating/exposing/publicizing Congressional pork, largesse, and general misappropriation of taxpayers' money.
So why not do a story on Wind Farming?
In an nutshell, Congress provides ridiculously generous subsidies and tax credits to large energy companies and investment banks for building and operating wind farms. The most generous of these is the Federal Accelerated Depreciation, whereby wind energy companies can "write off" up to 200% (!) of its investment in the first five years of operation. The other main "break" comes in the form of the Federal Production Tax Credit, whereby the companies receive a 1.9 cent credit for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which means millions more per year in direct deductions. These two benefits ALONE (there are others) add up to billions of taxpayers' dollars going directly into the pockets of Big Energy (such as GE and Exxon/Mobil) and investments banks (such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan) for building costly energy-producing facilities that are increasingly seen as having dubious benefit to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Most of these companies are guaranteed at least a 100% profit even before accounting for the sale of their product--this is the perfect business scheme, and it's all done through tax benefits, and it's being practiced on a grand scale all across the country.
These benefits were originally lobbied for by the "creative" minds at Enron, which, before its downfall, was the single largest owner of wind farms in the country. Today, it's not at all unusual to find former Enron employees holding key posts at wind energy companies. Guilty by association? Perhaps not, but that fact alone is enough to make one wonder if it is the employees' expertise or the Enron corporate culture that is being cultivated. Some would call them the same thing.
Wind energy companies target politically weak rural areas which have relatively little wind (which in itself is enough to question their true motives) offering "economic growth" and a chance to "play a part" in solving the country's energy needs and curbing global warmth. Their "come-ons," however, are easily proven false by experts: Wind energy produces very little energy indeed, and it "erases" little or no pollution. The promised economic benefit to the host town or county is a pittance--relative to the millions the wind company stands to make--sometimes amounting to nothing more than the fiscal ability to purchase a new snow plow. Yet, the wind farms are very often approved by these sparsely populated communities, and the vote of approval is usually left to a handful of Town Board members, some of whom may have a financial interest in the placement of the wind turbines or other aspects of the project. In most cases, despite many public hearings, town meetings and environmental review processes where the majority makes its objections to the project clear, they are ignored and the wind energy company moves in, erecting 30, 50 or even 100 or more 400 foot-tall wind turbines over thousands of acres of farmland and countryside.
Because of the subsidies and tax credits, every taxpayer becomes unwittingly complicit in marring the rural landscape, dividing communities, and enriching already extremely wealthy corporations, and all we get from it is extremely inefficient--and ultimately redundant--power plants. Adding salt to the wound, taxpayers are often forced to pay for the premium-priced electricity, as much of it is purchased by the Federal government, State governments, and public agencies; thus, the wind companies are guaranteed a market, and politicians can say they are fulfilling mandates to secure "green energy" for "X %" of their state's energy needs by a certain date. Finally, it's not much of a stretch to accept the notion that the tax money in question ends up funding the politicians themselves: Undoubtedly, as a way of saying "thanks," wind farm owners contribute generously (either directly or through PACs, "Foundations," etc.) to the campaign chests of members of Congress who were instrumental in approving these benefits.
There are several high profile wind projects currently under consideration--for example, the proposed Reddington Mountain Windfarm along the Appalachian Trail in Maine--but the project this writer is most familiar with is the Dairy Hills Wind Farm in the town of Perry in upstate New York. This is a classic example of a rural, under-represented community struggling with the issue of whether or not to allow a wind company--in this case, Horizon Wind Energy (owned by Goldman Sachs)--to erect a wind farm over several square miles of scenic, open farmland. Horizon/Goldman Sachs has spent much time, effort and money extolling the benefits of wind farming and trying to convince the town they need to be "partners;" they've offered seemingly generous "rental payments" to landowners, bought full page ads in local newspapers, suggested the community will profit from jobs and tourism. But they also deride and criticize opponents, and they've tried--and are still trying--to have zoning laws changed in their favor. Opponents debate every point, cry foul at unfair town hearings and procedural processes, and beg for more time to study the facts and root out the fiction. Farmers say they have a right to do what they want with their land, but neighbors say they'll be too adversely affected if the turbines are allowed to go up. This same scenario is being played out in many, many rural communities in many states, and it is the result not of the need to supply the national grid with "alternative" energy, but of the far too generous tax benefits given to those who would not otherwise be in the business of wind farming.
Please do consider doing a story on wind farming. It is an issue with many facets, but ultimately it is a true waste of public money, sponsored by Congress, exploited by Big Business.
Sincerely,
Mike McGrady
Kudos for your story on Rep. Jeff Flake and his efforts to stem Congressional "earmarking" (11/5/06). "60 Minutes" has always excelled at investigating/exposing/publicizing Congressional pork, largesse, and general misappropriation of taxpayers' money.
So why not do a story on Wind Farming?
In an nutshell, Congress provides ridiculously generous subsidies and tax credits to large energy companies and investment banks for building and operating wind farms. The most generous of these is the Federal Accelerated Depreciation, whereby wind energy companies can "write off" up to 200% (!) of its investment in the first five years of operation. The other main "break" comes in the form of the Federal Production Tax Credit, whereby the companies receive a 1.9 cent credit for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced, which means millions more per year in direct deductions. These two benefits ALONE (there are others) add up to billions of taxpayers' dollars going directly into the pockets of Big Energy (such as GE and Exxon/Mobil) and investments banks (such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan) for building costly energy-producing facilities that are increasingly seen as having dubious benefit to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Most of these companies are guaranteed at least a 100% profit even before accounting for the sale of their product--this is the perfect business scheme, and it's all done through tax benefits, and it's being practiced on a grand scale all across the country.
These benefits were originally lobbied for by the "creative" minds at Enron, which, before its downfall, was the single largest owner of wind farms in the country. Today, it's not at all unusual to find former Enron employees holding key posts at wind energy companies. Guilty by association? Perhaps not, but that fact alone is enough to make one wonder if it is the employees' expertise or the Enron corporate culture that is being cultivated. Some would call them the same thing.
Wind energy companies target politically weak rural areas which have relatively little wind (which in itself is enough to question their true motives) offering "economic growth" and a chance to "play a part" in solving the country's energy needs and curbing global warmth. Their "come-ons," however, are easily proven false by experts: Wind energy produces very little energy indeed, and it "erases" little or no pollution. The promised economic benefit to the host town or county is a pittance--relative to the millions the wind company stands to make--sometimes amounting to nothing more than the fiscal ability to purchase a new snow plow. Yet, the wind farms are very often approved by these sparsely populated communities, and the vote of approval is usually left to a handful of Town Board members, some of whom may have a financial interest in the placement of the wind turbines or other aspects of the project. In most cases, despite many public hearings, town meetings and environmental review processes where the majority makes its objections to the project clear, they are ignored and the wind energy company moves in, erecting 30, 50 or even 100 or more 400 foot-tall wind turbines over thousands of acres of farmland and countryside.
Because of the subsidies and tax credits, every taxpayer becomes unwittingly complicit in marring the rural landscape, dividing communities, and enriching already extremely wealthy corporations, and all we get from it is extremely inefficient--and ultimately redundant--power plants. Adding salt to the wound, taxpayers are often forced to pay for the premium-priced electricity, as much of it is purchased by the Federal government, State governments, and public agencies; thus, the wind companies are guaranteed a market, and politicians can say they are fulfilling mandates to secure "green energy" for "X %" of their state's energy needs by a certain date. Finally, it's not much of a stretch to accept the notion that the tax money in question ends up funding the politicians themselves: Undoubtedly, as a way of saying "thanks," wind farm owners contribute generously (either directly or through PACs, "Foundations," etc.) to the campaign chests of members of Congress who were instrumental in approving these benefits.
There are several high profile wind projects currently under consideration--for example, the proposed Reddington Mountain Windfarm along the Appalachian Trail in Maine--but the project this writer is most familiar with is the Dairy Hills Wind Farm in the town of Perry in upstate New York. This is a classic example of a rural, under-represented community struggling with the issue of whether or not to allow a wind company--in this case, Horizon Wind Energy (owned by Goldman Sachs)--to erect a wind farm over several square miles of scenic, open farmland. Horizon/Goldman Sachs has spent much time, effort and money extolling the benefits of wind farming and trying to convince the town they need to be "partners;" they've offered seemingly generous "rental payments" to landowners, bought full page ads in local newspapers, suggested the community will profit from jobs and tourism. But they also deride and criticize opponents, and they've tried--and are still trying--to have zoning laws changed in their favor. Opponents debate every point, cry foul at unfair town hearings and procedural processes, and beg for more time to study the facts and root out the fiction. Farmers say they have a right to do what they want with their land, but neighbors say they'll be too adversely affected if the turbines are allowed to go up. This same scenario is being played out in many, many rural communities in many states, and it is the result not of the need to supply the national grid with "alternative" energy, but of the far too generous tax benefits given to those who would not otherwise be in the business of wind farming.
Please do consider doing a story on wind farming. It is an issue with many facets, but ultimately it is a true waste of public money, sponsored by Congress, exploited by Big Business.
Sincerely,
Mike McGrady
New York State Unified Court System
WebCivil provides online access to information about cases in Civil Supreme Court in all 62 counties of New York State. You may search for cases by Index Number or the name of the Plaintiff or Defendant, look up cases by Attorney/Firm name, and view Calendars for each court.
WebCivil is provided as a FREE public service by the New York State Unified Court System.
WebCivil is provided as a FREE public service by the New York State Unified Court System.
GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
PDF file on the text of the law
entire_prop90.pdf
entire_prop90.pdf
Proposition 90: full text on eminent domain
Section 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
(a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation.
(b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
(c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
(d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.
Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
(b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately-owned prison facilities.
(c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
(d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact "The Protect Our Homes Act."
Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
(2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
(3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XI11 A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
(4) The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
(b) For purposes of applying this section:
(1) "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term "public purpose;" its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
(2) Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
(3) Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
(4) In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government's occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled, at the property owner's election, to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
(5) If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.
(6) In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
(7) In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
(8) Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.
(9) A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action.
(10) For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the State of California, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(d) nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.
Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article I1 or Article XVIII.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article 11.
The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.
(a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation.
(b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
(c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
(d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.
Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
(b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately-owned prison facilities.
(c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
(d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact "The Protect Our Homes Act."
Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
(2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
(3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XI11 A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
(4) The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.
(b) For purposes of applying this section:
(1) "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term "public purpose;" its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
(2) Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
(3) Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
(4) In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government's occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled, at the property owner's election, to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
(5) If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.
(6) In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
(7) In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
(8) Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.
(9) A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action.
(10) For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the State of California, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(d) nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.
Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article I1 or Article XVIII.
Section 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article 11.
The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)