Windmills on the Tug Hill Plateau in northern New York are killing hundreds of bats and birds.
A consultants' report for PPM Energy and Horizon Energy identified 123 birds, mostly night migrants, and 326 bats found dead over the course of five months beneath 50 wind turbines on the plateau between Lake Ontario and the western Adirondacks.
The ongoing study at the largest wind farm in New York state is required to assess its environmental impact. The initial results were distributed to state and federal wildlife and energy officials.
The Adirondack Council repeated concerns that wind farms have been proposed in a virtual ring around the 6-million-acre Adirondack Park. The group says the threat to migratory birds needs to be better studied before towers are built.
(Click to read entire article)
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Reply to Mark Stash's Life in the Finger Lakes article by Robert Strasburg II
Mark,
I was very discouraged of your account of the pros and cons of the industrial wind turbines published in your magazine recently. Mark, in summary, this entire proposal for supposed “green energy” and economic contribution is nothing short of another Enron scandal bilking the public of taxpayer dollars falsely based on these two very important issues. I am continually astonished at otherwise intelligent people being duped by this perversion of facts.
Mark, I simple open-minded approach to seeking what is behind this fallacy will quickly reveal the motivation of the collusion between government, international financiers, politicians, and private developers. The entire process high jacks important tax dollars and wastes them on an industry unable to contribute any significant amount to our need for clean energy. The Billions of dollars that are earmarks for this theft and improper allocation could be much better spent on cleaning up the coal emissions and building new and better hydro plants.
The reason our area is being permeated with the false propaganda surrounding this unproductive venture rather than directing these dollars toward a more productive effort is simply that the chance for developers, etc. to acquire the level of wealth offered for such a pursuit toward a better idea are not there. This is all about tax dollars accumulated in great quantity and distributed to a few corporations and international financiers and their cronies.
I am not opposed to green energy and recognize fully the need for the same. With that fundamental idea in mind, the idea of industrial wind in the Finger Lakes, as proposed, fails any reasonable test from any reasonable effort of research.
Again, I am sadly disappointed at your take on this. The gullibility you express concerning this issue greatly mars my opinion of your judgment.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
I was very discouraged of your account of the pros and cons of the industrial wind turbines published in your magazine recently. Mark, in summary, this entire proposal for supposed “green energy” and economic contribution is nothing short of another Enron scandal bilking the public of taxpayer dollars falsely based on these two very important issues. I am continually astonished at otherwise intelligent people being duped by this perversion of facts.
Mark, I simple open-minded approach to seeking what is behind this fallacy will quickly reveal the motivation of the collusion between government, international financiers, politicians, and private developers. The entire process high jacks important tax dollars and wastes them on an industry unable to contribute any significant amount to our need for clean energy. The Billions of dollars that are earmarks for this theft and improper allocation could be much better spent on cleaning up the coal emissions and building new and better hydro plants.
The reason our area is being permeated with the false propaganda surrounding this unproductive venture rather than directing these dollars toward a more productive effort is simply that the chance for developers, etc. to acquire the level of wealth offered for such a pursuit toward a better idea are not there. This is all about tax dollars accumulated in great quantity and distributed to a few corporations and international financiers and their cronies.
I am not opposed to green energy and recognize fully the need for the same. With that fundamental idea in mind, the idea of industrial wind in the Finger Lakes, as proposed, fails any reasonable test from any reasonable effort of research.
Again, I am sadly disappointed at your take on this. The gullibility you express concerning this issue greatly mars my opinion of your judgment.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Strasburg II
Reply to Mark Stash's Life in the Finger Lakes article by Charlie Kota
Mark,
I can't believe that you, an intelligent person can really believe in these industrial wind turbines.If you think $600 toilet seats and hammers were a rape of our taxpayer dollars, hang onto your butt. When you find out how much of the taxpayer's hard earned money has been funneled out of country, you will be appalled.
These turbines have been in Europe for twenty years with no impact on reducing fossil fuel energy plants. Many are not operating and obsolete. Even when they are not operating they are continually using electricity. Where do you think it comes from ? From a fossil fuel energy plant of course.
This state has invested millions upon millions of dollars into the Finger Lakes region to promote the wine industry and tourism. There is only one Finger Lakes in the world. When it is ruined by wind turbine farms it is gone forever. People come to the Finger Lakes to tour the wine country, enjoy the beautiful lake and see the fall foliage.
Do you really believe people will come here to see these 500 foot monsters perched all over our beautiful hills ? You, of all people should be able to see through this smoke screen called industrial wind turbines equals green power. It is all about greed equals money, pure and simple.
Charles Kota
A Finger Lakes resident
I can't believe that you, an intelligent person can really believe in these industrial wind turbines.If you think $600 toilet seats and hammers were a rape of our taxpayer dollars, hang onto your butt. When you find out how much of the taxpayer's hard earned money has been funneled out of country, you will be appalled.
These turbines have been in Europe for twenty years with no impact on reducing fossil fuel energy plants. Many are not operating and obsolete. Even when they are not operating they are continually using electricity. Where do you think it comes from ? From a fossil fuel energy plant of course.
This state has invested millions upon millions of dollars into the Finger Lakes region to promote the wine industry and tourism. There is only one Finger Lakes in the world. When it is ruined by wind turbine farms it is gone forever. People come to the Finger Lakes to tour the wine country, enjoy the beautiful lake and see the fall foliage.
Do you really believe people will come here to see these 500 foot monsters perched all over our beautiful hills ? You, of all people should be able to see through this smoke screen called industrial wind turbines equals green power. It is all about greed equals money, pure and simple.
Charles Kota
A Finger Lakes resident
Can the Wind Provide an Answer? by Mark Stash
There may be one way we can change our high tax situation for the better. Wind power has been a hotly debated subject around the area I live, and I’m sure throughout all of New York. Wind turbines are said to be a blight upon the landscape, they possibly interfere with migratory patterns of birds, they don’t generate enough energy for their cost, and they are noisy. Necessary access roads to them may run through some prime farmland. Okay, I got some of the cons out of the way.
(Click to read entire article)
(Click to read entire article)
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train by David Evans
The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.
I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
2) Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
3) The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!
It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.
4) There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.
(Click to read entire article)
I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
2) Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
3) The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!
It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.
4) There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.
(Click to read entire article)
Noble Environmental Power Retains Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Essex, CT – Noble Environmental Power, a leading U.S. based wind developer, today announced it has retained Goldman, Sachs & Co. to act as its financial advisor in a review of the company’s strategic alternatives.
Noble is a leading renewable energy company that is majority owned by JP Morgan Partners, a private equity arm of JP Morgan Chase and Co. managed by CCMP Capital, and was founded in 2004 in response to public policy initiatives designed to foster the increased use of renewable energy sources. Noble is committed to creating environmentally friendly facilities in partnership with local communities. Based in Essex, CT, Noble has offices in Altona, Churubusco, Brandon, Bliss, and Fredonia NY; Ubly, MI and Lancaster, NH. For more information, please visit www.noblepower.com, or email to info@noblepower.com.
Noble is a leading renewable energy company that is majority owned by JP Morgan Partners, a private equity arm of JP Morgan Chase and Co. managed by CCMP Capital, and was founded in 2004 in response to public policy initiatives designed to foster the increased use of renewable energy sources. Noble is committed to creating environmentally friendly facilities in partnership with local communities. Based in Essex, CT, Noble has offices in Altona, Churubusco, Brandon, Bliss, and Fredonia NY; Ubly, MI and Lancaster, NH. For more information, please visit www.noblepower.com, or email to info@noblepower.com.
Monday, May 28, 2007
We need your support on HR 2337
Dear Friends,
U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va recently filed legislation, which includes, among other things, establishing very specific standards for "siting, construction, monitoring, and adaptive management" of on- and offshore wind projects to "avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on migratory birds and bats." The Environmental Protection Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Academies' National Research Council are all on record saying there is a need for more site-specific information to properly assess impacts on wildlife. Industry-generated impact reports do not represent independent review.
We are asking you to join us in supporting H.R. 2337, specifically Title II, Subtitle D.
If one (or more) of your State representatives sits on the House Resources Committee it is vital to send a fax or email highlighting your support for this provision in the bill. Emails with the letter attached should have a subject line that reads, "Support for HR 2337 Title II, Subtitle D". For a list of committee members, please click here.
A sample letter is provided below to assist in wording.
If no representatives from your State sit on the Committee, please consider faxing the letter directly to Congressman Rahall at 202-225-1931. Emails with the letter attached can be emailed to resources.committee@mail.house.gov with a copy to jeffrey.petrich@mail.house.gov.
Thank you for your support of this important legislation. We’ve all been waiting for leadership from Congress; this is a crucial first step. Subtitle D as written will make a difference!
Time is of the essence. Please fax or email your support TODAY. If we can assist in any way, please contact me at llinowes@windaction.org .
Thank you all for your tireless dedication.
Onward,
Lisa Linowes
Executive Director
Industrial Wind Action Group
www.windaction.org
603-838-6588
Sample Letter
May 26, 2007
Representative ____________________
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: H.R. 2337 – Title II, Subtitle D
Dear Mr. Representative _______________:
I am writing to express my support for HR 2337, and to urge you to preserve those parts of the bill that establish reasonable federal standards for the development of new energy resources. In particular, I ask that you support Title II, Subtitle D of the bill, that will establish standards for the development of wind energy while also providing protection for our wildlife resources.
Wind power may prove to be a piece of our energy puzzle, however, it should not be at the expense of wildlife and other natural resources. Heretofore, the federal government has played only a limited role in ensuring wind turbines are sited and constructed safely. Reasonable regulation is needed to ensure consistent and enforceable review both pre- and post- construction.
Please support Subtitle D as written and reject compromise wording that will weaken the effectiveness of the provisions.
Sincerely,
U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va recently filed legislation, which includes, among other things, establishing very specific standards for "siting, construction, monitoring, and adaptive management" of on- and offshore wind projects to "avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on migratory birds and bats." The Environmental Protection Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Academies' National Research Council are all on record saying there is a need for more site-specific information to properly assess impacts on wildlife. Industry-generated impact reports do not represent independent review.
We are asking you to join us in supporting H.R. 2337, specifically Title II, Subtitle D.
If one (or more) of your State representatives sits on the House Resources Committee it is vital to send a fax or email highlighting your support for this provision in the bill. Emails with the letter attached should have a subject line that reads, "Support for HR 2337 Title II, Subtitle D". For a list of committee members, please click here.
A sample letter is provided below to assist in wording.
If no representatives from your State sit on the Committee, please consider faxing the letter directly to Congressman Rahall at 202-225-1931. Emails with the letter attached can be emailed to resources.committee@mail.house.gov with a copy to jeffrey.petrich@mail.house.gov.
Thank you for your support of this important legislation. We’ve all been waiting for leadership from Congress; this is a crucial first step. Subtitle D as written will make a difference!
Time is of the essence. Please fax or email your support TODAY. If we can assist in any way, please contact me at llinowes@windaction.org .
Thank you all for your tireless dedication.
Onward,
Lisa Linowes
Executive Director
Industrial Wind Action Group
www.windaction.org
603-838-6588
Sample Letter
May 26, 2007
Representative ____________________
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: H.R. 2337 – Title II, Subtitle D
Dear Mr. Representative _______________:
I am writing to express my support for HR 2337, and to urge you to preserve those parts of the bill that establish reasonable federal standards for the development of new energy resources. In particular, I ask that you support Title II, Subtitle D of the bill, that will establish standards for the development of wind energy while also providing protection for our wildlife resources.
Wind power may prove to be a piece of our energy puzzle, however, it should not be at the expense of wildlife and other natural resources. Heretofore, the federal government has played only a limited role in ensuring wind turbines are sited and constructed safely. Reasonable regulation is needed to ensure consistent and enforceable review both pre- and post- construction.
Please support Subtitle D as written and reject compromise wording that will weaken the effectiveness of the provisions.
Sincerely,
Friday, May 25, 2007
Killed by a wind farm? by VICTORIA MOORE and NICK CRAVEN
Herbert was one of a consortium of 14 farmers who had hoped to lease some of their land to a renewable energy firm, to build a £40million wind farm of up to 26 turbines around this fenland village.
The idea met virulent opposition from the locals and - amid claims of intimidation, menacing poison pen letters and an ominous act of vandalism - earlier this month, half of the farmers who made up the consortium abruptly withdrew their support.
Herbert was one of the seven who remained, and, in a statement issued this week, his family claimed the unbearable pressure was a contributing factor to his death.
"In recent months Richard's health had created cause for concern," they said. "He had commenced treatment at the Fermoy Unit, Kings Lynn [a mental health unit].
"Anxieties relating to the decline of farming, coupled with opposition to a wind turbine farm and personal matters are believed to be behind his recent out-of-character behaviour."
But one local, who asked not to be named, said the reaction of one antiwind individual to the discovery of Herbert's body was extreme. "This is war," he is rumoured to have said, "and Richard Herbert is the first casualty."
(Click to read entire article)
The idea met virulent opposition from the locals and - amid claims of intimidation, menacing poison pen letters and an ominous act of vandalism - earlier this month, half of the farmers who made up the consortium abruptly withdrew their support.
Herbert was one of the seven who remained, and, in a statement issued this week, his family claimed the unbearable pressure was a contributing factor to his death.
"In recent months Richard's health had created cause for concern," they said. "He had commenced treatment at the Fermoy Unit, Kings Lynn [a mental health unit].
"Anxieties relating to the decline of farming, coupled with opposition to a wind turbine farm and personal matters are believed to be behind his recent out-of-character behaviour."
But one local, who asked not to be named, said the reaction of one antiwind individual to the discovery of Herbert's body was extreme. "This is war," he is rumoured to have said, "and Richard Herbert is the first casualty."
(Click to read entire article)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
CANCELLED - Cohocton Planning Board Meeting - 7:00 PM
"Special Meeting" review (accept) FEIS UPC project - Cohocton & Dutch Hill. Per Town of Cohocton clerk, this meeting has been cancelled
Group Protests Gorge UPC Wind Farm
THE DALLES, Ore. - A group of residents opposes a wind farm planned for the Columbia River Gorge in The Dalles, saying the turbines could harm wildlife and cause health problems.
The group, Families for Sevenmile Hill, is also worried about increasing noise and decreasing property values.
Wind farms have been springing up throughout the gorge, but this is the first time any notable opposition has arisen in Oregon.
(Click to read entire article)
The group, Families for Sevenmile Hill, is also worried about increasing noise and decreasing property values.
Wind farms have been springing up throughout the gorge, but this is the first time any notable opposition has arisen in Oregon.
(Click to read entire article)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Farmer kills himself after opposition to wind turbines on his land
A farmer killed himself after facing bitter opposition from villagers over plans for a multi-million pound wind farm on his land, his family said.
The body of Richard Herbert, a 47-year-old father of three, was found in a water-filled drain near his home at St John's Fen End, near King's Lynn, on Monday evening.
Mr Herbert, who had been receiving treatment for mental health problems, had been a member of a consortium of Fenland farmers around the village of Marshland St James whose plans to build a £40 million wind farm with 26 huge turbines had created fury among locals.
A fortnight ago, half of the 14 farmers abruptly dropped out of the scheme in the face of local opinion. They cited “personal reasons” but some said that they had received poison pen letters and, others, threats of violence.
(Click to read entire article)
The body of Richard Herbert, a 47-year-old father of three, was found in a water-filled drain near his home at St John's Fen End, near King's Lynn, on Monday evening.
Mr Herbert, who had been receiving treatment for mental health problems, had been a member of a consortium of Fenland farmers around the village of Marshland St James whose plans to build a £40 million wind farm with 26 huge turbines had created fury among locals.
A fortnight ago, half of the 14 farmers abruptly dropped out of the scheme in the face of local opinion. They cited “personal reasons” but some said that they had received poison pen letters and, others, threats of violence.
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007
Summary:
H.R. 2337 just introduced in the US House of Representatives by Congressman Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Title II, Subtitle D (beginning with Sec. 231 on page 39) of the bill addresses the safe siting of wind energy facilities. This specific section can be found below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle D-Ensuring Safety of Wildlife With Respect to Wind Energy
SEC. 231. STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Director and after public notice and opportunity to comment, shall promulgate regulations that establish minimum standards for siting, construction, monitoring, and adaptive management that must be satisfied by all wind projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife.
(b) NEW WIND PROJECTS.-Such standards shall, for all wind projects that have not been constructed before the date of enactment of this Act, include at a minimum the following:
(1) PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS.-Requirements for comprehensive preconstruction surveys that are of sufficient duration and scope to reasonably evaluate the extent to which a particular site is used by migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife, including species listed as endangered species or threatened species under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973(16 U.S.C. 1533) and the potential cumulative impact that a proposed wind project would have on such wildlife in combination with other existing or proposed wind projects. Such requirements shall provide that surveys must be carried out by scientific teams that include independent scientists and that the Director may obtain reasonable access to the proposed construction site to ensure that survey protocols are being properly developed and implemented.
(2) SITING.-Standards for siting wind projects for which construction has not begun so as to avoid impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds, bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent practicable based on data gathered during preconstruction surveys required under paragraph
(1), including-
(A) the avoidance of ecologically sensitive areas of importance to wildlife, such as migration corridors, wetlands, and other habitats where wildlife congregate; hibernation, breeding, and nursery areas; and critical habitats of endangered species and threatened species, and
(B) siting and configuring wind turbines to avoid landscape and other features known to attract wildlife.
(3) CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.-Requirements for the construction and operation of wind projects so that they minimize impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent practicable, including by-
(A) incorporating the best available technology for minimizing such impacts, and
(B) operating such projects in a manner that minimizes impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife.
(4) POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.-Requirements for thorough post-construction monitoring of the actual impacts, including cumulative impacts, that wind projects are having on birds, bats, and other wildlife, including standards and protocols for transmitting all monitoring data and findings to the Director for consideration of cumulative impacts and dissemination to the public. Such requirements shall provide that monitoring must be carried out by scientific teams that include independent scientists, and that the Director may obtain access at any time to the site to ensure that monitoring protocols are being properly developed and implemented.
(5) ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.-Requirements for adaptive management of wind projects if the impacts of such projects on birds, bats, and other wildlife exceed predicted impacts, including requirements that a wind project operator shall-
(A) take steps to reduce such impacts to the levels predicted prior to operation; or
(B) suspend operations if such steps are not, or cannot be, taken.
(6) OFFSET OF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS.-Requirements that wind projects offset any unavoidable impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds, bats, and other wildlife through the acquisition, conservation, or restoration of mitigation habitat, the funding of research that will be of value in conserving affected wildlife, and other appropriate measures.
(c) EXISTING PROJECTS.-Such standards shall, for all wind projects that have begun operation before the date of enactment of this Act, include at a minimum appropriate requirements for monitoring, adaptive management, and offset of unavoidable impacts mitigation for adverse impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife, consistent with paragraphs (4) through (6) of subsection (b).
SEC. 232. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
(a) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-No person may construct or operate a wind project unless the Director has issued a certification that the project will be constructed and operated in compliance with the standards promulgated under section 231.
(2) APPLICATION.-Paragraph (1) shall apply-
(A) in the case of a wind power project that began operating before the date of enactment of this Act, beginning at the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date the Director promulgates regulations under subsection (b); and
(B) in the case of a wind power project that has not been constructed before the date of enactment of this Act, beginning on such date of enactment.
(b) APPLICATIONS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director, after public notice and opportunity to comment, shall promulgate regulations that establish procedures for issuing certifications under this section.
(2) CONTENTS.-Such regulations shall-
(A) include requirements for submitting an application for certification under this section, including requirements for the contents of such applications;
(B) provide for advance public comment on each application for certification and on the conditions that should be attached to such a certification; and
(C) require that such applications address in detail how the project will be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable standards promulgated under section 231.
(c) RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATION.-Regulations under subsection (b) shall-
(1) require that each certification under this section must be renewed at least once every three years;
(2) establish procedures and requirements applicable to such renewal applications; and
(3) provide for advance public notice and comment regarding each application for renewal.
SEC. 233. PENALTIES.
A person who violates this subtitle or a regulation issued under this subtitle is subject to a fine of not more than $50,000, or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both.
SEC. 234. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STATUTES.
Nothing in this subtitle affects the application of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, the Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1973, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or any other relevant Federal law to wind projects.
Download File(s):
RAHALL House Resource Ctte draft energy bill _018_xml.pdf (214.82 kB)
H.R. 2337 just introduced in the US House of Representatives by Congressman Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Title II, Subtitle D (beginning with Sec. 231 on page 39) of the bill addresses the safe siting of wind energy facilities. This specific section can be found below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle D-Ensuring Safety of Wildlife With Respect to Wind Energy
SEC. 231. STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Director and after public notice and opportunity to comment, shall promulgate regulations that establish minimum standards for siting, construction, monitoring, and adaptive management that must be satisfied by all wind projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife.
(b) NEW WIND PROJECTS.-Such standards shall, for all wind projects that have not been constructed before the date of enactment of this Act, include at a minimum the following:
(1) PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS.-Requirements for comprehensive preconstruction surveys that are of sufficient duration and scope to reasonably evaluate the extent to which a particular site is used by migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife, including species listed as endangered species or threatened species under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973(16 U.S.C. 1533) and the potential cumulative impact that a proposed wind project would have on such wildlife in combination with other existing or proposed wind projects. Such requirements shall provide that surveys must be carried out by scientific teams that include independent scientists and that the Director may obtain reasonable access to the proposed construction site to ensure that survey protocols are being properly developed and implemented.
(2) SITING.-Standards for siting wind projects for which construction has not begun so as to avoid impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds, bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent practicable based on data gathered during preconstruction surveys required under paragraph
(1), including-
(A) the avoidance of ecologically sensitive areas of importance to wildlife, such as migration corridors, wetlands, and other habitats where wildlife congregate; hibernation, breeding, and nursery areas; and critical habitats of endangered species and threatened species, and
(B) siting and configuring wind turbines to avoid landscape and other features known to attract wildlife.
(3) CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.-Requirements for the construction and operation of wind projects so that they minimize impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent practicable, including by-
(A) incorporating the best available technology for minimizing such impacts, and
(B) operating such projects in a manner that minimizes impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife.
(4) POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.-Requirements for thorough post-construction monitoring of the actual impacts, including cumulative impacts, that wind projects are having on birds, bats, and other wildlife, including standards and protocols for transmitting all monitoring data and findings to the Director for consideration of cumulative impacts and dissemination to the public. Such requirements shall provide that monitoring must be carried out by scientific teams that include independent scientists, and that the Director may obtain access at any time to the site to ensure that monitoring protocols are being properly developed and implemented.
(5) ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.-Requirements for adaptive management of wind projects if the impacts of such projects on birds, bats, and other wildlife exceed predicted impacts, including requirements that a wind project operator shall-
(A) take steps to reduce such impacts to the levels predicted prior to operation; or
(B) suspend operations if such steps are not, or cannot be, taken.
(6) OFFSET OF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS.-Requirements that wind projects offset any unavoidable impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds, bats, and other wildlife through the acquisition, conservation, or restoration of mitigation habitat, the funding of research that will be of value in conserving affected wildlife, and other appropriate measures.
(c) EXISTING PROJECTS.-Such standards shall, for all wind projects that have begun operation before the date of enactment of this Act, include at a minimum appropriate requirements for monitoring, adaptive management, and offset of unavoidable impacts mitigation for adverse impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife, consistent with paragraphs (4) through (6) of subsection (b).
SEC. 232. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
(a) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-No person may construct or operate a wind project unless the Director has issued a certification that the project will be constructed and operated in compliance with the standards promulgated under section 231.
(2) APPLICATION.-Paragraph (1) shall apply-
(A) in the case of a wind power project that began operating before the date of enactment of this Act, beginning at the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date the Director promulgates regulations under subsection (b); and
(B) in the case of a wind power project that has not been constructed before the date of enactment of this Act, beginning on such date of enactment.
(b) APPLICATIONS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director, after public notice and opportunity to comment, shall promulgate regulations that establish procedures for issuing certifications under this section.
(2) CONTENTS.-Such regulations shall-
(A) include requirements for submitting an application for certification under this section, including requirements for the contents of such applications;
(B) provide for advance public comment on each application for certification and on the conditions that should be attached to such a certification; and
(C) require that such applications address in detail how the project will be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable standards promulgated under section 231.
(c) RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATION.-Regulations under subsection (b) shall-
(1) require that each certification under this section must be renewed at least once every three years;
(2) establish procedures and requirements applicable to such renewal applications; and
(3) provide for advance public notice and comment regarding each application for renewal.
SEC. 233. PENALTIES.
A person who violates this subtitle or a regulation issued under this subtitle is subject to a fine of not more than $50,000, or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both.
SEC. 234. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STATUTES.
Nothing in this subtitle affects the application of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, the Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1973, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or any other relevant Federal law to wind projects.
Download File(s):
RAHALL House Resource Ctte draft energy bill _018_xml.pdf (214.82 kB)
AWEA speaks out against strict wind laws
Introduced recently by U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., H.R. 2337 is slated to move quickly in the U.S. House of Representatives with action in the House Resources Committee scheduled for June.
The bill would set new, strict requirements on the wind industry that have never applied to other energy sectors, said Randall Swisher, head of the American Wind Energy Association.
Subtitle D of the bill would direct the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to review every existing and planned wind project and criminalize operation of wind-energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS. The legislation includes landowners and farmers with wind turbines on their property.
Landowners and farmers could face jail time or a $50,000 penalty for putting a wind turbine on their property without certification by the USFWS director.
(Click to read entire article)
The bill would set new, strict requirements on the wind industry that have never applied to other energy sectors, said Randall Swisher, head of the American Wind Energy Association.
Subtitle D of the bill would direct the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to review every existing and planned wind project and criminalize operation of wind-energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS. The legislation includes landowners and farmers with wind turbines on their property.
Landowners and farmers could face jail time or a $50,000 penalty for putting a wind turbine on their property without certification by the USFWS director.
(Click to read entire article)
Siting wind farms requires plan by Sen. James S. Alesi
Recently, there has been significant interest in wind energy development in New York. Although the growth of the wind industry is welcomed by many in New York, local authorities and residents should be concerned about existing or anticipated proposals from wind energy developers interested in installing projects within their geographical regions.
Wind energy is an important renewable energy source. However, it is important to have a comprehensive plan for siting these high-tech wind facilities across New York state, in order to avoid any negative impacts upon surrounding areas.
I have recently introduced legislation, S.4608, which seeks to study the need for a statewide comprehensive plan for siting wind facilities. Additionally, this bill would place an 18 month moratorium on any new construction or issuing of new permits for the construction of wind energy facilities, to enable the task force to complete its study and make recommendations.
Modern wind turbines stand anywhere from 200 to 400 feet tall.
Projects such as this can have a major impact on the surrounding area.
Wind energy production facilities have the potential of causing a significant negative impact on the scenic and historic character of neighboring local communities.
If one town chooses to have wind farms but the neighboring town chooses not to, the neighboring town could have all of the negative impacts with none of the revenue. Furthermore, wind energy facilities could have a detrimental impact upon entire regions, like the Finger Lakes, or pathways for migrating birds.
I am not opposed to any responsible use of wind energy or any other alternative energy sources. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business, as well as a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Telecommunications, my concerns are to protect neighboring communities from the proliferation of wind farms which benefit local towns but could possibly impact entire regions- economically, as well as environmentally.
Sen. James S. Alesi is from Monroe County and represents the 55th District.
Wind energy is an important renewable energy source. However, it is important to have a comprehensive plan for siting these high-tech wind facilities across New York state, in order to avoid any negative impacts upon surrounding areas.
I have recently introduced legislation, S.4608, which seeks to study the need for a statewide comprehensive plan for siting wind facilities. Additionally, this bill would place an 18 month moratorium on any new construction or issuing of new permits for the construction of wind energy facilities, to enable the task force to complete its study and make recommendations.
Modern wind turbines stand anywhere from 200 to 400 feet tall.
Projects such as this can have a major impact on the surrounding area.
Wind energy production facilities have the potential of causing a significant negative impact on the scenic and historic character of neighboring local communities.
If one town chooses to have wind farms but the neighboring town chooses not to, the neighboring town could have all of the negative impacts with none of the revenue. Furthermore, wind energy facilities could have a detrimental impact upon entire regions, like the Finger Lakes, or pathways for migrating birds.
I am not opposed to any responsible use of wind energy or any other alternative energy sources. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business, as well as a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Telecommunications, my concerns are to protect neighboring communities from the proliferation of wind farms which benefit local towns but could possibly impact entire regions- economically, as well as environmentally.
Sen. James S. Alesi is from Monroe County and represents the 55th District.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Brad Jones on the Federal Antitrust War on International Cartel-Funded Wind Farms
Brad Jones of Naples, New York joined the Mark Dankof's America show on the Republic Broadcasting Network on Friday, May 19th, in the show's final two hours.
As reported on the Industrial Wind Action Group web site (click here), a grass roots coalition of nearly 100 citizens from New York, Vermont, and other states have filed a federal Antitrust Complaint alleging that an international cartel comprised of foreign and domestic business entities have conspired to eliminate competition in the newly emerging U.S. wind energy sector.
The complaint, filed with the Department Of Justice Antitrust Division, maintains that windfarm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors, and in some cases public officials have engaged in illegal geographic Market Allocation, Price Fixing and Bid Rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
As a result of this illegal conspiracy thousands of landowners and hundreds of municipalities have been denied substantial monetary gains that otherwise would be available in a free and competitive market.
The 94 citizen Complainants expect that the Department Of Justice will act quickly to assign appropriate resources necessary to investigate and prosecute these allegations and to punish any and all criminal wrongdoing to the full extent of the law. The Complainants also expect that the Department will take appropriate measures to ensure that the members of this international cartel are prevented from retaliating against any of the listed Complainants.
According to the Department Of Justice, price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation by individuals or companies are felonies currently punishable by maximum individual fines of $1 million, maximum corporate fines of $100 million, and maximum jail terms of 10 years.
Citizens from the following locales in New York are participating: Naples, Cohocton, Wayland, Cape Vincent, Lowville, Stamford, Malone, Wyoming, Cherry Valley, Addison, Canisteo, Allegany, Rochester, North Bangor, Little Falls, Hornell, Fairport, Webster, and Prattsburgh. Citizens from the following locales in Vermont are participating: Sheffield, East Burke, Sutton, and Peacham.
Mr. Jones told Mark Dankof's America that the international cartel includes the American General Electric Company, Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan, the Royal Bank of Scotland, several Italian and French banks, and the Australian Babcock and Brown financial consortium. The latter group operates through 35 business entities and fronts, including Ecogen Wind, LLC. Babcock and Brown's name has also surfaced in the national controversy over granting foreign companies concessions and contracts to administer toll road fees and programs throughout the United States. Mr. Jones also indicated that the American Wind Energy Association (click here) was providing false pabulum about the character of the industrial scale wind farms in rural New York, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, and what their establishment would mean politically, economically, ecologically, and culturally throughout the regions in question.
The racket is as simple as it is outlandish. The international cartel money players build an industrial scale wind farm for approximately $200 billion dollars each in the areas of their choice. They will receive a 20-25% return on this capital within 5 years, courtesy of the Production Tax Credit law in the United States which provides taxpayer subsidies to the cartel to establish the wind farms. The farms are truly constructed as a massive operation: in Cohocton, New York, one of the industrial scale wind farms has wind turbines 425 feet tall, weighing 300 tons apiece, and covering an area of 5-10,000 acres. Each wind turbine costs between $2-3 million dollars apiece.
New York State Senator Jim Alesis has introduced legislation to establish an 18 month moratorium on the international banking cartel's development of the wind farms, pending the completion of environmental and health impact studies, along with the developing federal antitrust case against the cartel filed with the federal Department of Justice. New York Senator James Seward of Oneida County, New York has introduced the so-called Alisha's Law, which alleges that the industrial scale wind farms have exacerbated the central auditory processing difficulties of an 11 year old girl whose rural home will be located less than half a mile from a coming wind farm being built by PPM Energy (click here).
One other salient point made by Mark Dankof's guest:
Why are members of the international banking cartel paying money to relevant members of governmental jurisdictions in New York State who oversee the Wind Farm developments, including members of city councils and the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) of New York? Will there be a federal criminal investigation?
Copies of the federal Antitrust complaint filed with the Department of Justice may be obtained by contacting:
Bradley E. Jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585-374-2627
585-233-8539
National donations to the citizen-activists fighting the international banking cartel utilizing taxpayer subsidies to create the industrial scale wind farms may be made by contacting:
Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) Legal Fund
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
585-534-5581
Web sites: Click here and here.
Emails to: cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
To listen to the Brad Jones May 19th interview on Mark Dankof's America, access the latter's online archive at the Republic Broadcasting Network by clicking here.
As reported on the Industrial Wind Action Group web site (click here), a grass roots coalition of nearly 100 citizens from New York, Vermont, and other states have filed a federal Antitrust Complaint alleging that an international cartel comprised of foreign and domestic business entities have conspired to eliminate competition in the newly emerging U.S. wind energy sector.
The complaint, filed with the Department Of Justice Antitrust Division, maintains that windfarm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors, and in some cases public officials have engaged in illegal geographic Market Allocation, Price Fixing and Bid Rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
As a result of this illegal conspiracy thousands of landowners and hundreds of municipalities have been denied substantial monetary gains that otherwise would be available in a free and competitive market.
The 94 citizen Complainants expect that the Department Of Justice will act quickly to assign appropriate resources necessary to investigate and prosecute these allegations and to punish any and all criminal wrongdoing to the full extent of the law. The Complainants also expect that the Department will take appropriate measures to ensure that the members of this international cartel are prevented from retaliating against any of the listed Complainants.
According to the Department Of Justice, price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation by individuals or companies are felonies currently punishable by maximum individual fines of $1 million, maximum corporate fines of $100 million, and maximum jail terms of 10 years.
Citizens from the following locales in New York are participating: Naples, Cohocton, Wayland, Cape Vincent, Lowville, Stamford, Malone, Wyoming, Cherry Valley, Addison, Canisteo, Allegany, Rochester, North Bangor, Little Falls, Hornell, Fairport, Webster, and Prattsburgh. Citizens from the following locales in Vermont are participating: Sheffield, East Burke, Sutton, and Peacham.
Mr. Jones told Mark Dankof's America that the international cartel includes the American General Electric Company, Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan, the Royal Bank of Scotland, several Italian and French banks, and the Australian Babcock and Brown financial consortium. The latter group operates through 35 business entities and fronts, including Ecogen Wind, LLC. Babcock and Brown's name has also surfaced in the national controversy over granting foreign companies concessions and contracts to administer toll road fees and programs throughout the United States. Mr. Jones also indicated that the American Wind Energy Association (click here) was providing false pabulum about the character of the industrial scale wind farms in rural New York, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, and what their establishment would mean politically, economically, ecologically, and culturally throughout the regions in question.
The racket is as simple as it is outlandish. The international cartel money players build an industrial scale wind farm for approximately $200 billion dollars each in the areas of their choice. They will receive a 20-25% return on this capital within 5 years, courtesy of the Production Tax Credit law in the United States which provides taxpayer subsidies to the cartel to establish the wind farms. The farms are truly constructed as a massive operation: in Cohocton, New York, one of the industrial scale wind farms has wind turbines 425 feet tall, weighing 300 tons apiece, and covering an area of 5-10,000 acres. Each wind turbine costs between $2-3 million dollars apiece.
New York State Senator Jim Alesis has introduced legislation to establish an 18 month moratorium on the international banking cartel's development of the wind farms, pending the completion of environmental and health impact studies, along with the developing federal antitrust case against the cartel filed with the federal Department of Justice. New York Senator James Seward of Oneida County, New York has introduced the so-called Alisha's Law, which alleges that the industrial scale wind farms have exacerbated the central auditory processing difficulties of an 11 year old girl whose rural home will be located less than half a mile from a coming wind farm being built by PPM Energy (click here).
One other salient point made by Mark Dankof's guest:
Why are members of the international banking cartel paying money to relevant members of governmental jurisdictions in New York State who oversee the Wind Farm developments, including members of city councils and the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) of New York? Will there be a federal criminal investigation?
Copies of the federal Antitrust complaint filed with the Department of Justice may be obtained by contacting:
Bradley E. Jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585-374-2627
585-233-8539
National donations to the citizen-activists fighting the international banking cartel utilizing taxpayer subsidies to create the industrial scale wind farms may be made by contacting:
Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) Legal Fund
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
585-534-5581
Web sites: Click here and here.
Emails to: cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
To listen to the Brad Jones May 19th interview on Mark Dankof's America, access the latter's online archive at the Republic Broadcasting Network by clicking here.
Because You are "Green" Doesn't Mean You Have to Love Wind Farms
Industrial wind farms, like the Cape Wind project, are on the rise and along with them public protest and opposition. Is it anti-environnmental to even question much less object? Not at all. In fact, questioning wind power does not mean anti-environment and in fact the opposite is most often the case. Those that question are those that care or they wouldn't be involved in the debate at all.
In fact, being Green means you should question not only the viability of wind power but its potential negative impacts on the Earth, its communities and the living beings and ecosystems on which it depends.
Making responsible and informed choices are the keys to living Green.
(Click to read entire article)
In fact, being Green means you should question not only the viability of wind power but its potential negative impacts on the Earth, its communities and the living beings and ecosystems on which it depends.
Making responsible and informed choices are the keys to living Green.
(Click to read entire article)
Industrial Wind Action Group welcomes release of NAS report on the environmental effects of wind energy projects
Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group welcomed the release of the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) report[1] on the environmental impacts of wind energy projects. Although this report focused upon the Mid-Atlantic Highlands[2], it provides detailed information and recommendations relevant to the entire country. The NRC found that "Because wind energy is new to many state and local governments, the quality of processes for permitting wind-energy developments is uneven." The report also stated that there's "little anticipatory planning for wind-energy projects, and even if it occurred, it is not clear whether mechanisms exist that could incorporate such planning in regulatory decisions."
Lisa Linowes, Executive Director of Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group agreed, stating that "most rural communities and state-level permitting boards have little experience dealing with the breadth of issues involved in erecting 400-foot structures along miles of new roads built in areas typically undisturbed by human activity." She added that the impacts on the local environment, the cumulative impacts on wildlife, and the health, welfare, and safety risks to nearby residents all need to be assessed and measured against a proposed project's promised benefits. "Unfortunately, what we're finding is a rush to approve applications on the grounds that any wind generated power - no matter how nominal - is believed to reduce atmospheric emissions and, thus, offset adverse impacts."
(Click to read entire article)
Lisa Linowes, Executive Director of Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group agreed, stating that "most rural communities and state-level permitting boards have little experience dealing with the breadth of issues involved in erecting 400-foot structures along miles of new roads built in areas typically undisturbed by human activity." She added that the impacts on the local environment, the cumulative impacts on wildlife, and the health, welfare, and safety risks to nearby residents all need to be assessed and measured against a proposed project's promised benefits. "Unfortunately, what we're finding is a rush to approve applications on the grounds that any wind generated power - no matter how nominal - is believed to reduce atmospheric emissions and, thus, offset adverse impacts."
(Click to read entire article)
H.R. 810: Protecting Communities from Power Line Abuse Act
To amend certain provisions of the Federal Power Act added by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 relating to the use of eminent domain authority for the construction of electric power lines, and for other purposes.
H.R. 809: To repeal section 216 of the Federal Power Act (as added by the Energy Policy Act of...
To repeal section 216 of the Federal Power Act (as added by the Energy Policy Act of 2005) providing for the use of eminent domain authority for the construction of certain electric power lines, and for other purposes.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
William Evans Comments on Cohocton Wind DEIS
Sandra Riley
Town Clerk
Town of Cohocton
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Comment on Cohocton Wind DEIS June 23, 2006
Dear Ms. Riley:
I direct a nonprofit in Ithaca, NY that promotes the use of acoustic monitoring for studying nocturnal bird migration. I have previously been associated with the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and am considered an expert on bird migration in the region. I have consulted on many wind projects across eastern North America. I am an invited panelist for the upcoming NYSERDA wind/wildlife technical workshop in Albany in early August and I am an invited speaker at the upcoming USFWS conference on wind power in the Great Lakes Basin. In addition, I carried out a bird migration study for Ecogen LLC at their proposed wind facility in Prattsburgh, NY. I have no agenda against wind power and my study results from the Ecogen project suggest that it might be a relatively good site for wind power in NYS with regard to bird impacts.
Since I have been studying bird migration in central NY for 20 years, and had recently carried out a bird study in Prattsburgh, NY, I was curious to see what the findings of the Woodlot Alternatives were with respect to potential bird impacts of the Cohocton wind power project and offer my comments.
I read the Cohocton Wind DEIS several weeks ago in preparation to make my comments. Two important references in the DEIS (pp. 31-32) noted below that were used in forming the avian risk assessment were not available to me.
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2005a. A Spring 2005 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed WindFarm Prattsburgh Project in Prattsburgh, NY. Prepared for WindFarm Prattsburgh, LLC.
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2005b. A Fall 2004 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed WindFarm Prattsburgh Project in Prattsburgh, New York. Prepared for WindFarm Prattsburgh, LLC.
I wrote Cohocton Wind and asked for copies or direction for how I could obtain these documents (see attached letter). The letter was confirmed by Fed Ex to be delivered to Cohocton Wind on June 1. I did not receive a reply from them in this matter.
Woodlot Alternatives, the author of the avian risk assessment portion of the DEIS, is a consulting firm from Maine that has relatively little experience with bird migration in central New York State. They are also relatively new to radar study compared with a more established firm like ABR, Inc., who carried out the radar study for the Ecogen project. Woodlot has no published, peer-reviewed, scientific papers that would enable me to evaluate their methods. Therefore, I felt is was important to review the studies they carried out for Windfarm Prattsburgh. One of the key questions I had was how the ground clutter for the radar differed between that study site and the Cohocton study site, and how Woodlot addressed this inherent problem in comparing radar data.
Generally when one carries out an avian risk assessment for a wind project they gather information from previous bird studies in the region and inquire with local experts. This would be especially important for an out-of-region consulting firm like Woodlot. As mentioned, I carried out an acoustic study of avian night migration at the Ecogen wind project site near Prattsburgh. While the DEIS cites the radar study contracted by Ecogen, it does not mention my acoustic study. If Woodlot had considered this study in preparing the DEIS, they would have found out that Least Bittern, a species listed as threatened by the NYDEC, was documented in both spring and fall migration at the Ecogen project site. This almost certainly means that this species will be a migrant through the Cohocton Wind project. It is not mentioned in the DEIS.
More importantly, however, the DEIS does not include the important information on migration channeling discussed in the Ecogen acoustic study. It should be pointed out that I carried out the Ecogen acoustic study (fall 2004) before I knew about the existence of the Cohocton Wind project. My conclusions from that study were that much of the bird migration over central NYS is of a broad front nature. But on migration nights when cloud ceilings are low, the migration loses its broad front character and is channeled by the lake gorges and local montane terrain. The result is specific channels of abnormally high migration density. Such information is very pertinent for commercial wind project siting.
Evidence for this dynamic was found on three nights in the fall Ecogen study, but based on this and other similar studies I have carried out in the region, I predicted that much greater concentrations could be formed in the Naples valley and pass southward. I cite below several sentences stating this from my Ecogen acoustic study.
“The potential fall migration concentration dynamics arising from geography in the region surrounding the Ecogen project site are complex. They involve the southern half of Canandaigua Lake and the confluence of several adjacent north-south running valleys. From a theoretical basis, the highest concentration dynamics in this region would occur where many of these valleys meet in the vicinity of Naples, NY and immediately south of Naples. To some extent, the High Tor Wildlife Management Area probably plays a role in steering a significant portion of fall migration to the southwest of the Ecogen site, especially during low cloud ceiling nights.” P.85
“The most significant channeling in proximity [to the Ecogen project] is thought to be that formed by the confluence of several valleys near Naples and would flow just west of the Ecogen project area.” P.94
So, the question arises here why the Ecogen acoustic study was not included in the Cohocton DEIS. To me it is either a sign that Woodlot did not conduct an exhaustive survey of preexisting avian information for the region in preparing the DEIS or that they wanted to avoid the issue of potential significant channeling dynamics for the Cohocton Wind project area that are discussed in this Ecogen study.
Woodlot Alternatives is at fault for making broad assumptions based on only three nights of data. Their statement below is terribly irresponsible and totally without scientific grounds:
“This [their 3 nights of radar data] indicates that movement over the project areas is likely to occur as a broad front movement and that landscape features are not causing night-migrating birds to concentrate at any specific locations in the project areas.” p.9 of avian risk assessment
From my experience and my studies in the region, I would expect some of the highest densities of migration in inland NYS could pass in very close proximity, if not directly through, the proposed Cohocton Wind project. This is a project site where there are grounds for a potential bird kill problem. If there are going to be night migration bird studies at wind project sites in inland NYS, the Cohocton Wind project should be a very high priority study site.
The necessary study needs to address how the very dense fall migration events that occasionally occur in the Naples Valley during low cloud ceiling conditions behave in the vicinity of the proposed Cohocton Wind project area. Does the flight pass through the proposed wind project area or does it pass around the site? Several fall seasons of study would likely be necessary. Studies on clear sky nights are irrelevant for predicting avian risk at this project.
As stated, I have not been able to fully review the Cohocton Wind DEIS. To the extent I have been able to do so, I summarize my comments in the following points:
Key point #1: If information cited in the DEIS is not available to the public, it should not be used as a foundation for the avian risk assessment.
Key point #2: The DEIS is incomplete in not considering all pertinent migration studies in the region and regional experts have not been consulted.
Key point #3: The DEIS contains faulty information and lacks important information on a critical aspect for evaluating avian risk at this project site -- channeling of avian nocturnal migration.
Key point #4: Information exists that suggests there could be a significant bird kill problem with the Cohocton Wind project.
Key point #5: Additional studies are necessary to understand the risk to birds from the Cohocton Wind project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. I am happy to clarify any of these concerns so please feel free to contact me directly with any questions.
Sincerely,
Bill Evans
Executive Director
Old Bird, Inc.
605 W. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 272-1786
Town Clerk
Town of Cohocton
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Re: Comment on Cohocton Wind DEIS June 23, 2006
Dear Ms. Riley:
I direct a nonprofit in Ithaca, NY that promotes the use of acoustic monitoring for studying nocturnal bird migration. I have previously been associated with the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and am considered an expert on bird migration in the region. I have consulted on many wind projects across eastern North America. I am an invited panelist for the upcoming NYSERDA wind/wildlife technical workshop in Albany in early August and I am an invited speaker at the upcoming USFWS conference on wind power in the Great Lakes Basin. In addition, I carried out a bird migration study for Ecogen LLC at their proposed wind facility in Prattsburgh, NY. I have no agenda against wind power and my study results from the Ecogen project suggest that it might be a relatively good site for wind power in NYS with regard to bird impacts.
Since I have been studying bird migration in central NY for 20 years, and had recently carried out a bird study in Prattsburgh, NY, I was curious to see what the findings of the Woodlot Alternatives were with respect to potential bird impacts of the Cohocton wind power project and offer my comments.
I read the Cohocton Wind DEIS several weeks ago in preparation to make my comments. Two important references in the DEIS (pp. 31-32) noted below that were used in forming the avian risk assessment were not available to me.
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2005a. A Spring 2005 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed WindFarm Prattsburgh Project in Prattsburgh, NY. Prepared for WindFarm Prattsburgh, LLC.
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2005b. A Fall 2004 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed WindFarm Prattsburgh Project in Prattsburgh, New York. Prepared for WindFarm Prattsburgh, LLC.
I wrote Cohocton Wind and asked for copies or direction for how I could obtain these documents (see attached letter). The letter was confirmed by Fed Ex to be delivered to Cohocton Wind on June 1. I did not receive a reply from them in this matter.
Woodlot Alternatives, the author of the avian risk assessment portion of the DEIS, is a consulting firm from Maine that has relatively little experience with bird migration in central New York State. They are also relatively new to radar study compared with a more established firm like ABR, Inc., who carried out the radar study for the Ecogen project. Woodlot has no published, peer-reviewed, scientific papers that would enable me to evaluate their methods. Therefore, I felt is was important to review the studies they carried out for Windfarm Prattsburgh. One of the key questions I had was how the ground clutter for the radar differed between that study site and the Cohocton study site, and how Woodlot addressed this inherent problem in comparing radar data.
Generally when one carries out an avian risk assessment for a wind project they gather information from previous bird studies in the region and inquire with local experts. This would be especially important for an out-of-region consulting firm like Woodlot. As mentioned, I carried out an acoustic study of avian night migration at the Ecogen wind project site near Prattsburgh. While the DEIS cites the radar study contracted by Ecogen, it does not mention my acoustic study. If Woodlot had considered this study in preparing the DEIS, they would have found out that Least Bittern, a species listed as threatened by the NYDEC, was documented in both spring and fall migration at the Ecogen project site. This almost certainly means that this species will be a migrant through the Cohocton Wind project. It is not mentioned in the DEIS.
More importantly, however, the DEIS does not include the important information on migration channeling discussed in the Ecogen acoustic study. It should be pointed out that I carried out the Ecogen acoustic study (fall 2004) before I knew about the existence of the Cohocton Wind project. My conclusions from that study were that much of the bird migration over central NYS is of a broad front nature. But on migration nights when cloud ceilings are low, the migration loses its broad front character and is channeled by the lake gorges and local montane terrain. The result is specific channels of abnormally high migration density. Such information is very pertinent for commercial wind project siting.
Evidence for this dynamic was found on three nights in the fall Ecogen study, but based on this and other similar studies I have carried out in the region, I predicted that much greater concentrations could be formed in the Naples valley and pass southward. I cite below several sentences stating this from my Ecogen acoustic study.
“The potential fall migration concentration dynamics arising from geography in the region surrounding the Ecogen project site are complex. They involve the southern half of Canandaigua Lake and the confluence of several adjacent north-south running valleys. From a theoretical basis, the highest concentration dynamics in this region would occur where many of these valleys meet in the vicinity of Naples, NY and immediately south of Naples. To some extent, the High Tor Wildlife Management Area probably plays a role in steering a significant portion of fall migration to the southwest of the Ecogen site, especially during low cloud ceiling nights.” P.85
“The most significant channeling in proximity [to the Ecogen project] is thought to be that formed by the confluence of several valleys near Naples and would flow just west of the Ecogen project area.” P.94
So, the question arises here why the Ecogen acoustic study was not included in the Cohocton DEIS. To me it is either a sign that Woodlot did not conduct an exhaustive survey of preexisting avian information for the region in preparing the DEIS or that they wanted to avoid the issue of potential significant channeling dynamics for the Cohocton Wind project area that are discussed in this Ecogen study.
Woodlot Alternatives is at fault for making broad assumptions based on only three nights of data. Their statement below is terribly irresponsible and totally without scientific grounds:
“This [their 3 nights of radar data] indicates that movement over the project areas is likely to occur as a broad front movement and that landscape features are not causing night-migrating birds to concentrate at any specific locations in the project areas.” p.9 of avian risk assessment
From my experience and my studies in the region, I would expect some of the highest densities of migration in inland NYS could pass in very close proximity, if not directly through, the proposed Cohocton Wind project. This is a project site where there are grounds for a potential bird kill problem. If there are going to be night migration bird studies at wind project sites in inland NYS, the Cohocton Wind project should be a very high priority study site.
The necessary study needs to address how the very dense fall migration events that occasionally occur in the Naples Valley during low cloud ceiling conditions behave in the vicinity of the proposed Cohocton Wind project area. Does the flight pass through the proposed wind project area or does it pass around the site? Several fall seasons of study would likely be necessary. Studies on clear sky nights are irrelevant for predicting avian risk at this project.
As stated, I have not been able to fully review the Cohocton Wind DEIS. To the extent I have been able to do so, I summarize my comments in the following points:
Key point #1: If information cited in the DEIS is not available to the public, it should not be used as a foundation for the avian risk assessment.
Key point #2: The DEIS is incomplete in not considering all pertinent migration studies in the region and regional experts have not been consulted.
Key point #3: The DEIS contains faulty information and lacks important information on a critical aspect for evaluating avian risk at this project site -- channeling of avian nocturnal migration.
Key point #4: Information exists that suggests there could be a significant bird kill problem with the Cohocton Wind project.
Key point #5: Additional studies are necessary to understand the risk to birds from the Cohocton Wind project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. I am happy to clarify any of these concerns so please feel free to contact me directly with any questions.
Sincerely,
Bill Evans
Executive Director
Old Bird, Inc.
605 W. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 272-1786
William Evans letter to UPC
UPC Wind
(Cohocton Office)
28 Maple Ave
Cohocton, NY 14826
May 31, 2006
Dear UPS Wind:
In your Cohocton Wind DEIS, two studies are referenced in the Literature Cited section that I have not been able to access:
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2005a. A Spring 2005 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed WindFarm Prattsburgh Project in Prattsburgh, NY. Prepared for WindFarm Prattsburgh, LLC.
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2005b. A Fall 2004 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed WindFarm Prattsburgh Project in Prattsburgh, New York. Prepared for WindFarm Prattsburgh, LLC.
In order to fully assess and comment on the Cohocton DEIS, I would need to review these studies. These studies were apparently carried out for UPC's Wind Farm Prattsburg project, so I presume they are accessible to you. If they are available in electronic format please send to my email: wrevans@clarityconneect.com. Otherwise, please let me know how I can obtain a paper copy. I would like to review them, if possible, before June 9th so I can complete my review during the currently active comment period.
Thank you,
William Evans
Old Bird, Inc.
605 W. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 272-1786
(Cohocton Office)
28 Maple Ave
Cohocton, NY 14826
May 31, 2006
Dear UPS Wind:
In your Cohocton Wind DEIS, two studies are referenced in the Literature Cited section that I have not been able to access:
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2005a. A Spring 2005 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed WindFarm Prattsburgh Project in Prattsburgh, NY. Prepared for WindFarm Prattsburgh, LLC.
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 2005b. A Fall 2004 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed WindFarm Prattsburgh Project in Prattsburgh, New York. Prepared for WindFarm Prattsburgh, LLC.
In order to fully assess and comment on the Cohocton DEIS, I would need to review these studies. These studies were apparently carried out for UPC's Wind Farm Prattsburg project, so I presume they are accessible to you. If they are available in electronic format please send to my email: wrevans@clarityconneect.com. Otherwise, please let me know how I can obtain a paper copy. I would like to review them, if possible, before June 9th so I can complete my review during the currently active comment period.
Thank you,
William Evans
Old Bird, Inc.
605 W. State St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 272-1786
Supporters of wind turbines need a reality check by Arthur Hooton
Opponents of these industrial wind projects have no quarrel with wind power where it makes sense — at the homeowner level of application. Small-scale, home-based units, using net metering and requiring no additional transmission lines or other infrastructure, not only save electricity but usually transform homeowners into conservation apostles, doing anything they can to slow the turning dials of the electricity meter.
Advocates of industrial wind seem to fall into two camps: the dreamers and the schemers. The dreamers are engineers who think they can invent their way out of the inherent flaws of industrial wind by trying to make the turbines ever larger and more efficient, while hoping an industrial-scale electricity storage system will eventually present itself. They’ve had this same dream for over 30 years now. The schemers know it’s not going to happen, but they’re quite willing to lobby for legislation that guarantees a payoff to anyone with money to invest.
Imagine if Congress enacted a law requiring 20 percent of all goods coming into the United States be transported on cargo sailing ships to cut pollution caused by marine diesel engines. The dreamers would build massive, carbon-fiber-hulled ships equipped with titanium masts and Kevlar sails; and the schemers would make sure that investors got tax breaks, credits and subsidies for each ton of cargo hauled. When the wind didn’t blow, diesel powered, ocean-going tugboats would be dispatched to pull becalmed vessels into port with no net change in pollution and with major disruptions in product deliveries. Because the cargo sailing ships didn’t have engines on board, owners would still get tax credits, and consumers could blissfully believe that their goods were being delivered by clean and green energy. That’s the real story behind Big Wind. It’s called consumer fraud and the state of West Virginia does not have to be a party to that fraud.
(Click to read entire article)
Advocates of industrial wind seem to fall into two camps: the dreamers and the schemers. The dreamers are engineers who think they can invent their way out of the inherent flaws of industrial wind by trying to make the turbines ever larger and more efficient, while hoping an industrial-scale electricity storage system will eventually present itself. They’ve had this same dream for over 30 years now. The schemers know it’s not going to happen, but they’re quite willing to lobby for legislation that guarantees a payoff to anyone with money to invest.
Imagine if Congress enacted a law requiring 20 percent of all goods coming into the United States be transported on cargo sailing ships to cut pollution caused by marine diesel engines. The dreamers would build massive, carbon-fiber-hulled ships equipped with titanium masts and Kevlar sails; and the schemers would make sure that investors got tax breaks, credits and subsidies for each ton of cargo hauled. When the wind didn’t blow, diesel powered, ocean-going tugboats would be dispatched to pull becalmed vessels into port with no net change in pollution and with major disruptions in product deliveries. Because the cargo sailing ships didn’t have engines on board, owners would still get tax credits, and consumers could blissfully believe that their goods were being delivered by clean and green energy. That’s the real story behind Big Wind. It’s called consumer fraud and the state of West Virginia does not have to be a party to that fraud.
(Click to read entire article)
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
New Energy Bill Introduced by Rahall; Sec. D deals with siting of wind energy
RAHALL_House_Resource_Ctte_draft_energy_bill__018_xml.pdf
Subtitle D—Ensuring Safety of
16 Wildlife With Respect to Wind
17 Energy
18 SEC. 231. STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
19 (a) IN GENERAL.—Within 180 days after the date
20 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through
21 the Director and after public notice and opportunity to
22 comment, shall promulgate regulations that establish min23
imum standards for siting, construction, monitoring, and
24 adaptive management that must be satisfied by all wind
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
40
H.L.C.
1 projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts
2 on migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife.
3 (b) NEW WIND PROJECTS.—Such standards shall,
4 for all wind projects that have not been constructed before
5 the date of enactment of this Act, include at a minimum
6 the following:
7 (1) PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS.—Require8
ments for comprehensive preconstruction surveys
9 that are of sufficient duration and scope to reason10
ably evaluate the extent to which a particular site is
11 used by migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife, in12
cluding species listed as endangered species or
13 threatened species under section 4 of the Endan14
gered Species Act of 1973(16 U.S.C. 1533) and the
15 potential cumulative impact that a proposed wind
16 project would have on such wildlife in combination
17 with other existing or proposed wind projects. Such
18 requirements shall provide that surveys must be car19
ried out by scientific teams that include independent
20 scientists and that the Director may obtain reason21
able access to the proposed construction site to en22
sure that survey protocols are being properly devel23
oped and implemented.
24 (2) SITING.—Standards for siting wind projects
25 for which construction has not begun so as to avoid
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
41
H.L.C.
1 impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds,
2 bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent prac3
ticable based on data gathered during
4 preconstruction surveys required under paragraph
5 (1), including—
6 (A) the avoidance of ecologically sensitive
7 areas of importance to wildlife, such as migra8
tion corridors, wetlands, and other habitats
9 where wildlife congregate; hibernation, breed10
ing, and nursery areas; and critical habitats of
11 endangered species and threatened species, and
12 (B) siting and configuring wind turbines to
13 avoid landscape and other features known to at14
tract wildlife.
15 (3) CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.—Require16
ments for the construction and operation of wind
17 projects so that they minimize impacts on birds,
18 bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent prac19
ticable, including by—
20 (A) incorporating the best available tech21
nology for minimizing such impacts, and
22 (B) operating such projects in a manner
23 that minimizes impacts on birds, bats, and
24 other wildlife.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
42
H.L.C.
1 (4) POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.—Re2
quirements for thorough post-construction moni3
toring of the actual impacts, including cumulative
4 impacts, that wind projects are having on birds,
5 bats, and other wildlife, including standards and
6 protocols for transmitting all monitoring data and
7 findings to the Director for consideration of cumu8
lative impacts and dissemination to the public. Such
9 requirements shall provide that monitoring must be
10 carried out by scientific teams that include inde11
pendent scientists, and that the Director may obtain
12 access at any time to the site to ensure that moni13
toring protocols are being properly developed and
14 implemented.
15 (5) ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.—Requirements
16 for adaptive management of wind projects if the im17
pacts of such projects on birds, bats, and other wild18
life exceed predicted impacts, including requirements
19 that a wind project operator shall—
20 (A) take steps to reduce such impacts to
21 the levels predicted prior to operation; or
22 (B) suspend operations if such steps are
23 not, or cannot be, taken.
24 (6) OFFSET OF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS.—Re25
quirements that wind projects offset any unavoidable
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
43
H.L.C.
1 impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds,
2 bats, and other wildlife through the acquisition, con3
servation, or restoration of mitigation habitat, the
4 funding of research that will be of value in con5
serving affected wildlife, and other appropriate
6 measures.
7 (c) EXISTING PROJECTS.—Such standards shall, for
8 all wind projects that have begun operation before the date
9 of enactment of this Act, include at a minimum appro10
priate requirements for monitoring, adaptive management,
11 and offset of unavoidable impacts mitigation for adverse
12 impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife, consistent with
13 paragraphs (4) through (6) of subsection (b).
14 SEC. 232. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
15 (a) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—
16 (1) IN GENERAL.—No person may construct or
17 operate a wind project unless the Director has
18 issued a certification that the project will be con19
structed and operated in compliance with the stand20
ards promulgated under section 231.
21 (2) APPLICATION.—Paragraph (1) shall
22 apply—
23 (A) in the case of a wind power project
24 that began operating before the date of enact25
ment of this Act, beginning at the end of the
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
44
H.L.C.
1 180-day period beginning on the date the Direc2
tor promulgates regulations under subsection
3 (b); and
4 (B) in the case of a wind power project
5 that has not been constructed before the date of
6 enactment of this Act, beginning on such date
7 of enactment.
8 (b) APPLICATIONS.—
9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Within 180 days after the
10 date of enactment of this Act, the Director, after
11 public notice and opportunity to comment, shall pro12
mulgate regulations that establish procedures for
13 issuing certifications under this section.
14 (2) CONTENTS.—Such regulations shall—
15 (A) include requirements for submitting an
16 application for certification under this section,
17 including requirements for the contents of such
18 applications;
19 (B) provide for advance public comment on
20 each application for certification and on the
21 conditions that should be attached to such a
22 certification; and
23 (C) require that such applications address
24 in detail how the project will be constructed and
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
45
H.L.C.
1 operated in compliance with all applicable
2 standards promulgated under section 231.
3 (c) RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATION.—Regulations
4 under subsection (b) shall—
5 (1) require that each certification under this
6 section must be renewed at least once every three
7 years;
8 (2) establish procedures and requirements ap9
plicable to such renewal applications; and
10 (3) provide for advance public notice and com11
ment regarding each application for renewal.
12 SEC. 233. PENALTIES.
13 A person who violates this subtitle or a regulation
14 issued under this subtitle is subject to a fine of not more
15 than $50,000, or imprisonment of not more than one year,
16 or both.
17 SEC. 234. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STATUTES.
18 Nothing in this subtitle affects the application of the
19 Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Migratory Bird
20 Treaty Act, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, the Golden
21 Eagle Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act
22 of 1973, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or
23 any other relevant Federal law to wind projects.
24 SEC. 235. DEFINITIONS.
25 As used in this subtitle:
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
46
H.L.C.
1 (1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means
2 the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
3 Service, or a designee of that Director.
4 (2) INDEPENDENT SCIENTIST.—The term
5 ‘‘independent scientist’’ mean a scientist who is not
6 an employee of, or regular consultant to, the wind
7 power industry.
8 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means
9 the Secretary of the Interior.
10 (4) WIND PROJECT.—The term ‘‘wind project’’
11 means any project in the United States that uses
12 wind to generate electric power.
Subtitle D—Ensuring Safety of
16 Wildlife With Respect to Wind
17 Energy
18 SEC. 231. STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
19 (a) IN GENERAL.—Within 180 days after the date
20 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through
21 the Director and after public notice and opportunity to
22 comment, shall promulgate regulations that establish min23
imum standards for siting, construction, monitoring, and
24 adaptive management that must be satisfied by all wind
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
40
H.L.C.
1 projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts
2 on migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife.
3 (b) NEW WIND PROJECTS.—Such standards shall,
4 for all wind projects that have not been constructed before
5 the date of enactment of this Act, include at a minimum
6 the following:
7 (1) PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS.—Require8
ments for comprehensive preconstruction surveys
9 that are of sufficient duration and scope to reason10
ably evaluate the extent to which a particular site is
11 used by migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife, in12
cluding species listed as endangered species or
13 threatened species under section 4 of the Endan14
gered Species Act of 1973(16 U.S.C. 1533) and the
15 potential cumulative impact that a proposed wind
16 project would have on such wildlife in combination
17 with other existing or proposed wind projects. Such
18 requirements shall provide that surveys must be car19
ried out by scientific teams that include independent
20 scientists and that the Director may obtain reason21
able access to the proposed construction site to en22
sure that survey protocols are being properly devel23
oped and implemented.
24 (2) SITING.—Standards for siting wind projects
25 for which construction has not begun so as to avoid
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
41
H.L.C.
1 impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds,
2 bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent prac3
ticable based on data gathered during
4 preconstruction surveys required under paragraph
5 (1), including—
6 (A) the avoidance of ecologically sensitive
7 areas of importance to wildlife, such as migra8
tion corridors, wetlands, and other habitats
9 where wildlife congregate; hibernation, breed10
ing, and nursery areas; and critical habitats of
11 endangered species and threatened species, and
12 (B) siting and configuring wind turbines to
13 avoid landscape and other features known to at14
tract wildlife.
15 (3) CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.—Require16
ments for the construction and operation of wind
17 projects so that they minimize impacts on birds,
18 bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent prac19
ticable, including by—
20 (A) incorporating the best available tech21
nology for minimizing such impacts, and
22 (B) operating such projects in a manner
23 that minimizes impacts on birds, bats, and
24 other wildlife.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
42
H.L.C.
1 (4) POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.—Re2
quirements for thorough post-construction moni3
toring of the actual impacts, including cumulative
4 impacts, that wind projects are having on birds,
5 bats, and other wildlife, including standards and
6 protocols for transmitting all monitoring data and
7 findings to the Director for consideration of cumu8
lative impacts and dissemination to the public. Such
9 requirements shall provide that monitoring must be
10 carried out by scientific teams that include inde11
pendent scientists, and that the Director may obtain
12 access at any time to the site to ensure that moni13
toring protocols are being properly developed and
14 implemented.
15 (5) ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.—Requirements
16 for adaptive management of wind projects if the im17
pacts of such projects on birds, bats, and other wild18
life exceed predicted impacts, including requirements
19 that a wind project operator shall—
20 (A) take steps to reduce such impacts to
21 the levels predicted prior to operation; or
22 (B) suspend operations if such steps are
23 not, or cannot be, taken.
24 (6) OFFSET OF UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS.—Re25
quirements that wind projects offset any unavoidable
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
43
H.L.C.
1 impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds,
2 bats, and other wildlife through the acquisition, con3
servation, or restoration of mitigation habitat, the
4 funding of research that will be of value in con5
serving affected wildlife, and other appropriate
6 measures.
7 (c) EXISTING PROJECTS.—Such standards shall, for
8 all wind projects that have begun operation before the date
9 of enactment of this Act, include at a minimum appro10
priate requirements for monitoring, adaptive management,
11 and offset of unavoidable impacts mitigation for adverse
12 impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife, consistent with
13 paragraphs (4) through (6) of subsection (b).
14 SEC. 232. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
15 (a) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—
16 (1) IN GENERAL.—No person may construct or
17 operate a wind project unless the Director has
18 issued a certification that the project will be con19
structed and operated in compliance with the stand20
ards promulgated under section 231.
21 (2) APPLICATION.—Paragraph (1) shall
22 apply—
23 (A) in the case of a wind power project
24 that began operating before the date of enact25
ment of this Act, beginning at the end of the
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
44
H.L.C.
1 180-day period beginning on the date the Direc2
tor promulgates regulations under subsection
3 (b); and
4 (B) in the case of a wind power project
5 that has not been constructed before the date of
6 enactment of this Act, beginning on such date
7 of enactment.
8 (b) APPLICATIONS.—
9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Within 180 days after the
10 date of enactment of this Act, the Director, after
11 public notice and opportunity to comment, shall pro12
mulgate regulations that establish procedures for
13 issuing certifications under this section.
14 (2) CONTENTS.—Such regulations shall—
15 (A) include requirements for submitting an
16 application for certification under this section,
17 including requirements for the contents of such
18 applications;
19 (B) provide for advance public comment on
20 each application for certification and on the
21 conditions that should be attached to such a
22 certification; and
23 (C) require that such applications address
24 in detail how the project will be constructed and
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
45
H.L.C.
1 operated in compliance with all applicable
2 standards promulgated under section 231.
3 (c) RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATION.—Regulations
4 under subsection (b) shall—
5 (1) require that each certification under this
6 section must be renewed at least once every three
7 years;
8 (2) establish procedures and requirements ap9
plicable to such renewal applications; and
10 (3) provide for advance public notice and com11
ment regarding each application for renewal.
12 SEC. 233. PENALTIES.
13 A person who violates this subtitle or a regulation
14 issued under this subtitle is subject to a fine of not more
15 than $50,000, or imprisonment of not more than one year,
16 or both.
17 SEC. 234. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STATUTES.
18 Nothing in this subtitle affects the application of the
19 Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Migratory Bird
20 Treaty Act, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, the Golden
21 Eagle Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act
22 of 1973, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or
23 any other relevant Federal law to wind projects.
24 SEC. 235. DEFINITIONS.
25 As used in this subtitle:
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 May 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\RAHALL~4.XML HOLCPC
May 16, 2007 (11:26 a.m.)
F:\M10\RAHALL\RAHALL_018.XML
f:\V10\051607\051607.071.xml (374202|15)
46
H.L.C.
1 (1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means
2 the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
3 Service, or a designee of that Director.
4 (2) INDEPENDENT SCIENTIST.—The term
5 ‘‘independent scientist’’ mean a scientist who is not
6 an employee of, or regular consultant to, the wind
7 power industry.
8 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means
9 the Secretary of the Interior.
10 (4) WIND PROJECT.—The term ‘‘wind project’’
11 means any project in the United States that uses
12 wind to generate electric power.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Wind World Is Flat, Too . . . and Active
Andrew Leonard has an intriguing post at Salon.com about the bidding war between Indian wind turbine manufacturer Suzlon and French nuclear giant Areva over German wind turbine maker REPower. While the globalization implications are important to note, a quick look at recent history reveals that this is but the latest in a series of major business deals involving multinational firms in the wind space. See, for example:
The purchase by investment banker Goldman Sachs of U.S. developer Horizon Wind Energy in 2005 and its subsequent sale to Energias de Portugal for a cool $2.15 bilion.
The purchase by Spanish utility Iberdrola of U.S. wind developer and green power marketer Community Energy.
The purchase by Iberdrola of ScottishPower, complete with its U.S. wind development subsidiary PPM Energy.
Decisions by Suzlon, Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas and Spanish turbine makers Gamesa and Acciona to build manufacturing plants in the U.S.
A "Strategic Turbine Supply and Joint Development Agreement" between U.S. manufacturer Clipper Windpower and BP and BP Alternative Energy's purchase of wind developers Orion Energy and Greenlight Energy.
The purchase by investment banker Goldman Sachs of U.S. developer Horizon Wind Energy in 2005 and its subsequent sale to Energias de Portugal for a cool $2.15 bilion.
The purchase by Spanish utility Iberdrola of U.S. wind developer and green power marketer Community Energy.
The purchase by Iberdrola of ScottishPower, complete with its U.S. wind development subsidiary PPM Energy.
Decisions by Suzlon, Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas and Spanish turbine makers Gamesa and Acciona to build manufacturing plants in the U.S.
A "Strategic Turbine Supply and Joint Development Agreement" between U.S. manufacturer Clipper Windpower and BP and BP Alternative Energy's purchase of wind developers Orion Energy and Greenlight Energy.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Wind turbine opponents release DVD
FAIRHAVEN - WindWise Fairhaven has released a video about the adverse noise and flicker impacts of the Hull wind turbines, but the proponents of a similar project in Fairhaven have released studies showing impacts will be acceptable locally.
In the 11-minute video posted at www.windwisefairhaven, producers interview two Hull and Hingham residents who say they are adversely affected by noise and shadow flicker.
In the 11-minute video posted at www.windwisefairhaven, producers interview two Hull and Hingham residents who say they are adversely affected by noise and shadow flicker.
The Visual Issue - An Investigation into the Techniques and Methodology used in Windfarm Computer Visualisations by Alan Macdonald
Summary:
This document does not question whether we should be developing windfarms or should not be developing windfarms, or even whether they look good on a landscape or are a visual intrusion on the landscape. We are simply addressing the methodology used by the windfarm industry, who in our opinion, have been using misleading methods for the last 11 years whilst seeking to obtain planning permission.
Having had more than 15 years experience in producing visualisations for planning applications, both here and in other parts of the world, what we see happening throughout Scotland and the rest of the UK is a method of visual presentation which brings our profession into disrepute. After many years of fighting for fairer standards, something has to be done because of the growing public perception that photomontage is unreliable.
(Click to read entire study)
This document does not question whether we should be developing windfarms or should not be developing windfarms, or even whether they look good on a landscape or are a visual intrusion on the landscape. We are simply addressing the methodology used by the windfarm industry, who in our opinion, have been using misleading methods for the last 11 years whilst seeking to obtain planning permission.
Having had more than 15 years experience in producing visualisations for planning applications, both here and in other parts of the world, what we see happening throughout Scotland and the rest of the UK is a method of visual presentation which brings our profession into disrepute. After many years of fighting for fairer standards, something has to be done because of the growing public perception that photomontage is unreliable.
(Click to read entire study)
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Visit the Wind Energy Ethics site
We are a group of concerned Cape Vincent property owners and tax payers. Our mission is to inform all land owners about the tremendous impacts an industrial utility scale wind project will bring to our area. We are also dedicated to seeing that the town governmental process concerning this project is ethical, legal, honest, and fair, and includes the input of ALL property owners.
Blowing in the wind
Yes, homeowners were displaced by the Meyersdale project. There is a CD available with residents from Meyersdale ... It is really difficult to sum up all of the issues about wind turbines in a blog entry. They are putting these within 500 feet of people's property. The manufacturer of many (GE) wrote a report that they are 10 percent efficient at best. It is hardly worth destroying people's quality of life. There are health effects, bird and bat kills, destruction of land (a non-renewable resource). They do not run without coal plants; they do not save any CO2 in their lifespan. So much is emitted in the construction of the towers, the concrete to erect the towers, and the transportation from overseas to their destination. When they say they provide power for a given number of homes, they base it on 1,000 kilowatts ... this means that you can use 10 light bulbs. Most of us enjoy using our electric appliances and the like. The developer in Meyersdale refused to pay the property taxes levied on the wind farm. The town sued and the developer countersued. What are the economics involved? There are so many federal and state subsidies, it is incredible. They can all be found at www.dsireusa.org. You can follow the links to each incentive on the given government site.
(Click to read entire post)
(Click to read entire post)
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Schoolboy wages war on wind farms
A fifteen-year- old fighting to save his community says energy giants could kill the countryside.
Schoolboy Stewart Calderwood has led a four-year battle to stop wind farms sprouting up on the hills around Dalmellington.
A proposed outdoor activity centre at Craigengillan Estate hangs in the balance and won't go ahead if turbines are erected.
But Stewart and a team of local youngsters have hit the streets to gather thousands of signatures in protest against the wind farm schemes.
And the Bellsbank kid reckons it's time politicians started listening to the young and took notice of the huge backlash coming their way.
Stewart revealed: "I've been collecting signatures for more than three years now and am determined to get the message across.
"The number of objections to these wind farms should make it a fairly easy decision for the politicians as far as I'm concerned.
"If these plans go ahead I'll be absolutely gutted and so will the people down here. It's not that we're against wind turbines, it's just that the location is all wrong."
Energy giants AMEC and Scottish Power have applied for permission to build two wind farms on the border of Dalmellington.
A public enquiry is ongoing into the biggest of the two applications at Kyle Forrest after East Ayrshire Council lodged a formal objection with the Scottish Executive, who will make a final decision.
The second application by Scottish Power for 26 turbines at Dersalloch, between Straiton and Dalmellington, went before South Ayrshire Council last month.
However, councillors ignored a recommendation from their own officials to lodge a formal objection and gave it their stamp of approval.
Stewart, who has spoken out against the plans at the public enquiry, pointed out: "I was happy to stand up and speak at the enquiry and put my point across.
"I just hope that what I said had some sort of impact."
And he's outraged at suggestions made at a South Ayrshire planning meeting that young people were PAID to campaign against the turbines.
Stewart hit out: "That's just ridiculous and he clearly didn't think before he said that because it's totally untrue.
"Myself and Steven Kelly, the other main guy involved in the campaign, have been out on the streets in all weathers during the winter collecting these signatures.
"We're doing it because we care about the future of this place and to be accused of getting paid for it is just insulting."
Craigengillan chief Mark Gibson slammed the council for paying no attention to the objections and treating the youngsters with contempt.
He admitted: "They've shown a terrible attitude and these comments about Stewart and the others being paid are downright disgusting.
"They did it for themselves and the village and the whole place is proud of them for such a tremendous effort.
"Stewart is a great example of how the youth in this area can be encouraged to thrive and we can have such a bright future.
"His effort and that of others needs to be recognised."
By Stuart Wilson
Schoolboy Stewart Calderwood has led a four-year battle to stop wind farms sprouting up on the hills around Dalmellington.
A proposed outdoor activity centre at Craigengillan Estate hangs in the balance and won't go ahead if turbines are erected.
But Stewart and a team of local youngsters have hit the streets to gather thousands of signatures in protest against the wind farm schemes.
And the Bellsbank kid reckons it's time politicians started listening to the young and took notice of the huge backlash coming their way.
Stewart revealed: "I've been collecting signatures for more than three years now and am determined to get the message across.
"The number of objections to these wind farms should make it a fairly easy decision for the politicians as far as I'm concerned.
"If these plans go ahead I'll be absolutely gutted and so will the people down here. It's not that we're against wind turbines, it's just that the location is all wrong."
Energy giants AMEC and Scottish Power have applied for permission to build two wind farms on the border of Dalmellington.
A public enquiry is ongoing into the biggest of the two applications at Kyle Forrest after East Ayrshire Council lodged a formal objection with the Scottish Executive, who will make a final decision.
The second application by Scottish Power for 26 turbines at Dersalloch, between Straiton and Dalmellington, went before South Ayrshire Council last month.
However, councillors ignored a recommendation from their own officials to lodge a formal objection and gave it their stamp of approval.
Stewart, who has spoken out against the plans at the public enquiry, pointed out: "I was happy to stand up and speak at the enquiry and put my point across.
"I just hope that what I said had some sort of impact."
And he's outraged at suggestions made at a South Ayrshire planning meeting that young people were PAID to campaign against the turbines.
Stewart hit out: "That's just ridiculous and he clearly didn't think before he said that because it's totally untrue.
"Myself and Steven Kelly, the other main guy involved in the campaign, have been out on the streets in all weathers during the winter collecting these signatures.
"We're doing it because we care about the future of this place and to be accused of getting paid for it is just insulting."
Craigengillan chief Mark Gibson slammed the council for paying no attention to the objections and treating the youngsters with contempt.
He admitted: "They've shown a terrible attitude and these comments about Stewart and the others being paid are downright disgusting.
"They did it for themselves and the village and the whole place is proud of them for such a tremendous effort.
"Stewart is a great example of how the youth in this area can be encouraged to thrive and we can have such a bright future.
"His effort and that of others needs to be recognised."
By Stuart Wilson
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Small Town Torn Over Big Wind by Tobin Hack
Greg Bryant, a sixth-generation Vermonter and organic farmer, lives in Sheffield, Vermont, population roughly 730. From landfill methane harvesting to woodchip burning, he’s always believed in generating clean, renewable energy at home.
Bryant once was also an avid supporter of large-scale wind farms—until UPC Wind made plans to build a 16-turbine wind farm in his hometown. Now he vehemently opposes such projects, which he claims will overwhelm his stomping grounds environmentally and economically. Bryant and members of Ridge Protectors, a nonprofit he co-founded three years ago to oppose large-scale wind projects in the state, have raised $750,000 to stop the Sheffield project.
But not everyone opposes it: Sheffield residents voted 120 to 93 for wind in a non-binding poll.
Vermont—which has only one wind farm today— has historically imported most of its energy, but that could change in the coming years. In the next decade, the license for its Yankee nuclear power plant will expire and its hydro-Quebec contracts will run out, meaning the state could potentially lose the sources that provide two-thirds of its energy. In the meantime, UPC and other companies have started jumping in line with proposals for industrial wind farms to meet the state’s energy needs.
Sheffield isn’t the only community divided over turbines. Environmental groups were disappointed earlier this year when Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission rejected a wind farm on Redington Mountain. And a proposed farm off the shore off Massachusetts’ Cape Cod has been under debate for so long that books have been written about the controversy.
In Sheffield, tensions are running high as UPC awaits the permit necessary to launch the project.
Leslie and Kathy Newland support the wind farm, which, if built, will be clearly visible from their home.
“We were pro-wind before we ever knew that wind was coming to Sheffield,” says Newland. “It’s a no-brainer. It’s a clean business that will pay taxes.”
But members of Ridge Protectors say the benefits the company is promising aren’t sufficient to justify the impact the turbines would have on the wildlife, economy, and community.
“Our problem with the project is the size and the scale,” Bryant says of the 420-foot turbines. “We support projects that support the local community, and directly profit the town, not giant, state-wide projects.”
For their part, project developers say that over 20 years, the wind farm could bring $11 million to the town, operate at 30-percent efficiency, and produce 115,000 megawatt-hours per year.
Furthermore, UPC maintains that the project can move forward safely, pointing to its study on the potential impact of the turbines on bats—a major concern among critics. As a result of the study, the company has agreed to shut down the turbines during peak bat hours, at certain times of year, and in certain weather conditions.
Skeptical of the study, Ridge Protectors hired University of Vermont biologist William Kilpatrick to conduct acoustic monitoring tests on some of the same nights. His investigation found that significantly more bats visit the area than reported by the other study, which Ridge Protectors says is cause for concern.
Despite the potential risks, environmental groups support the project. According to Conservation Law Foundation attorney Sandra Levine, wind power could eventually contribute a significant portion of the state’s energy.
“Wind is completely free, and operating costs are relatively low,” she says. “The alternatives for Vermont are going to be more coal, more nuclear, more gas. A wind turbine is like a band-aid on your arm, and coal extraction is like amputation.”
Levine says that the controversy is less about efficiency and practicability than it is about aesthetics.
“I suspect that if wind power were invisible, 90 percent of the opposition would go away,” she says.
Sheffield residents argue that the project might cause property values to drop, and deter tourists who come to enjoy the town’s natural beauty. But pro-wind residents say the turbines might actually draw visitors.
No deadline has been set for Sheffield’s three-man board of selectmen to make a decision on the fate of the wind farm, but whatever the outcome, residents agree on one thing: The controversy has produced anything but neighborly sentiments.
“The communities have been devastated,” says Bryant.
Bryant once was also an avid supporter of large-scale wind farms—until UPC Wind made plans to build a 16-turbine wind farm in his hometown. Now he vehemently opposes such projects, which he claims will overwhelm his stomping grounds environmentally and economically. Bryant and members of Ridge Protectors, a nonprofit he co-founded three years ago to oppose large-scale wind projects in the state, have raised $750,000 to stop the Sheffield project.
But not everyone opposes it: Sheffield residents voted 120 to 93 for wind in a non-binding poll.
Vermont—which has only one wind farm today— has historically imported most of its energy, but that could change in the coming years. In the next decade, the license for its Yankee nuclear power plant will expire and its hydro-Quebec contracts will run out, meaning the state could potentially lose the sources that provide two-thirds of its energy. In the meantime, UPC and other companies have started jumping in line with proposals for industrial wind farms to meet the state’s energy needs.
Sheffield isn’t the only community divided over turbines. Environmental groups were disappointed earlier this year when Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission rejected a wind farm on Redington Mountain. And a proposed farm off the shore off Massachusetts’ Cape Cod has been under debate for so long that books have been written about the controversy.
In Sheffield, tensions are running high as UPC awaits the permit necessary to launch the project.
Leslie and Kathy Newland support the wind farm, which, if built, will be clearly visible from their home.
“We were pro-wind before we ever knew that wind was coming to Sheffield,” says Newland. “It’s a no-brainer. It’s a clean business that will pay taxes.”
But members of Ridge Protectors say the benefits the company is promising aren’t sufficient to justify the impact the turbines would have on the wildlife, economy, and community.
“Our problem with the project is the size and the scale,” Bryant says of the 420-foot turbines. “We support projects that support the local community, and directly profit the town, not giant, state-wide projects.”
For their part, project developers say that over 20 years, the wind farm could bring $11 million to the town, operate at 30-percent efficiency, and produce 115,000 megawatt-hours per year.
Furthermore, UPC maintains that the project can move forward safely, pointing to its study on the potential impact of the turbines on bats—a major concern among critics. As a result of the study, the company has agreed to shut down the turbines during peak bat hours, at certain times of year, and in certain weather conditions.
Skeptical of the study, Ridge Protectors hired University of Vermont biologist William Kilpatrick to conduct acoustic monitoring tests on some of the same nights. His investigation found that significantly more bats visit the area than reported by the other study, which Ridge Protectors says is cause for concern.
Despite the potential risks, environmental groups support the project. According to Conservation Law Foundation attorney Sandra Levine, wind power could eventually contribute a significant portion of the state’s energy.
“Wind is completely free, and operating costs are relatively low,” she says. “The alternatives for Vermont are going to be more coal, more nuclear, more gas. A wind turbine is like a band-aid on your arm, and coal extraction is like amputation.”
Levine says that the controversy is less about efficiency and practicability than it is about aesthetics.
“I suspect that if wind power were invisible, 90 percent of the opposition would go away,” she says.
Sheffield residents argue that the project might cause property values to drop, and deter tourists who come to enjoy the town’s natural beauty. But pro-wind residents say the turbines might actually draw visitors.
No deadline has been set for Sheffield’s three-man board of selectmen to make a decision on the fate of the wind farm, but whatever the outcome, residents agree on one thing: The controversy has produced anything but neighborly sentiments.
“The communities have been devastated,” says Bryant.
-778626.jpg)
Power-plant siting legislation threatens revered 'Home Rule'
Governor Spitzer's energy team has drafted the language for Article X, which governs the siting of energy plants, including wind-turbine factories. Article X as drafted is seriously flawed and a betrayal of the governor's campaign promises.
1. This bill eviscerates Home Rule. If that happens, Governor Spitzer has clearly sacrificed Upstate New York for downstate interests. On the day he took office, he promised an annual State of The Upstate message. This bill relegates Upstate to becoming a factory for downstate financial interests. Needless to say, it also drives a wedge between Upstate and downstate.
2. This bill effectively circumvents the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SEQRA was put in place to prevent environmental abuses, and it should not be swept aside for any projects. We cannot cherry-pick SEQRA. We do so at our peril.
3. This bill preempts local land use controls and authorities. There is no assurance that local zoning will be respected. Communities that have zoned wind out will lose protection under Article X.
4. Currently, no intervener funding is allowed for wind projects. Thus, the project developer/applicant has no obligation to provide funding for municipalities/organizations to hire consultants to inform the siting proposal and process. Wind has acknowledged impacts. Why is it exempt from intervener funding?
5. The bill requests that communities that have banned wind energy be exempted from the siting of wind energy systems under Article X. Cherry Valley has fought off two successive attacks from the wind industry. Is it now to be attacked again by the current administration?
6) There is concern that wind projects that are "close to being permitted" under SEQRA may face double jeopardy and have to be re-permitted under Article X if the SEQRA permitting does not occur before implementation date of Article X. The governor is eager to grandfather specific wind projects in Article X. But he has completely usurped the rights of communities. Why is the industry favored, while The People are ignored?
The governor's announcements of April 19, ironically Paul Revere Day, pander to the energy and banking industries at the expense of the people. As President Lincoln said, "You can fool some of The People some of the time. You can fool all of The People some of the time. But you can't fool all of The People all of the time."
Finally, does anyone remember the governor's comments to the League of Women Voters questionnaire, during the campaign? The League asked: "What role do you see wind power, ethane and other renewable energy sources playing in alleviating the high cost of energy in New York State?"
Eliot Spitzer answered: "Investing in clean, renewable energy to reduce pollution and energy costs - and to diversify our energy supply - is a key part of my energy plan. On June 25, David Paterson presented our comprehensive clean energy proposal. However, for wind projects, we must respect communities' concerns about turbine siting."
Article X, as written, gives lie to Governor Spitzer's campaign promise.
You can't fool all of The People all of the time.
Sue Brander
Van Hornesville
1. This bill eviscerates Home Rule. If that happens, Governor Spitzer has clearly sacrificed Upstate New York for downstate interests. On the day he took office, he promised an annual State of The Upstate message. This bill relegates Upstate to becoming a factory for downstate financial interests. Needless to say, it also drives a wedge between Upstate and downstate.
2. This bill effectively circumvents the State Environmental Quality Review Act. SEQRA was put in place to prevent environmental abuses, and it should not be swept aside for any projects. We cannot cherry-pick SEQRA. We do so at our peril.
3. This bill preempts local land use controls and authorities. There is no assurance that local zoning will be respected. Communities that have zoned wind out will lose protection under Article X.
4. Currently, no intervener funding is allowed for wind projects. Thus, the project developer/applicant has no obligation to provide funding for municipalities/organizations to hire consultants to inform the siting proposal and process. Wind has acknowledged impacts. Why is it exempt from intervener funding?
5. The bill requests that communities that have banned wind energy be exempted from the siting of wind energy systems under Article X. Cherry Valley has fought off two successive attacks from the wind industry. Is it now to be attacked again by the current administration?
6) There is concern that wind projects that are "close to being permitted" under SEQRA may face double jeopardy and have to be re-permitted under Article X if the SEQRA permitting does not occur before implementation date of Article X. The governor is eager to grandfather specific wind projects in Article X. But he has completely usurped the rights of communities. Why is the industry favored, while The People are ignored?
The governor's announcements of April 19, ironically Paul Revere Day, pander to the energy and banking industries at the expense of the people. As President Lincoln said, "You can fool some of The People some of the time. You can fool all of The People some of the time. But you can't fool all of The People all of the time."
Finally, does anyone remember the governor's comments to the League of Women Voters questionnaire, during the campaign? The League asked: "What role do you see wind power, ethane and other renewable energy sources playing in alleviating the high cost of energy in New York State?"
Eliot Spitzer answered: "Investing in clean, renewable energy to reduce pollution and energy costs - and to diversify our energy supply - is a key part of my energy plan. On June 25, David Paterson presented our comprehensive clean energy proposal. However, for wind projects, we must respect communities' concerns about turbine siting."
Article X, as written, gives lie to Governor Spitzer's campaign promise.
You can't fool all of The People all of the time.
Sue Brander
Van Hornesville
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Windfarm Prattsburgh, but probably all the projects
I finally understand the size of the transmission lines. The guy from UPC says they are 65 feet high, with 20 foot arms on either side of the center pole, which means that a 40 foot right of way is required to run overhead lines.
Typically, NYSEG owns 30 foot right of ways along the road in
front of people's homes (and sometimes across property). This means that in order to put up the transmission lines, NYSEG and/or UPC will have to get additional easements from property owners. This is a lot of easements -- if people don't sign the papers, then UPC is stuck. Now here's what people should know -- if you sign an easement for a 40 foot right of way, the guy wires may be attached and go on your land outside of the 40 foot right of way. But that is not all.
This next part is hard for me to explain, so I'm simplifying things. I looked at my abstract and there is an easement for NYSEG. It says in the easement that NYSEG has the right to get rid of trees that are in the way of the lines. Sure enough,if one looks at the plans for transmission lines in the EIS one sees that NYSEG and/or UPC reserves the right to cut tall trees located within 50 feet of either side of the pole so that tall trees don't interfere with the transmission lines.
This amounts in reality to a 100 foot right of way for NYSEG and UPC.
For example: a landowner has a house set back 60 feet from the road, with tall trees on the front of his land providing privacy. UPC puts up poles for transmission. The poles are typically 29 feet from the center of the road, which puts them 10 or fifteen feet onto the land. The arms extend another 20 feet onto the land. Then UPC cuts down tall trees that are located 50 feet on either side of the pole. Gone are beautiful trees. Gone is privacy. Gone is life as you know it.
People need to know this. Please send out e-mails to your groups and let as many people know verbally as possible. Please encourage people NOT to sign additional easements.
(Permission to post provided by Ruth M)
Typically, NYSEG owns 30 foot right of ways along the road in
front of people's homes (and sometimes across property). This means that in order to put up the transmission lines, NYSEG and/or UPC will have to get additional easements from property owners. This is a lot of easements -- if people don't sign the papers, then UPC is stuck. Now here's what people should know -- if you sign an easement for a 40 foot right of way, the guy wires may be attached and go on your land outside of the 40 foot right of way. But that is not all.
This next part is hard for me to explain, so I'm simplifying things. I looked at my abstract and there is an easement for NYSEG. It says in the easement that NYSEG has the right to get rid of trees that are in the way of the lines. Sure enough,if one looks at the plans for transmission lines in the EIS one sees that NYSEG and/or UPC reserves the right to cut tall trees located within 50 feet of either side of the pole so that tall trees don't interfere with the transmission lines.
This amounts in reality to a 100 foot right of way for NYSEG and UPC.
For example: a landowner has a house set back 60 feet from the road, with tall trees on the front of his land providing privacy. UPC puts up poles for transmission. The poles are typically 29 feet from the center of the road, which puts them 10 or fifteen feet onto the land. The arms extend another 20 feet onto the land. Then UPC cuts down tall trees that are located 50 feet on either side of the pole. Gone are beautiful trees. Gone is privacy. Gone is life as you know it.
People need to know this. Please send out e-mails to your groups and let as many people know verbally as possible. Please encourage people NOT to sign additional easements.
(Permission to post provided by Ruth M)
Request for Information from Brad Jones
We are trying to document any cases in which wind developers may have offered any sort of inducement (beyond standard lease agreements) to local officials in exchange for cooperation or support.
Specific details (names, town or municipality, date, and description of inducement) would be most appreciated.
Thank you,
brad and linda
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)
Specific details (names, town or municipality, date, and description of inducement) would be most appreciated.
Thank you,
brad and linda
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)
Wind farm opponents in court
http://www.the-leader.com/articles/2007/05/09/news/local01.txt
Cohocton group claims zoning changes violate state law
BY MARY PERHAM
leaderbath@yahoo.com
BATH | Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure has up to 60 days to decide the legality of a controversial town of Cohocton wind law.
Wind farm opponent Cohocton Wind Watch claims the town violated the state's Environmental Quality Review Act when it changed its zoning laws to make way for wind farm development. The town said proper procedure was followed.
The town is the proposed site for a 36-turbine wind farm by UPC Wind. A draft environmental review on the project was accepted by town officials last December. The zoning changes were enacted in early 2006.
Tuesday, Cohocton Wind Watch attorney Richard Lippes told Furfure town officials did not take state environmental review laws into account before approving the zoning changes.
Also, the zoning changes don't comply with the town's comprehensive plan, which mandates preserving the rural, agricultural nature of Cohocton, Lippes said.
Town attorney John Henry said the town board changed the zoning laws to prevent unrestricted development and not to benefit UPC Wind. Officials followed the comprehensive plan, he said.
He said the law, by itself, was not a decision to approve a specific wind farm. Therefore, there was no reason to consider any negative effect by the projects on residents, he said.
“You may think this raises the question of significant impact,” Henry said. “The town board did not.”
He told Furfure town officials considered the project in keeping with the rural nature of Cohocton.
Furfure questioned whether there should be expert proof of potential harm, what standards are reasonable and practical, and whether the town “short-circuited” the process.
“It's hard for me to say this isn't any big deal,” she told Henry. “You're setting the protocol, the standards, you're setting the stage.”
Attorneys for UPC did not attend the hearing.
Tuesday's hearing was the first time a legal challenge to wind power development has been heard in Steuben County, although several court hearings have taken place in Rochester.
Wind farm development in Steuben County has been controversial since the first wind farm site was proposed about five years ago in the town of Prattsburgh.
Opponents claim the 500-foot-high turbines would detract from the region's rural character, be a source of noise pollution and be hazardous to the natural habitat.
Supporters say the turbines would provide much-needed renewable energy, be a source of income to property owners and boost local revenues.
Since then, a second Prattsburgh development, and projects in the areas near Hornby, Howard, Hartsville and Cohocton have generated opposition.
All other cases are pending or in the appeals process, including an appeal on an earlier version of the town of Cohocton wind law.
Cohocton group claims zoning changes violate state law
BY MARY PERHAM
leaderbath@yahoo.com
BATH | Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure has up to 60 days to decide the legality of a controversial town of Cohocton wind law.
Wind farm opponent Cohocton Wind Watch claims the town violated the state's Environmental Quality Review Act when it changed its zoning laws to make way for wind farm development. The town said proper procedure was followed.
The town is the proposed site for a 36-turbine wind farm by UPC Wind. A draft environmental review on the project was accepted by town officials last December. The zoning changes were enacted in early 2006.
Tuesday, Cohocton Wind Watch attorney Richard Lippes told Furfure town officials did not take state environmental review laws into account before approving the zoning changes.
Also, the zoning changes don't comply with the town's comprehensive plan, which mandates preserving the rural, agricultural nature of Cohocton, Lippes said.
Town attorney John Henry said the town board changed the zoning laws to prevent unrestricted development and not to benefit UPC Wind. Officials followed the comprehensive plan, he said.
He said the law, by itself, was not a decision to approve a specific wind farm. Therefore, there was no reason to consider any negative effect by the projects on residents, he said.
“You may think this raises the question of significant impact,” Henry said. “The town board did not.”
He told Furfure town officials considered the project in keeping with the rural nature of Cohocton.
Furfure questioned whether there should be expert proof of potential harm, what standards are reasonable and practical, and whether the town “short-circuited” the process.
“It's hard for me to say this isn't any big deal,” she told Henry. “You're setting the protocol, the standards, you're setting the stage.”
Attorneys for UPC did not attend the hearing.
Tuesday's hearing was the first time a legal challenge to wind power development has been heard in Steuben County, although several court hearings have taken place in Rochester.
Wind farm development in Steuben County has been controversial since the first wind farm site was proposed about five years ago in the town of Prattsburgh.
Opponents claim the 500-foot-high turbines would detract from the region's rural character, be a source of noise pollution and be hazardous to the natural habitat.
Supporters say the turbines would provide much-needed renewable energy, be a source of income to property owners and boost local revenues.
Since then, a second Prattsburgh development, and projects in the areas near Hornby, Howard, Hartsville and Cohocton have generated opposition.
All other cases are pending or in the appeals process, including an appeal on an earlier version of the town of Cohocton wind law.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Wind farm causing stir in Cohocton by Kat De Maria
Local law number two.
That's the zoning law that would allow windmills to come to Cohocton and the one that has town officials and residents in court. They're debating whether the town board underwent the necessary environmental review before members passed the law.
"It looked at all the environmental issues it had to and that it ultimately issued a negative declaration stating the local law in and of itself would adversely affect the environment," said Patrick McAllister, an attorney for the Town of Cohocton.
The review did not address the impact of the actual windmills. The town attorney says each wind farm will have a review when it's proposed. The lawyer for a group opposed to windmills says that's too late.
"By deferring the consideration of various issues to the date when a particular applicant wants to build windmills, when that applications is considered, didn't follow the law properly," said Richard Lippes, a lawyer for Cohocton Wind Watch.
Also at issue is whether the wind farm law goes against the town comprehensive plan, which protects the agricultural integrity of the community.
"We believe windmills were inconsistent with the town of Cohocton's comprehensive plan," Lippes said.
He says huge industrial structures do not promote an agricultural way of life. The town attorney says windmills complement a farming lifestyle.
"This can be a revenue source for the farmers, and as far as the footprint of these windmills, they don't take up a lot of space so that you still have almost all of your agricultural land for use," McAllister said.
The land that remains without windmills, at least for now.
That's the zoning law that would allow windmills to come to Cohocton and the one that has town officials and residents in court. They're debating whether the town board underwent the necessary environmental review before members passed the law.
"It looked at all the environmental issues it had to and that it ultimately issued a negative declaration stating the local law in and of itself would adversely affect the environment," said Patrick McAllister, an attorney for the Town of Cohocton.
The review did not address the impact of the actual windmills. The town attorney says each wind farm will have a review when it's proposed. The lawyer for a group opposed to windmills says that's too late.
"By deferring the consideration of various issues to the date when a particular applicant wants to build windmills, when that applications is considered, didn't follow the law properly," said Richard Lippes, a lawyer for Cohocton Wind Watch.
Also at issue is whether the wind farm law goes against the town comprehensive plan, which protects the agricultural integrity of the community.
"We believe windmills were inconsistent with the town of Cohocton's comprehensive plan," Lippes said.
He says huge industrial structures do not promote an agricultural way of life. The town attorney says windmills complement a farming lifestyle.
"This can be a revenue source for the farmers, and as far as the footprint of these windmills, they don't take up a lot of space so that you still have almost all of your agricultural land for use," McAllister said.
The land that remains without windmills, at least for now.
Wind Power Struggles In Cohocton - VIDEO - WETM Channel 18 Elmira
(Click to view the Channel 18 video report on the Wind Power Struggles In Cohocton
Wind Power Struggles in Cohocton
Bath, N.Y. -- Judge Marianne Furfure heard arguments today brought by Cohocton Wind Watch, an anti-windmill group that says the Town of Cohocton did not comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act when it changed its zoning regulations to make way for a project propsed by developer UPC Wind.
UPC Wind wants to build fifty 500-foot wind turbines in the hillsides scattered in and around Cohocton. They will lease farmland from local farmers and then sell that power to local energy distributors.
The Town of Cohocton argues that the project will help out the local farming community because they will be making money from UPC Wind, and they believe it is a step towards bringing more green power possibilities into Steuben County.
But, neighbors fear noise pollution and other environmental dangers associated with the project. They say the town did not properly file an Environmental Impact Statement, required by New York State Law.
Judge Furfure will hand down her decision in two weeks on whether the Town of Cohocton should head back to the drawing board.
UPC Wind wants to build fifty 500-foot wind turbines in the hillsides scattered in and around Cohocton. They will lease farmland from local farmers and then sell that power to local energy distributors.
The Town of Cohocton argues that the project will help out the local farming community because they will be making money from UPC Wind, and they believe it is a step towards bringing more green power possibilities into Steuben County.
But, neighbors fear noise pollution and other environmental dangers associated with the project. They say the town did not properly file an Environmental Impact Statement, required by New York State Law.
Judge Furfure will hand down her decision in two weeks on whether the Town of Cohocton should head back to the drawing board.
Electricity Output from the Maple Ridge - July, Aug, Sept 2006
Tug Hill (Lewis County)
New York, USA
Richard Bolton, President
Environmental Compliance Alliance
Rushville, NY
BOLTON@hws.edu
January 7, 2007
Energy producers are not required to file actual energy production figures for their plant, but are required to file hourly financial transaction information with FERC ["The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an independent regulatory agency within the Department of Energy that, among other energy-related tasks, licenses and inspects private, municipal and state hydroelectric projects."].
With energy deregulation came the ever present potential for Enron-style abuses and this is one of the measures, among others, instituted to ensure accountability. It is, I believe, possible to get a temporal ('time') picture of the energy production because of the hourly reporting requirement, though this is perhaps somewhat fuzzy due to other contractual factors that may be present - in the transaction.
For example, the FERC data shows no time period when at least some energy wasn't sold, yet there are many instances during the 3-month reporting period [July, August, September 2006] when the wind doesn't blow at all and the wind farm is dead.
I think the Cum Output (based on transaction data) vs. Time graph (attached) gives a more meaningful depiction of the Maple Ridge farm than the conventional Output vs. Time graph often posted by the wind company, similar to the graph above. That type of graph shows many hourly variations and spikes and does not depict useful information. Also, the mathematical mean output is heavily contaminated by large spike fluctuations which may give a misleading Actual Capacity Factor value—too high.
Maple Ridge has a nameplate capacity factor of 240 MW, but from the graph we see that for 40% of the quarter [July, August, September 2006] (1883 hrs), the wind farm produced a paltry 0-30 MW, or 0-12.5% of nameplate capacity. At no time did the output sustain full 240 MW. Indeed, the output was only above half the rated output 15% of the time. Bear in mind that this graph is based on transaction information.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Maple Ridge is a very pathetic energy producer, at least for the 3Q06 [third quarter of 2006] examined, when compared with any other industrial scale plant (hydro or thermal).
Recall that 3Q06 [July, August, September 2006] saw record demand for electrical energy in NY due to the hot summer weather that year.
Richard Bolton, President
Environmental Compliance Alliance
Rushville, New York
BOLTON@hws.edu
New York, USA
Richard Bolton, President
Environmental Compliance Alliance
Rushville, NY
BOLTON@hws.edu
January 7, 2007
Energy producers are not required to file actual energy production figures for their plant, but are required to file hourly financial transaction information with FERC ["The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an independent regulatory agency within the Department of Energy that, among other energy-related tasks, licenses and inspects private, municipal and state hydroelectric projects."].
With energy deregulation came the ever present potential for Enron-style abuses and this is one of the measures, among others, instituted to ensure accountability. It is, I believe, possible to get a temporal ('time') picture of the energy production because of the hourly reporting requirement, though this is perhaps somewhat fuzzy due to other contractual factors that may be present - in the transaction.
For example, the FERC data shows no time period when at least some energy wasn't sold, yet there are many instances during the 3-month reporting period [July, August, September 2006] when the wind doesn't blow at all and the wind farm is dead.
I think the Cum Output (based on transaction data) vs. Time graph (attached) gives a more meaningful depiction of the Maple Ridge farm than the conventional Output vs. Time graph often posted by the wind company, similar to the graph above. That type of graph shows many hourly variations and spikes and does not depict useful information. Also, the mathematical mean output is heavily contaminated by large spike fluctuations which may give a misleading Actual Capacity Factor value—too high.
Maple Ridge has a nameplate capacity factor of 240 MW, but from the graph we see that for 40% of the quarter [July, August, September 2006] (1883 hrs), the wind farm produced a paltry 0-30 MW, or 0-12.5% of nameplate capacity. At no time did the output sustain full 240 MW. Indeed, the output was only above half the rated output 15% of the time. Bear in mind that this graph is based on transaction information.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Maple Ridge is a very pathetic energy producer, at least for the 3Q06 [third quarter of 2006] examined, when compared with any other industrial scale plant (hydro or thermal).
Recall that 3Q06 [July, August, September 2006] saw record demand for electrical energy in NY due to the hot summer weather that year.
Richard Bolton, President
Environmental Compliance Alliance
Rushville, New York
BOLTON@hws.edu
Monday, May 07, 2007
Testimony of Wendy Todd on Mars Hill wind "farm"
Senators, Representatives, and Committee Members:
Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Wendy Todd. I am from Aroostook County. I am a resident of Mars Hill and live approximately 2600 feet from the Mars Hill Wind Project. I am here today to offer testimony that residents around the project are suffering. There are 18 families that I know of that are negatively impacted on a regular basis from the noise, strobe effect and shadow flicker from the turbines. Most of these 18 families live less than 3000 feet from the turbines. There is no one that I know of from 425 East Ridge Road to 212 Mountain Road that does not agree that there are issues with noise. Issues that are changing the way residents view life around the mountain. We have formed a group called the Mountain Landowners Association in an attempt to share information and come up to speed on the issues of living this close to turbines of this size and generation. We have had to struggle through massive amounts of documentation from the Internet and from other towns that are dealing with the same issues.
We have tried and I believe have succeeded in finding the answers to many of our questions but it has all been from our own efforts. We have received very little help from our town or the company that sited the windmills. Nick Archer with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has been a helpful resource, but I believe even he would say that the State has a ways to go to educate itself on the pros and cons of wind turbines and how to best site a project. It would be a recommendation from our group for the State to look to California and other states in the nation that have been dealing with these issues for years, as well as other countries who have gleaned a great deal of information from years of studies, to help form guidelines to protect not only the land but the residents that live nearby proposed projects. We should learn from those who have gone before us.
Let me make it very clear that no one in our group is opposed to wind turbines. We are for alternative, renewable forms of energy. Some from our group supported this project from the beginning. Some hated the project from the beginning and still do. Some were on the fence, but because of the points of renewable energy, landowner rights and proposed benefits for our town, county and state were swayed to sacrifice precious views of Mars Hill Mountain and our quiet with the disruption of the construction phase of the project. Nobody really knew or realized what was about to happen and how it would change our lives.
My husband and I moved to Southern Maine after we were married. We left for the adventure and for good paying jobs. We lived in Portland for 2 years then purchased our first home in Buxton, Maine. That house sat about 40 feet from the edge of Route 22 (a major route leading to/from Portland) and was directly in the path of the approach to and from Portland International Jetport. The noise at that little house could reach unbelievable levels, but somehow we learned to deal with them. After 10 years of planning and saving we moved back home to Mars Hill where I was born and raised. The desire was to get away from the craziness of the corporate world, the noise that surrounded us and to seek solitude and a place to raise our children.
My family has owned land on Mars Hill Mountain for almost 100 years. My father and grandfather were potato farmers. I learned from a very young age to have a close connection with the land from my parents. They allowed us to carve out a small lot in the center of the family farm and we began the process of building our dream home.
Part of that process was to ask questions about the proposed wind farm. We learned early on that the town residences would not have an opportunity to vote on this $55 million dollar project. I attended the Evergreen / UPC TIF meeting in Mars Hill, in November of 2004. At the meeting the question of noise was posed. The answers are documented. Basically the noise was described as silent, nearly silent and you would have to be 500 feet or less from the site to hear it. Printed documents and the UPC, Evergreen Web site stated that, "You will not be able to hear any noise at all at the bottom of the mountain." The morning after the TIF meeting I was at the town office and got to speak directly with Peter Gish from UPC. I told him where my parents lived and described where we hoped to build and asked whether noise would be an issue. He said, "You won't hear anything from these things." Our town manager confirmed that this was true because he had visited a site in Canada and heard very little noise being emitted from the site.
My husband and I on a visit to PEI, took a drive to the north shore to stand under the turbines there and found them not to be intrusive. We felt we had enough proof on the issue of noise that we went ahead and built our home. We figured that if we could deal with the aesthetics and the construction phase that we would be fine. If we had known then what we know now or if we had been made aware of the noise section of the permit with the sound analysis from RSE, we would never have built where we did. The report from RSE clearly stated that some residences would experience noise levels at or above DEP level limits.
Clear cutting began in the fall of 2005. I believe the figure is 150 acres of land that was cleared. Heavy equipment started the process of developing roads and in April of 2006 blasting started. We watched with heavy hearts as the North end peak was literally blown away. No one ever notified us of the blasting, but our houses shook, silverware and dishes rattled, and sheet rock dust fell as it took place. Soon the huge trucks arrived with the components of the wind turbines. Traffic was interrupted which made daily comings and goings difficult. The cranes arrived and the towers began to rise. People came from all over to watch. Cars stopped in the middle of the road to view the spectacle. People repeatedly left their vehicles to take pictures with not even a thought to oncoming traffic. Residents with small children started keeping them inside due to the uncertainty of the increased traffic.
In early December, #9 turbine was turned on and some residents thought immediately that something was wrong. The noise from just that one turbine was unbelievable. That is when residents began to make calls, first to UPC, then to the town and then to the DEP.
It's hard to understand, but we are not getting used to the noise from the wind farm as we were once able to do with the traffic and jet noise at our old house. In an attempt to figure out why, we started researching the topic and I finally called a noise expert out of Massachusetts who was able to explain why the noises that come from wind turbines are so offensive. I can't begin to repeat what he said here, but I made copies for you of the papers he recommended that basically demonstrate how complex the issue really is, and how the developers had no right to tell us there would be no noise problems.
Are there other issues with wind turbines? Yes. Most of which were discovered after the wind turbines were already in place. Noise is the largest problem but shadow flicker and strobe effect are close behind for some of the residents. The rising and setting sun pierce through the blades of the turbines creating a strobe like effect in some of the resident's homes. For some it is blinding, even the best curtains and blinds can't remove the total effect. Some find that it makes them dizzy and disoriented; others find that it can cause headaches and nausea. It is only for 20 to 40 minutes a day (when the sun is shining) depending on the season of the year, but it is still an intrusion into the homes and lives of the people who live near the site. The strobe effect can be similar to the sun cutting through the trees as you drive (sun-shadow- sun-shadow).
Shadow flicker is when the shadow from the blades passes over the land and homes of people who live within a mile of the site. It too can make people feel disoriented. Some people complain that as they drive over a road that is being shaded that the motion draws them toward it (left or right) they find themselves veering into the wrong lane.
Residents are very concerned that the value of their properties has been greatly diminished. This brings fear to many of us because we have tied up most of our resources in our homes. What will there be for our children? Is it the same as it would have been before the turbines? Some residents have said that their way of life has changed so dramatically since the project that they would move if they thought for 1 minute that they could recover their investment. Please, keep in mind that these are people who dreamed of living behind the mountain. Who sacrificed many things to build the homes of their dreams with no intention of ever leaving. Imagine being driven from your home by a neighbor. Imagine feeling like you have no recourse and that there is nothing you can do about it.
Other issues that keep coming up are the risk of the turbines catching fire (consider fighting a fire 200 feet off the ground.) If there was a dry spell and the mountain was to catch on fire many of us would be in grave danger.
Another issue is the potential for ice and snow build up on the blades in the wintertime, which during the melting process can be thrown hundreds of feet. This is another issue that developers deny is a legitimate concern because they say safeguards are in place, but ice thrown from turbines is documented in photos and with eye witnesses. (two teens at Big Rock ski resort witnessed an ice throw this winter)
There have even been cases of improperly anchored turbines falling over or collapsing or leaning such as in Illinois at a newer wind farm called Crescent Ridge, and of blades breaking off and being flung. These are admittedly rare cases but that doesn't make residents feel any better about the real possibilities. Some residents are only about 700 feet from turbine #1, which sits very close to East Ridge Road. So close that if it fell toward the road it would likely be in the road. Also posing a danger are the huge blades that are likely to break off and be catapulted into nearby yards and homes.
We are only 5 months into the operation of this site, and are learning something new almost every single day. The Mountain Landowners Association is requesting that the State of Maine put a moratorium on all siting of Wind Farms in the state until the issues at Mars Hill are reviewed and resolved.
My husband says…
It is sad when corporations are free to prey on small towns and small town government. He believes that corporations should not be able to push and bully their way into an area to take clear advantage of the inhabitants by withholding information, by leading them to believe fabrications, stretching the truth in order to achieve corporate goals at the suffering of Maine residents.
We have been asked by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to remain patient while the sound analysis is being conducted and reviewed. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE) of Brunswick, Maine is performing the sound analysis. They (RSE) also happen to be contracted by UPC / Evergreen (the company responsible for the Mars Hill Wind project). This fact raises questions as to whether the analysis will be fair. We have been assured by the DEP that this is a fair process. Unfortunately we have become skeptical of many things. Both the DEP and UPC have told us, that this could take a long time to resolve. The residents of Mars Hill will try to remain patient but we want for everyone to know that our patience is growing short with no hope of resolution in sight.
Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Wendy Todd. I am from Aroostook County. I am a resident of Mars Hill and live approximately 2600 feet from the Mars Hill Wind Project. I am here today to offer testimony that residents around the project are suffering. There are 18 families that I know of that are negatively impacted on a regular basis from the noise, strobe effect and shadow flicker from the turbines. Most of these 18 families live less than 3000 feet from the turbines. There is no one that I know of from 425 East Ridge Road to 212 Mountain Road that does not agree that there are issues with noise. Issues that are changing the way residents view life around the mountain. We have formed a group called the Mountain Landowners Association in an attempt to share information and come up to speed on the issues of living this close to turbines of this size and generation. We have had to struggle through massive amounts of documentation from the Internet and from other towns that are dealing with the same issues.
We have tried and I believe have succeeded in finding the answers to many of our questions but it has all been from our own efforts. We have received very little help from our town or the company that sited the windmills. Nick Archer with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has been a helpful resource, but I believe even he would say that the State has a ways to go to educate itself on the pros and cons of wind turbines and how to best site a project. It would be a recommendation from our group for the State to look to California and other states in the nation that have been dealing with these issues for years, as well as other countries who have gleaned a great deal of information from years of studies, to help form guidelines to protect not only the land but the residents that live nearby proposed projects. We should learn from those who have gone before us.
Let me make it very clear that no one in our group is opposed to wind turbines. We are for alternative, renewable forms of energy. Some from our group supported this project from the beginning. Some hated the project from the beginning and still do. Some were on the fence, but because of the points of renewable energy, landowner rights and proposed benefits for our town, county and state were swayed to sacrifice precious views of Mars Hill Mountain and our quiet with the disruption of the construction phase of the project. Nobody really knew or realized what was about to happen and how it would change our lives.
My husband and I moved to Southern Maine after we were married. We left for the adventure and for good paying jobs. We lived in Portland for 2 years then purchased our first home in Buxton, Maine. That house sat about 40 feet from the edge of Route 22 (a major route leading to/from Portland) and was directly in the path of the approach to and from Portland International Jetport. The noise at that little house could reach unbelievable levels, but somehow we learned to deal with them. After 10 years of planning and saving we moved back home to Mars Hill where I was born and raised. The desire was to get away from the craziness of the corporate world, the noise that surrounded us and to seek solitude and a place to raise our children.
My family has owned land on Mars Hill Mountain for almost 100 years. My father and grandfather were potato farmers. I learned from a very young age to have a close connection with the land from my parents. They allowed us to carve out a small lot in the center of the family farm and we began the process of building our dream home.
Part of that process was to ask questions about the proposed wind farm. We learned early on that the town residences would not have an opportunity to vote on this $55 million dollar project. I attended the Evergreen / UPC TIF meeting in Mars Hill, in November of 2004. At the meeting the question of noise was posed. The answers are documented. Basically the noise was described as silent, nearly silent and you would have to be 500 feet or less from the site to hear it. Printed documents and the UPC, Evergreen Web site stated that, "You will not be able to hear any noise at all at the bottom of the mountain." The morning after the TIF meeting I was at the town office and got to speak directly with Peter Gish from UPC. I told him where my parents lived and described where we hoped to build and asked whether noise would be an issue. He said, "You won't hear anything from these things." Our town manager confirmed that this was true because he had visited a site in Canada and heard very little noise being emitted from the site.
My husband and I on a visit to PEI, took a drive to the north shore to stand under the turbines there and found them not to be intrusive. We felt we had enough proof on the issue of noise that we went ahead and built our home. We figured that if we could deal with the aesthetics and the construction phase that we would be fine. If we had known then what we know now or if we had been made aware of the noise section of the permit with the sound analysis from RSE, we would never have built where we did. The report from RSE clearly stated that some residences would experience noise levels at or above DEP level limits.
Clear cutting began in the fall of 2005. I believe the figure is 150 acres of land that was cleared. Heavy equipment started the process of developing roads and in April of 2006 blasting started. We watched with heavy hearts as the North end peak was literally blown away. No one ever notified us of the blasting, but our houses shook, silverware and dishes rattled, and sheet rock dust fell as it took place. Soon the huge trucks arrived with the components of the wind turbines. Traffic was interrupted which made daily comings and goings difficult. The cranes arrived and the towers began to rise. People came from all over to watch. Cars stopped in the middle of the road to view the spectacle. People repeatedly left their vehicles to take pictures with not even a thought to oncoming traffic. Residents with small children started keeping them inside due to the uncertainty of the increased traffic.
In early December, #9 turbine was turned on and some residents thought immediately that something was wrong. The noise from just that one turbine was unbelievable. That is when residents began to make calls, first to UPC, then to the town and then to the DEP.
It's hard to understand, but we are not getting used to the noise from the wind farm as we were once able to do with the traffic and jet noise at our old house. In an attempt to figure out why, we started researching the topic and I finally called a noise expert out of Massachusetts who was able to explain why the noises that come from wind turbines are so offensive. I can't begin to repeat what he said here, but I made copies for you of the papers he recommended that basically demonstrate how complex the issue really is, and how the developers had no right to tell us there would be no noise problems.
Are there other issues with wind turbines? Yes. Most of which were discovered after the wind turbines were already in place. Noise is the largest problem but shadow flicker and strobe effect are close behind for some of the residents. The rising and setting sun pierce through the blades of the turbines creating a strobe like effect in some of the resident's homes. For some it is blinding, even the best curtains and blinds can't remove the total effect. Some find that it makes them dizzy and disoriented; others find that it can cause headaches and nausea. It is only for 20 to 40 minutes a day (when the sun is shining) depending on the season of the year, but it is still an intrusion into the homes and lives of the people who live near the site. The strobe effect can be similar to the sun cutting through the trees as you drive (sun-shadow- sun-shadow).
Shadow flicker is when the shadow from the blades passes over the land and homes of people who live within a mile of the site. It too can make people feel disoriented. Some people complain that as they drive over a road that is being shaded that the motion draws them toward it (left or right) they find themselves veering into the wrong lane.
Residents are very concerned that the value of their properties has been greatly diminished. This brings fear to many of us because we have tied up most of our resources in our homes. What will there be for our children? Is it the same as it would have been before the turbines? Some residents have said that their way of life has changed so dramatically since the project that they would move if they thought for 1 minute that they could recover their investment. Please, keep in mind that these are people who dreamed of living behind the mountain. Who sacrificed many things to build the homes of their dreams with no intention of ever leaving. Imagine being driven from your home by a neighbor. Imagine feeling like you have no recourse and that there is nothing you can do about it.
Other issues that keep coming up are the risk of the turbines catching fire (consider fighting a fire 200 feet off the ground.) If there was a dry spell and the mountain was to catch on fire many of us would be in grave danger.
Another issue is the potential for ice and snow build up on the blades in the wintertime, which during the melting process can be thrown hundreds of feet. This is another issue that developers deny is a legitimate concern because they say safeguards are in place, but ice thrown from turbines is documented in photos and with eye witnesses. (two teens at Big Rock ski resort witnessed an ice throw this winter)
There have even been cases of improperly anchored turbines falling over or collapsing or leaning such as in Illinois at a newer wind farm called Crescent Ridge, and of blades breaking off and being flung. These are admittedly rare cases but that doesn't make residents feel any better about the real possibilities. Some residents are only about 700 feet from turbine #1, which sits very close to East Ridge Road. So close that if it fell toward the road it would likely be in the road. Also posing a danger are the huge blades that are likely to break off and be catapulted into nearby yards and homes.
We are only 5 months into the operation of this site, and are learning something new almost every single day. The Mountain Landowners Association is requesting that the State of Maine put a moratorium on all siting of Wind Farms in the state until the issues at Mars Hill are reviewed and resolved.
My husband says…
It is sad when corporations are free to prey on small towns and small town government. He believes that corporations should not be able to push and bully their way into an area to take clear advantage of the inhabitants by withholding information, by leading them to believe fabrications, stretching the truth in order to achieve corporate goals at the suffering of Maine residents.
We have been asked by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to remain patient while the sound analysis is being conducted and reviewed. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE) of Brunswick, Maine is performing the sound analysis. They (RSE) also happen to be contracted by UPC / Evergreen (the company responsible for the Mars Hill Wind project). This fact raises questions as to whether the analysis will be fair. We have been assured by the DEP that this is a fair process. Unfortunately we have become skeptical of many things. Both the DEP and UPC have told us, that this could take a long time to resolve. The residents of Mars Hill will try to remain patient but we want for everyone to know that our patience is growing short with no hope of resolution in sight.
Media/Press Release - Article 78 hearing in Supreme Court, Bath, NY
Media/Press Release - Article 78 hearing in Supreme Court, Bath, NY
Judge Marianne Furfure will hear the Cohocton Wind Watch Article 78 against the Town of Cohocton, NY on Windmill Local Law #2 - Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 10:00 AM - Supreme Court, 3 East Pulteney Square, Bath, New York 14810 (607) 776-9631.
This action contests the compliance with SEQRA on the passage of the second town law that modifies the zoning stature that allows the UPC industrial wind turbine project.
It was stipulated in court that the Town of Cohocton, in the first Article 78 action against Windmill Law Local #1, did not follow SEQRA.
CWW contends that the Town Board has passed a windmill law to specifically accommodate the UPC developer. UPC aka Canandaigua Power Partners I & II are LLC's and have proposed two projects when both are contingent and part of one large development. UPC Prattsburgh is also a project of this same two township development.
Counsel for CWW is Richard Lippes and David Miller.
Visit Cohocton Wind Watch http://cohoctonwindwatch.org
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
(585) 534-5581
Emails to: cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Judge Marianne Furfure will hear the Cohocton Wind Watch Article 78 against the Town of Cohocton, NY on Windmill Local Law #2 - Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 10:00 AM - Supreme Court, 3 East Pulteney Square, Bath, New York 14810 (607) 776-9631.
This action contests the compliance with SEQRA on the passage of the second town law that modifies the zoning stature that allows the UPC industrial wind turbine project.
It was stipulated in court that the Town of Cohocton, in the first Article 78 action against Windmill Law Local #1, did not follow SEQRA.
CWW contends that the Town Board has passed a windmill law to specifically accommodate the UPC developer. UPC aka Canandaigua Power Partners I & II are LLC's and have proposed two projects when both are contingent and part of one large development. UPC Prattsburgh is also a project of this same two township development.
Counsel for CWW is Richard Lippes and David Miller.
Visit Cohocton Wind Watch http://cohoctonwindwatch.org
P.O. Box 52
Cohocton, New York 14826
(585) 534-5581
Emails to: cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)