Tuesday, June 13, 2006

WHO IS GOING TO FIGHT THE FIRE?



What fire company are we going to call to fight the hydraulic oil fire that will spew hundreds of gallons of burning oil from the top of these wind turbines? Will we be able to buy the equipment necessary to fight fires with the puny $160,000 we are supposed to get from UPC for payment instead of taxes? Reasonable, level headed citizens have called for a moratorium on this wind turbine program from the Planning Board to take time to address this and other issues. I ask … how are you going to fight a HAZMAT fire at the top of a 400' turbine with the equipment we have in our current fire department? How are you going to train our men to fight these fires? This issue is unaddressed in the plans I have seen coming from our Town Board. Who is going to restore hundreds of acres of lost timber if one of these turbines should fail on a dry summer night and start a fire that spreads? Who is going to pay to clean up all the spewed oil that contaminates the acres of ground surrounding these turbines? Has this been addressed by either our Town Board, Planning Board of Fire Department? How far do you think the $160,000 will go that UPC is generously lavishing on our Town (remember $160,000 is only 0.64% of their yearly income off of just Phase 1 and 2 of this program from what I can find out).

Robert C. Strasburg II

UPC in Vermont - rejected 6 to 1 in Sutton

Sutton voters rejected the proposal in their advisory vote by a ratio of about 6 to 1. Sutton is not interested in negotiating for financial compensation, said Robert Michaud, chairman of the town Planning Commission. He pointed out that the town plan prohibits commercial development on ridgelines.
June 11, 2006 by Tim Johnson in Burlington Free Press
Six months after Sheffield voters favored a controversial wind farm proposal, the town has settled on a price.

It's roughly a half-million dollars a year, to be paid by the wind-farm company if the project is built, and it would drop the town's municipal tax rate by more than half. The company's proposal calls for 20 turbines on ridgelines in Sheffield and six in the neighboring town of Sutton.

Sutton, where voters overwhelmingly nixed the idea on Town Meeting Day, apparently still want no part of it. No financial negotiations are under way with the company, UPC Vermont Wind.

To proceed with the project, the company needs a certificate of public good from the Vermont Public Service Board. The board has received UPC's application and has scheduled a series of public and evidentiary hearings extending into early next year. The first public hearing was in April in Sheffield. The next one is set for June 26 in Sutton. The board also plans to make a site visit June 26.

The agreement between UPC and Sheffield was announced last week. It provides for UPC to pay the town between $400,000 and $550,000 per year in taxes and "mitigation payments" if the project is built as planned. That would drop the municipal tax rate by about 55 percent.

Sheffield's total taxes raised in 2005 amounted to $755,138, according to the town's annual report. The precise amount of the payment will depend on the assessment of the property, but $400,000 is the minimum.

In a nonbinding ballot Dec. 1, Sheffield residents voted in favor of the proposed wind project, 120-93. Max Aldrich, chairman of Sheffield's Selectboard, said Thursday that the project would mean a "substantial change" in the town and that residents and taxpayers deserve adequate compensation.

Aldrich acknowledged that some residents of Sheffield still oppose the plan. Although the proposal has generated lots of emotional rhetoric, he said, "What it boils down to is aesthetics." If you can't stand the sight of the turbines, he said, you're likely to oppose them, but if you can put up with seeing them, and get a tax break in the bargain, you're more likely to favor them.

Sutton voters rejected the proposal in their advisory vote by a ratio of about 6 to 1. Sutton is not interested in negotiating for financial compensation, said Robert Michaud, chairman of the town Planning Commission. He pointed out that the town plan prohibits commercial development on ridgelines.

One reason for the level of opposition in Sutton, Michaud suggested, is the degree of visibility. The turbines would be "right on our border," he said. "There's hardly a place in Sutton where you won't be able to see them."

Aldrich said the turbines would be visible to many residents of Sheffield, too.

According to UPC, 3,000 acres of timberland in both towns are under agreement as part of the project. Of that, 119 acres would be cleared during construction for roads, substation and turbine sites; and 104 acres would be allowed to "re-vegetate," leaving 14 acres permanently cleared. The turbines would be 398 feet tall and would generate 52 megawatts of electricity, with an average annual output "equal to 2-3 percent of Vermont's load, or the energy needs of 15,000-20,000 homes," a company Web site states.

UPC Vermont Wind has an office in St. Johnsbury; it was founded in 2003 by principals of UPC Wind Partners of Newton, Mass.

Monday, June 12, 2006

CWW Workshop June 12, 2006 at Cohocton School

Attend the CWW workshop at 7:00 PM at the Cohocton Elementary School.

Proposed Wind Projects in New York



List of towns in New York being considered for wind development:
Altona
Ashford
Bangor (probably)
Batavia
Beekmantown
Bellmont
Bombay (probably)
Brandon
Bristol
Burke
Canandaigua (not sure of the status)
Cape Vincent
Castile
Centerville
Cherry Valley
Churubusco
Clinton
Cohocton
Covington
Dickinson
Eagle
East Bethany
Ellenburg
Fenner (in service - 20 1.5MW GE)
Hammond
Hartsville
Hilton
Hopkinton
Italy
Lackawanna
Lowville (in service 120+ - 1.85MW Vestas)
Machias
Madison (in service 7 - 1.65MW)
North Collins
Nunda
Orangeville
Ossian
Perry
Prattsburgh
Sardinia
Sheldon
Springwater
Stafford
Stark
Warren
Warsaw
West Sparta
Wethersfield I (in service 10 Vestas V-47)
Wethersfield II (proposed, 86 1.5MW)
Yorkshire

Invenergy is reportedly approaching people in Bennington and Orangeville for easements now and several towns in Cattaraugus County are being approached.

If you know of any towns that have been approached and aren't on the list,
please drop us a line and we'll add them.

Erie County shoreline also being considered for wind development:
from http://www.erie.gov/environment/compliance/energy.asp

Shoreline Wind Energy Study and Development

"Erie County, with the assistance of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), has conducted a yearlong wind characterization study, the first of its kind, along the urban shoreline of Lake Erie. The study quantifies Erie County's wind power regime at 5 shoreline locations from Tonawanda to Blasdell. The collected data, along with relevant environmental and permitting issues specific to the test sites, is now available to wind developers, municipalities, and the public. Click here to download a copy of the "Erie County Shoreline Wind Study Final Report (November 2005)."

Erie County's wind development potential is "very good" to "excellent." Several national/international wind development companies are currently assessing other locations in Erie County and have expressed serious interest in future onshore and offshore wind development. It is expected that one or more wind projects will result from this work in the near future. Erie County and the Buffalo Niagara region may become the first U.S. urban location that utilizes former industrial brownfields for renewable wind farm development.

Erie County is also an active participant in the Wind Action Group coalition efforts to promote an open dialogue on wind development issue in the Buffalo Niagara region."

1000 Foot Setback - Lowville, NY


See And Hear It For Yourself Before You Sign

As you drive past this mobile home on Flat Rock Road, you can see that the closest turbine is actually behind the tree line, quite a ways from the home. This is what it looks like from the side of the road as you come up on it. If you have any suspicion that special lenses or doctoring were used on this or any of our photos, please - go visit for yourself. Take this picture with you and stand on Flat Rock Road in the exact spot it was taken (this spot is in Martinsville, to the west of Lowville).

The Lowville/Martinsville area is about a 4 1/2 hour ride from Wethersfield.
Isn't it worth a day's trip to experience for yourself what you might be living with for the next 50 years?

Take some time to listen to the constant noise and see the motion of turbines all around you. Imagine what it would be like to live with that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Stand in front of a turbine with the sun rising or setting behind it and see what the flickering looks like. On Graves Road, off of Sykes, you can stand in the woods, surrounded by turbines and see if you can hear any ambient noise. See how the access roads look and how many turbines are visible from the nearby Flat Rock Inn in Martinsville.

After you experience it for yourself, remember - once you sign, you're forbidden to speak about any problems from the turbines and you've given up the right to sue the developer for any reason. For 50 years.

UPC a "Good Neighbor"?

Thank you Meyers, Dyckman, Wolcot and Drum!

From Attorney’s advising the wind industry, advisory titled…

EMINENT DOMAIN AND WIND DEVELOPMENT IN NEW YORK

For many years, people have associated the power of eminent domain with the government's sovereign right to seize private property for the good of the public. What if a private developer also had the power of eminent domain? Many problems associated with negotiating agreements with private property owners for the siting of wind generation units and associated transmission lines and appurtenant facilities could be alleviated if not avoided. Under New York State law, this just may be the case. It appears that a private developer of electric generating facilities, either renewable or fossil fueled, can obtain the power of eminent domain and the ability to condemn private property in the State of New York.

“When properly exercised, the ability to condemn property could be an invaluable tool in siting additional wind generation and related facilities for expansion. It is not a power that should be taken lightly, however. While procedurally straightforward, many substantive issues surrounding a private developer's use of eminent domain appear to be unsettled. Although there is no foreseeable problem with a private developer's use of eminent domain, a potential condemnor must be diligent to ensure strict compliance with New York's case law and statutory requirements.

Eminent Domain

Meyers, Dyckman, Wolcot and Drum are setting the rest of our properties up for eminent domain in the future. Someone needs to call this out to all the residents in plain, simple language!

"To incorporate under the same provisions as have New York's investor-owned utilities, an entity need only satisfy the statutory definition and carry on the functions of a gas or electric corporation. The statute defines gas and electric corporations broadly, requiring only that the corporation is organized to generate and supply electricity for public use.

Accordingly, it appears that a private wind developer could satisfy the definition of an electric corporation and, thus, could incorporate as such. This grants the private developer the power of eminent domain."

Don't think it can happen?

November 2005 comment in the McPherson Sentinel by Rose Bacon, member of the Governor's Energy Task Force and a rancher in the Flint Hills:

"If you lease, chances are one or more of your neighbors is going to have to deal with eminent domain. Now these are private, wind development companies, however, once they sell that power to a power purchaser, they can go to the energy commission and as in Butler County, in two weeks and a little bit of paper work...they had the power of eminent domain to go across adjacent landowners' property with power lines, with trenches, with no public hearing."

"Landowners in the Flint Hills should beware that the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) granted a private Scottish owned corporation the right to use eminent domain powers to condemn property in Butler County in order to construct and operate an industrial wind power project. Elk River Wind Farm, LLC was given this eminent domain power without so much as a public hearing (Docket No. 05-ERWE-499-COC). In fact, the only ones that even received notice of Elk River’s application were other utilities. No notice was given to effected property owners.

"The entire process was quietly accomplished in less than three weeks and gives Elk River the power to dig trenches, make roads, install transmission lines and take an ownership interest in the property of unwilling landowners in order to construct their private turbine development. Documents that reveal which properties will be condemned are curiously stamped “Confidential” in the KCC file and are currently not available for public view. However, neighboring landowners have recently received notice that their property will be taken.

"For more than two years we have heard wind energy developers and proponents promise that they had no intention of using eminent domain to take our private property. Well, the Elk River project proves otherwise. Their formula for success is simple – all a developer needs is a county that allows industrial-scale turbines and one willing landowner to put everyone else’s property rights at risk. Thirty years ago, many folks opposed the federal government’s desire to take private property for a prairie park – today those same folks should be fighting against foreign corporation’s desire to take our private property for an industrial park."

Simon McGee, Kansas City, MO. 2/22/05

Not an Industrial Power Plant? - you decide (picture from Tug Hill project)

Saturday, June 10, 2006

A list of every town in NY that MAY get turbines

Current and proposed wind projects:

Altona
Batavia
Beekmantown
Brandon
Bristol
Canandaigua (? not sure of the status)
Castile
Centerville
Cherry Valley
Clinton
Cohocton
Covington
Eagle
East Bethany/Stafford
East Concord
Ellenburg
Fenner (20 - 1.5MW)
Hilton
Italy
Lowville (120? - 1.85MW, phase 1)
Madison (7 - 1.65MW)
Orangeville
Perry
Prattsburgh
Sardinia
Sheldon
Springwater
Stark
Warren
Warsaw
Wethersfield I (10 Vestas V-47)
Wethersfield II (proposed, 86 1.5MW)
Yorkshire/Machias

Source ofr the info - Save Western NY

June 10, 2006 letter regarding Cohocton Town Board by Bonnie Palmiter

When elected officials of Cohocton are NO LONGER NEUTRAL on the Wind Turbine Projects, community members need to step back and assess why these officials should still be in office representing the Town of Cohocton.

Wednesday evening the Planning Board had a meeting on Local Law #2 and decided to table until August, giving them more time to go through recommendations and do more research. I want to commend the Planning Board on this! The Planning Board has taken the heat on more than one occasion and yet they are doing the job they are to do to uphold the health and safety of the community. Sandor Fox has taken his position more serious since the community has started attending more meetings and stating their concerns and now it is the Town Board that is putting the pressure on him and the committee to get this Local Law # 2 completed and ready to put before the Town Board so they can approve it and get the Industry started.

My point of Neutral starts here, Wednesday night Judge Graham commended the Planning Board and said that if it weren’t for CWW this Law process would be completed. Trashing a group of Cohocton residents that pay property taxes and are concerned about an industry coming in their neighborhood and disrupting their freedoms of owning property and along with their health seems to hit hard coming from an elected official. Where is Neutral in our Government in Cohocton? Is this a judge we want when he sees only his side and no other side, isn’t he suppose to be opened minded, not closed-minded!

Another point of being Neutral on this Industry coming into Cohocton, CWW had a question and answer period Thursday night at the Cohocton Elementary School. Community members were asked to sign in under Pro, Neutral, and Con if they would like to speak. Wayne Hunt stated he would like to read a short statement from the Town Board. When directed to sign in to speak, he was guided to the sheets, he said he WASN’T Neutral and signed the Pro sheet. A red flag went up when I heard him say this for I thought; An Elected Official SHOULD BE NEUTRAL. It didn’t take long and I understood why he signed under Pro. He stood up to declare that the Town Board is NOT POSTPONING THE PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 14TH to August as stated by the Planning Board the night before, they are not taking into consideration the PLANNING BOARDS point of doing more research to implement a LOCAL LAW #2 that will protect the Town and it’s residents. After that statement he left without sitting through the rest of the communities input. It is obvious that the Town Board has made up their mind.

After the meeting ended, around 9:30 pm, I was on my way home, passing the UPC office, I was surprised to see lights on in the building. Front door open, lights on, stood Wayne Hunt, Rick, Jane, Ron Towner and Gene Drum and his wife. Conflict of Interest???? Why was an elected official, a landowner that was leased for Turbines and a worker for UPC in a gathering that late at night in UPC’s Building? One really needs to do some soul searching too. Ask yourself just who are our elected officials really protecting?

COHOCTON TOWN BOARD OFFICIALS ARE NOT looking out for the community, they are working for certain landowners and UPC. ( in my opinion - Bonnie Palmiter)

Cohocton Councilman Wayne Hunt's statement read at CWW Q & A Meeting

06/09/2014 12:42 5853845531 TOWN OF COHOCTON PAGE

Public Notice Town of Cohocton

The Cohocton Town Board has scheduled a public hearing on a proposed Local Law amending the Town Zoning Law with respect to Wind Power for June 14th at 7:00 pm located at the Wayland - Cohocton Elementary School. We understand that at the Cohocton Planning Board meeting on Wednesday evening the Chairman of the Planning Board stated that this public hearing would be cancelled. That is a mistake. The Town Board intends to hold that public hearing on June 14th as scheduled so that it may receive the comments and suggestions of the Cohocton residents on the terms of the proposed Zoning amendments.

Thank you.

JUN 09,2006 10:59A TOWN OF COHOCTO 5853849531 page 3

Simulation of Proposed Windplants Atop Backbone Mountain

This simulation shows four of the 57 proposed 430 foot turbines—stretching nearly twenty miles—atop Backbone Mountain, Maryland's highest ridge, with windplant noise recorded 2500 feet away from an existing plant in PA. This sound has not been amplified or altered in any way. The number of turbines has been scaled back from 92-1.5 MW machines to the current proposal of 57-2.5 MW generators.

(click to hear the noise)

Friday, June 09, 2006

June 9, 2006 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board by Robert C. Strasburg II

June 9, 2006

Cohocton Planning Board
Attn: Chairman Sandor Fox
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14828

Re: NEED FOR A MORATORIUM

Dear Planning Board Members:

COHOCTON IS IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION THAT DEMANDS YOUR FULL ATTENTION! NOW IT HAS BECOME EVIDENT BY THE DECLARATION LAST NIGHT BY THE TOWN BOARD NOT TO POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 14TH, THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS NOT INTERESTED IN WAITING FOR YOUR RATIONAL INPUTE ON RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED LOCAL ZONING LAW NUMBER 2. YOUR INPUTE TO IMPROVE THIS ZONING LAW IS VITAL TO PROTECT US AS A TOWN AND AS RESIDENTS FROM DAMAGES AND FUTURE LITIGATION WHICH WILL CONSUME OUR TOWNS FINACIAL RESOURCES.

THIS IS DEMOCRACY RUN AMUCK! YOU AS THE LEAD AGENCY ON THE WIND FARM PROJECT NEED TO EXERCISE YOUR AUTHORITY AND DECLARE A MORATORIUM ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT, AND WISDOM CALLS FOR IT TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY!

THE TOWN BOARD IS SELLING OUR TOWNS SOUL! THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS FURIOUS THAT THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS BEING MADE TO EQIP THEM TO FIGHT POSSIBLE FIRES AND NO EMEGENCY RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THESE TURBINES POSE A HAZMAT ISSUE AND THEY ARE NOT PREPARED TO PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM HYDRAULIC OIL FIRES FROM THESE TURBINES THAT ARE SO CLOSE TO PEOPLE HOMES. THE REASONS TO JUSTIFY YOUR WISDOM FOR A MORATORIUM ARE NUMEROUS.

YOUR WISDOM IN ASKING FOR TIME HAS BEEN SHAMEFULLY TRODEN UPON BY THE TOWN BOARD AND NOW YOU NEED TO EXERCISE YOUR AUTHORITY AND DEMAND TIME BY DECLARING A MORATORIUM. THE TOWN BOARD HAS NOW DECLARED WAR ON YOU AND US. THIS IS A CRY TO YOU FOR HELP! PLEASE DO NOT FAIL US AS A TOWN IN OUR TIME OF NEED!

Sincerely,

Robert C. Strasburg II

Power Lines Industry Zone for Cohocton?

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Wind Break by JAN FALSTAD

The clean, green power from the Judith Gap Wind Farm that debuted last fall has been more intermittent than anticipated.

And that is causing problems for NorthWestern Energy, the utility that must balance supply and demand on its transmission lines.

You can store water behind a dam. But you cannot store electricity, and that fact creates lots of challenges for delivering power and pricing power.

(read more)