A National Academy of Sciences report today criticized "the lack of any truly coordinated planning" in the rapid growth of wind farms across the country, and called on federal, state and local governments to pay more attention to the effects of turbines on wildlife and scenic landscapes.
Wind currently provides less than 1% of the nation's electricity. But it is the fastest-growing alternative to fossil fuel-produced power, a major source of global warming.
In the past six years, U.S. wind capacity has more than quadrupled. And by 2020, the federal Department of Energy predicts, it could offset as much as 4.5% of the planet-warming carbon dioxide that American utilities would otherwise spew into the atmosphere.
But wind, the report notes, "is surprisingly controversial...not everyone considers (turbines) beautiful," and they can kill birds and bats. The effects on wildlife have diminished considerably since California built the nation's first wind farms, clusters of small turbines, in the 1980s.
Today's larger models cause far less damage, and, the report notes, birds may be more likely to die colliding with vehicles or buildings than with turbines.
California has nearly completed new guidelines to reduce the impacts of wind farms on birds and bats, but few other states have addressed the issue. Julia Levin, policy director for Audubon California, endorsed the report's findings, noting that, "In some parts of the country, wind power may increase more than ten-fold, yet we don't know what the cumulative impacts of that will be on wildlife."
The report's call for more research on the environmental effects of wind farms and for cost-benefit analyses of individual projects comes as Congress is considering an extension of tax credits for wind development.
At a House subcommittee hearing this week, the American Bird Conservancy called for any new tax credit to be tied to requirements that developers minimize the impact on wildlife.
Voluntary guidelines are being ignored by the wind industry, while between 30,000 and 60,000 birds are killed by turbines a year, according to the Conservancy's Michael Fry, a member of the National Wind Coordinating Committee, a government and industry task force.
The congressionally-mandated report was drafted by a group of academics assembled by the National Research Council, an arm of the Academy.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Alisha’s Law
Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc.
P.O. Box 1013
Little Falls, N.Y. 13365
Prepared for: New York State and Federal Officials
1. The Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc. group was formed to:
a. Oppose the degradation of the natural, human, and social environment by acting as an advocacy organization with respect to issues which affect the community, including but not limited to, the development of wind farms and power lines;
b. Engage in education and activism, and litigation to improve the environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Town of Fairfield, in Herkimer County, and in the State of New York, acting either independently, or in cooperation with other organizations and individuals that share similar goals and ideals;
c. Encourage the active participation of informed citizens, especially, but not exclusively, in the Town of Fairfield and the surrounding community, with respect to the preservation of the environment, and with respect to respecting the needs and interests of neighbors of prospective energy sites.
2. Current Directors
a. Andy McEvoy 315-823-4773
b. Jimmy Salamone 315-823-3477
c. Don Denapole 315-891-3036
3. Our view of why the Fairfield Town Board should not have been allowed to decide on the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine project in Fairfield, N.Y.
a. Proper procedures were not followed and were not carried out in a responsible manner from before the project was even made public.
b. The Town Boards have not made an attempt to contact the landowners and inform them of the project. Since the landowners and residents will be directly affected, the Town should have notified “everyone” about the project, especially the people in close proximity of the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine Development. There are over 120 homes within a 3000’ radius of the proposed turbines. The Town should have notified them of their intentions involving an Industrial Development of this magnitude. Taxpayers should have had a “voice” in the process.
c. There has been a conflict of interest on the Planning Board since before the Town voted to approve the project. Two members were advised to abstain from voting, but were allowed to vote in favor of allowing “wind turbine” development in the town. This should be dealt with through the “Code of Ethics” for town boards.
d. When people did finally start to find out about the project and started to attend meetings to ask questions in June and July of 2006, the Town Board stopped allowing anyone to speak on the subject of Wind Turbines at the Town meetings. You could not even ask a question about the project if you were new to the area and
knew nothing about it. Is this Democracy?
e. There has never been a survey of the Health conditions of residents in close proximity to the proposed development to determine if the project could potentially endanger someone’s well being.
f. The Town Board passed a resolution allowing a participating landowner to have a wind turbine constructed 260’ from his neighbor’s property line, but yet the neighbor would not be allowed to build a home within 1250’ of the turbine. This results in almost 1000’ of the neighbor’s property useless. This is unjust. Imagine a
40 story skyscraper with a spinning rotor the size of a 747 Jet; just 260 FEET from your property line or 1250 FEET from your door step. Now imagine being in the middle of 60 – 70 of these monstrousities!!!!
4. Our concerns
a. Health issues – people’s lives need to be put ahead of an industrial project. Studies need to be done in the proposed areas to protect the residents and landowners.
i. Noise – both audible and inaudible have to be addressed. We’ve witnessed the “feel” of the turbines at the Flat Rock Inn at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm. You can feel the vibrations as well as hear the sounds of them. They should not be built in populated areas.
ii. Strobing and Flicker – Doctors have said the flicker from the blades can cause seizures in epileptics.
iii. There are many studies and papers documenting the negative effects the turbines have on “Humans” and if the information was not accurate the developers and manufacturers would be more responsive in trying to discredit them.
b. Quality of Life – many landowners buy property in an area such as Fairfield for the “scenic vistas” and the “peaceful environment”. Fairfield offers panoramic views of up to sixty miles.
c. Property values – Contrary to some studies that have been done, many real estate agents have stated that the properties in close proximity to the turbines will go down in value. Would you buy a home 1250’ from a 400’ tall tower?
5. Regulation is needed
a. State and Federal officials need to draft a set of regulations to protect the people from being overrun by these 400’ monstrosities.
b. A moratorium must be enacted immediately to stop any project currently in the process of permitting. Once regulations are in place, the developers should then have to start over and abide by the guidelines set forth.
c. Home Rule should not apply to “wind energy facilities” in New York State or any other state. Most Town Boards do not know enough about the “negative effects” of Industrial Wind Turbines to make informed decisions on the siting of the turbines.
d. Experts in their respective fields should be commissioned to participate in the process of setting guidelines on siting Industrial Wind Turbines. Consultants such as Glenn Schlede and Dr. Nina Pierpont are excellent choices as you can see from the
documentation they have made available to the public. This involves Health issues as well as Economic issues.
6. Alisha’s Law
a. Because of the serious nature of the Health concerns brought to our attention by Lisa Sementilli (mother of 11 year old Alisha Sementilli who suffers from “Central Auditory Processing Disorder”) we are requesting our State and Federal Officials address the “wind turbine” issue and enact a law known as “Alisha’s Law” stating:
i. Industrial Wind Turbines over 150’ tall shall not be erected closer than 1.5 miles from any residential building, including schools and hospitals, nor shall they be erected closer than .5 miles from the property line of a nonparticipating
landowner with vacant land. A “medical and health condition” survey of every resident within a 5 mile radius of a “turbine” or “turbine cluster” is required.
b. There are over 20 turbines proposed for construction within a 1 mile radius of the Sementillis home. Alisha’s Doctors have recommended a minimum “safe” setback of 1.5 miles from the turbines for her protection from the noise.
c. Please give this issue careful review and remember, “No Child should be left behind”!
Thank you,
Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc
P.O. Box 1013
Little Falls, N.Y. 13365
Prepared for: New York State and Federal Officials
1. The Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc. group was formed to:
a. Oppose the degradation of the natural, human, and social environment by acting as an advocacy organization with respect to issues which affect the community, including but not limited to, the development of wind farms and power lines;
b. Engage in education and activism, and litigation to improve the environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Town of Fairfield, in Herkimer County, and in the State of New York, acting either independently, or in cooperation with other organizations and individuals that share similar goals and ideals;
c. Encourage the active participation of informed citizens, especially, but not exclusively, in the Town of Fairfield and the surrounding community, with respect to the preservation of the environment, and with respect to respecting the needs and interests of neighbors of prospective energy sites.
2. Current Directors
a. Andy McEvoy 315-823-4773
b. Jimmy Salamone 315-823-3477
c. Don Denapole 315-891-3036
3. Our view of why the Fairfield Town Board should not have been allowed to decide on the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine project in Fairfield, N.Y.
a. Proper procedures were not followed and were not carried out in a responsible manner from before the project was even made public.
b. The Town Boards have not made an attempt to contact the landowners and inform them of the project. Since the landowners and residents will be directly affected, the Town should have notified “everyone” about the project, especially the people in close proximity of the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine Development. There are over 120 homes within a 3000’ radius of the proposed turbines. The Town should have notified them of their intentions involving an Industrial Development of this magnitude. Taxpayers should have had a “voice” in the process.
c. There has been a conflict of interest on the Planning Board since before the Town voted to approve the project. Two members were advised to abstain from voting, but were allowed to vote in favor of allowing “wind turbine” development in the town. This should be dealt with through the “Code of Ethics” for town boards.
d. When people did finally start to find out about the project and started to attend meetings to ask questions in June and July of 2006, the Town Board stopped allowing anyone to speak on the subject of Wind Turbines at the Town meetings. You could not even ask a question about the project if you were new to the area and
knew nothing about it. Is this Democracy?
e. There has never been a survey of the Health conditions of residents in close proximity to the proposed development to determine if the project could potentially endanger someone’s well being.
f. The Town Board passed a resolution allowing a participating landowner to have a wind turbine constructed 260’ from his neighbor’s property line, but yet the neighbor would not be allowed to build a home within 1250’ of the turbine. This results in almost 1000’ of the neighbor’s property useless. This is unjust. Imagine a
40 story skyscraper with a spinning rotor the size of a 747 Jet; just 260 FEET from your property line or 1250 FEET from your door step. Now imagine being in the middle of 60 – 70 of these monstrousities!!!!
4. Our concerns
a. Health issues – people’s lives need to be put ahead of an industrial project. Studies need to be done in the proposed areas to protect the residents and landowners.
i. Noise – both audible and inaudible have to be addressed. We’ve witnessed the “feel” of the turbines at the Flat Rock Inn at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm. You can feel the vibrations as well as hear the sounds of them. They should not be built in populated areas.
ii. Strobing and Flicker – Doctors have said the flicker from the blades can cause seizures in epileptics.
iii. There are many studies and papers documenting the negative effects the turbines have on “Humans” and if the information was not accurate the developers and manufacturers would be more responsive in trying to discredit them.
b. Quality of Life – many landowners buy property in an area such as Fairfield for the “scenic vistas” and the “peaceful environment”. Fairfield offers panoramic views of up to sixty miles.
c. Property values – Contrary to some studies that have been done, many real estate agents have stated that the properties in close proximity to the turbines will go down in value. Would you buy a home 1250’ from a 400’ tall tower?
5. Regulation is needed
a. State and Federal officials need to draft a set of regulations to protect the people from being overrun by these 400’ monstrosities.
b. A moratorium must be enacted immediately to stop any project currently in the process of permitting. Once regulations are in place, the developers should then have to start over and abide by the guidelines set forth.
c. Home Rule should not apply to “wind energy facilities” in New York State or any other state. Most Town Boards do not know enough about the “negative effects” of Industrial Wind Turbines to make informed decisions on the siting of the turbines.
d. Experts in their respective fields should be commissioned to participate in the process of setting guidelines on siting Industrial Wind Turbines. Consultants such as Glenn Schlede and Dr. Nina Pierpont are excellent choices as you can see from the
documentation they have made available to the public. This involves Health issues as well as Economic issues.
6. Alisha’s Law
a. Because of the serious nature of the Health concerns brought to our attention by Lisa Sementilli (mother of 11 year old Alisha Sementilli who suffers from “Central Auditory Processing Disorder”) we are requesting our State and Federal Officials address the “wind turbine” issue and enact a law known as “Alisha’s Law” stating:
i. Industrial Wind Turbines over 150’ tall shall not be erected closer than 1.5 miles from any residential building, including schools and hospitals, nor shall they be erected closer than .5 miles from the property line of a nonparticipating
landowner with vacant land. A “medical and health condition” survey of every resident within a 5 mile radius of a “turbine” or “turbine cluster” is required.
b. There are over 20 turbines proposed for construction within a 1 mile radius of the Sementillis home. Alisha’s Doctors have recommended a minimum “safe” setback of 1.5 miles from the turbines for her protection from the noise.
c. Please give this issue careful review and remember, “No Child should be left behind”!
Thank you,
Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for WINDFARM PRATTSBURGH
http://www.windfarmprattsburgh.com/PDFs/FEIS/2007-04-26_FEIS_Final_Accepted.pdf2007-04-26_FEIS_Final_Accepted.pdf
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
http://www.windfarmprattsburgh.com/about-rr-feis.php
(Click to save and download the FEIS for UPC Prattsburgh
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Below please find links to the WindFarm Prattsburgh Final Environmental Impact Statement that was accepted by SCIDA on April 26, 2007. The Final EIS is also available for public review at the Prattsburgh and Naples public libraries, the Prattsburgh and Italy Town Halls, and our office in Prattsburgh:
Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC
3 Naples Road
PO Box 301
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Tel: 607.522.4598
Thank you.
DOCUMENTS (PDFs)
Final Environmental Impact Statement (report text)
FIGURES
Figure 1A_Project Modifications
Figure 2_Project Area
Figure 3_Proposed Project Layout
Figure 5_Surface Waters
Figure 6_NWI Wetlands
Figure 7_NYSDEC Wetlands
Figure 8_Vegetative Communities
Figure 10_Revised Visual Simulations
Figure 12_Agricultural Districts
Figure 14_Proposed FAA Lighting Plan
APPENDICES
A-Visual_Shadow Flicker
B-FREE Info
C-Decommissioning Plan
D-Leventhall Paper
E-NYSERDA Study
F-Community Relations Plan
G-Cohocton Property Value
H-NYISO Study
I-NYSDEC Letter
J-Public Road Graphics
— Delivery Route
— Public Road Improvements
K-ECS Specs
Directory 1 Overbuild
— 05007_FEIS_Existing 34_5kv Overbuild
— SK-TRAN-1 34.5 kV Overbuild
— SK-TRAN-2 ROW Clearing Diagram
Directory 2 Water Crossing Diagrams
— SK-COL1
— SK-COL2
— SK-COL3
L-NYSEG Correspondence
M-Cultural Impacts
Directory 1
— WFP agency correspondence OPRHP 16 Feb 2007
— WFP agency correspondence OPRHP 8 Aug 2006
Directory 2
— OPRHP Tech Memo Historic Structures 29 Dec 2006
Directory 3
— PBH_3-21-07
Directory 4
— prattsburg windfarm ECS_3-23-07
N-O&M Schematic
O-Snowmobile Trails
P-SCIDA SEQR Guidelines
Q-Cumulative Simulation
R-Sound
— Directory 1 Updated Analysis
— Directory 2 Modeling Conservatism
S-Communications
T-Setback Analysis
U-Parcel Information
V-Public Comments
— Directory 1_WFP Comment List
Directory 2_WFP_WrittenComments
— 1
— 2
— 3
— 4
— 5
— 6
— 7
— 8
— 9
— 10
— 11
— 12
— 13
— 14
— 15
— 16
— 17
— 18
— 19
— 20
— 21
— 22
— 23
— 24
— 25
— 26
— 27
— 28
— 29
— 30
— 31
— 32
— 33
— 34
— 35
— 36
— Directory 3_WFP_Transcript_7-20-2007
(Click to save and download the FEIS for UPC Prattsburgh
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Below please find links to the WindFarm Prattsburgh Final Environmental Impact Statement that was accepted by SCIDA on April 26, 2007. The Final EIS is also available for public review at the Prattsburgh and Naples public libraries, the Prattsburgh and Italy Town Halls, and our office in Prattsburgh:
Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC
3 Naples Road
PO Box 301
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Tel: 607.522.4598
Thank you.
DOCUMENTS (PDFs)
Final Environmental Impact Statement (report text)
FIGURES
Figure 1A_Project Modifications
Figure 2_Project Area
Figure 3_Proposed Project Layout
Figure 5_Surface Waters
Figure 6_NWI Wetlands
Figure 7_NYSDEC Wetlands
Figure 8_Vegetative Communities
Figure 10_Revised Visual Simulations
Figure 12_Agricultural Districts
Figure 14_Proposed FAA Lighting Plan
APPENDICES
A-Visual_Shadow Flicker
B-FREE Info
C-Decommissioning Plan
D-Leventhall Paper
E-NYSERDA Study
F-Community Relations Plan
G-Cohocton Property Value
H-NYISO Study
I-NYSDEC Letter
J-Public Road Graphics
— Delivery Route
— Public Road Improvements
K-ECS Specs
Directory 1 Overbuild
— 05007_FEIS_Existing 34_5kv Overbuild
— SK-TRAN-1 34.5 kV Overbuild
— SK-TRAN-2 ROW Clearing Diagram
Directory 2 Water Crossing Diagrams
— SK-COL1
— SK-COL2
— SK-COL3
L-NYSEG Correspondence
M-Cultural Impacts
Directory 1
— WFP agency correspondence OPRHP 16 Feb 2007
— WFP agency correspondence OPRHP 8 Aug 2006
Directory 2
— OPRHP Tech Memo Historic Structures 29 Dec 2006
Directory 3
— PBH_3-21-07
Directory 4
— prattsburg windfarm ECS_3-23-07
N-O&M Schematic
O-Snowmobile Trails
P-SCIDA SEQR Guidelines
Q-Cumulative Simulation
R-Sound
— Directory 1 Updated Analysis
— Directory 2 Modeling Conservatism
S-Communications
T-Setback Analysis
U-Parcel Information
V-Public Comments
— Directory 1_WFP Comment List
Directory 2_WFP_WrittenComments
— 1
— 2
— 3
— 4
— 5
— 6
— 7
— 8
— 9
— 10
— 11
— 12
— 13
— 14
— 15
— 16
— 17
— 18
— 19
— 20
— 21
— 22
— 23
— 24
— 25
— 26
— 27
— 28
— 29
— 30
— 31
— 32
— 33
— 34
— 35
— 36
— Directory 3_WFP_Transcript_7-20-2007
Kathleen A. Janicki ad in the Valley News
Last month I decided to visit the UPC office and gather information so that I could form an educated opinion re: FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY leasing land in Cohocton.
I asked what UPC stood for Mrs. Towner did not know the answer but she advised me that it was an INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, even though they have offices here on the east coast.
I researched information regarding ownership of the wind industry leases, UPC is an INTERNATIONAL COMPANY and its parent company is ITALY. if you think you are buying AMERICAN, you are not....
While attempting to find out what UPC stood for, I found many articles regarding this industrial corporation including articles about its foreign profits arid tax exemptions.
As a local citizen who does business in the community and lives within sight of the proposed foreign wind industry project, I see it like this:
• Cohocton has farmers and property owners who are fortunate to own enough acreage and are willing to be "used" by an international company in return for MONEY. Under the pretense they want to help save the environment, they will rationalize this venture by calling it a WIND FARM.
• The Pro wind people are willing to let FOREIGN COMPANIES lease our land for the sake of our national energy supply. What Patriots! They must have watched the moyje produced by Al Gore.....the same man who has an annual electric bill of $30,000...can you spell CONSERVE?
• Cohocton has more than one committee of concerned citizens who are frantically trying to inform everyone of the negative aspects of bringing. FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY to our town. It is not just a few NIMBY. I am insulted Mr. Wayne Hunt!
• The Cohocton Town Board is not very adept at practicing conflict resolution within the community so that there is a win win situation. With this in mind, how can they be any match for negotiating with UPC?
* There are town and village citizens who own or have access to a computer, who have adequately researched FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY not only in our country but also in Europe. I would like to think they have read ALL the literature on both sides of the issue. If they have, they would find pro wind proponents and corporations are all talking money and profits for the most part while the anti wind people are very much concerned about the environment, health issues, and realistic ways to reduce energy usage without selling out our quiet, rural country side.
* We have a population of citizens who have no computer with which to read about the truths to help them form a sound opinion. They only hear incomplete and one sided information at town meetings or perhaps via neighborhood "gossip" OR they have no real use fora computer due to lack of knowledge on how to use one or FEAR of what they might read on it......
• And like any other community in the USA, there are the people who just plain don't care one way or the offier.
PLEASE READ THE BOLD PRINT IN MY LETTER WHAT WORDS STAND OUT?
... FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY ... FOREIGN COMPANIES ... MONEY ... PROFITS ... TAX EXEMPTIONS ... INDUSTRIAL TOWN ... INDUSTRIAL ENERGY ZONE ...
PLEASE ! If you don't have access to a computer. RUN to the library and ask someone to direct you information regarding wind industry. PLEASE read both sides of the issue. People all over America a Europe are fighting the corporate giants who are proposing 'this type:of energy source in rural communities. Gohocton is not the only town that I; being torn apart over MONEY.
As a result of my visit to the UPC office in Cohocton my conviction against FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY is strengthened.
Mrs. Towner, thank you for the information on UPC (whatever those letters stand for) and for bearing with my tears as I left the office. I know that I arn one of MANY citizens who have been under emotional turmoil as a result of a self serving Town Board and FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY.
To The Town Board: This issue isn't about trying to take over the local government as some pro wind people are claiming. It's not about slandering anyom or telling you what a lousy job you're doing in office, it's about LISTENING to ALL the people and working to finding a win - win situation for everyone, no matter how long it takes, it's about finding other viable solutions for a win - win situation. It's called CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
Right now, all I see is a stubborn, closed minded Town Board forging ahead no matter what, determined to win a power struggle at EVERYONE's expense.
Can't you wait and find a better way?
Shame on you, and God help us all-including our children and future farm generations. Deceased farmers as well as bur ancestors that fought to keep foreign countries out of America during the America? Revolution are' up in heaven shaking their heads in disbelief. You're giving our "territory" right back to them!
With all due respect,
Kathleen A. Janicki
PS This article is paid for our of my OWN pocket... not any committee..and I figured out what UPC stands for: UNDERMINING PEACEFUL COHOCTON ..... *
I asked what UPC stood for Mrs. Towner did not know the answer but she advised me that it was an INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, even though they have offices here on the east coast.
I researched information regarding ownership of the wind industry leases, UPC is an INTERNATIONAL COMPANY and its parent company is ITALY. if you think you are buying AMERICAN, you are not....
While attempting to find out what UPC stood for, I found many articles regarding this industrial corporation including articles about its foreign profits arid tax exemptions.
As a local citizen who does business in the community and lives within sight of the proposed foreign wind industry project, I see it like this:
• Cohocton has farmers and property owners who are fortunate to own enough acreage and are willing to be "used" by an international company in return for MONEY. Under the pretense they want to help save the environment, they will rationalize this venture by calling it a WIND FARM.
• The Pro wind people are willing to let FOREIGN COMPANIES lease our land for the sake of our national energy supply. What Patriots! They must have watched the moyje produced by Al Gore.....the same man who has an annual electric bill of $30,000...can you spell CONSERVE?
• Cohocton has more than one committee of concerned citizens who are frantically trying to inform everyone of the negative aspects of bringing. FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY to our town. It is not just a few NIMBY. I am insulted Mr. Wayne Hunt!
• The Cohocton Town Board is not very adept at practicing conflict resolution within the community so that there is a win win situation. With this in mind, how can they be any match for negotiating with UPC?
* There are town and village citizens who own or have access to a computer, who have adequately researched FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY not only in our country but also in Europe. I would like to think they have read ALL the literature on both sides of the issue. If they have, they would find pro wind proponents and corporations are all talking money and profits for the most part while the anti wind people are very much concerned about the environment, health issues, and realistic ways to reduce energy usage without selling out our quiet, rural country side.
* We have a population of citizens who have no computer with which to read about the truths to help them form a sound opinion. They only hear incomplete and one sided information at town meetings or perhaps via neighborhood "gossip" OR they have no real use fora computer due to lack of knowledge on how to use one or FEAR of what they might read on it......
• And like any other community in the USA, there are the people who just plain don't care one way or the offier.
PLEASE READ THE BOLD PRINT IN MY LETTER WHAT WORDS STAND OUT?
... FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY ... FOREIGN COMPANIES ... MONEY ... PROFITS ... TAX EXEMPTIONS ... INDUSTRIAL TOWN ... INDUSTRIAL ENERGY ZONE ...
PLEASE ! If you don't have access to a computer. RUN to the library and ask someone to direct you information regarding wind industry. PLEASE read both sides of the issue. People all over America a Europe are fighting the corporate giants who are proposing 'this type:of energy source in rural communities. Gohocton is not the only town that I; being torn apart over MONEY.
As a result of my visit to the UPC office in Cohocton my conviction against FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY is strengthened.
Mrs. Towner, thank you for the information on UPC (whatever those letters stand for) and for bearing with my tears as I left the office. I know that I arn one of MANY citizens who have been under emotional turmoil as a result of a self serving Town Board and FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY.
To The Town Board: This issue isn't about trying to take over the local government as some pro wind people are claiming. It's not about slandering anyom or telling you what a lousy job you're doing in office, it's about LISTENING to ALL the people and working to finding a win - win situation for everyone, no matter how long it takes, it's about finding other viable solutions for a win - win situation. It's called CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
Right now, all I see is a stubborn, closed minded Town Board forging ahead no matter what, determined to win a power struggle at EVERYONE's expense.
Can't you wait and find a better way?
Shame on you, and God help us all-including our children and future farm generations. Deceased farmers as well as bur ancestors that fought to keep foreign countries out of America during the America? Revolution are' up in heaven shaking their heads in disbelief. You're giving our "territory" right back to them!
With all due respect,
Kathleen A. Janicki
PS This article is paid for our of my OWN pocket... not any committee..and I figured out what UPC stands for: UNDERMINING PEACEFUL COHOCTON ..... *
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Power Failure series
Reporter James Heaney is writing a blog as a companion to "Power Failure," a major investigative series published by The Buffalo News. The blog is intended to provide readers with a forum for comment, along with periodic updates and insights.
Western New York is losing more than just population. Most of the low-cost electricity generated at the huge state-controlled hydropower plant north of Niagara Falls is exported out of town. In a three-part series, The Buffalo News explores how and why the byproduct of our natural resource is being squandered.
For a long time, having Niagara Falls in our backyard was a source of not only tourists, but abundant, cheap power that helped make the region an industrial powerhouse.
Western New York is losing more than just population. Most of the low-cost electricity generated at the huge state-controlled hydropower plant north of Niagara Falls is exported out of town. In a three-part series, The Buffalo News explores how and why the byproduct of our natural resource is being squandered.
For a long time, having Niagara Falls in our backyard was a source of not only tourists, but abundant, cheap power that helped make the region an industrial powerhouse.
Local residents are co-complainants in anti-trust complaint against wind energy industry
NAPLES — A grassroots coalition of nearly 100 citizens of New York, Vermont and other states, including Andrew McEvoy and James Salamone of Little Falls, have filed a federal anti-trust 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’s Anti-Trust Division, maintains that wind farm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors and, in some cases, public officials engaged in illegal geographic market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bradley E. Jones of the Industrial Wind Action Group said that 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.
(Click to read entire article)
The complaint, filed with the Department of Justice’s Anti-Trust Division, maintains that wind farm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors and, in some cases, public officials engaged in illegal geographic market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bradley E. Jones of the Industrial Wind Action Group said that 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.
(Click to read entire article)
Spitzer's new state energy proposals need powerful revision by Fred LeBrun
New Yorkers need cheaper energy. But at what price?
For a couple of decades at least, New York's economic growth woes have been tied to the extraordinarily high costs of electricity for business and, not incidentally, for consumers as well. We have the highest energy costs in the continental United States, twice as high as North Carolina's, and three times as high as West Virginia's.
Yet, since 2002, when Article 10 -- the state law covering the siting of new power plants -- lapsed, our ability to increase production and clean up what we've got has been hampered. That law might have offered a controversial gauntlet for industry to follow that was maddening even in its so-called expedited version, but at least it allowed a few power plants to be built.
Steve Mitnick, Gov. Spitzer's point man on energy, is shopping around an alternative Article 10 to various stakeholders. A broad range of opinion from both the energy industry and environmental watchdog groups is largely negative so far, so a re-writing before we see legislation is likely.
(Click to read entire article)
For a couple of decades at least, New York's economic growth woes have been tied to the extraordinarily high costs of electricity for business and, not incidentally, for consumers as well. We have the highest energy costs in the continental United States, twice as high as North Carolina's, and three times as high as West Virginia's.
Yet, since 2002, when Article 10 -- the state law covering the siting of new power plants -- lapsed, our ability to increase production and clean up what we've got has been hampered. That law might have offered a controversial gauntlet for industry to follow that was maddening even in its so-called expedited version, but at least it allowed a few power plants to be built.
Steve Mitnick, Gov. Spitzer's point man on energy, is shopping around an alternative Article 10 to various stakeholders. A broad range of opinion from both the energy industry and environmental watchdog groups is largely negative so far, so a re-writing before we see legislation is likely.
(Click to read entire article)
Monday, April 30, 2007
Richard H. Bolton April 25, 2007 letter to Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait
Environmental Compliance Alliance
262 East Lake Road Phone 585.554.5451
Rushville, NY 14544 Email barehill@aol.com
Richard H. Bolton, President
April 25, 2007
Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait
10141 Lake Hollow Rd.
Cohocton, NY 14826
Subject: Reassessment of Noise and Shadow Flicker for Dutch Hill and Cohocton Wind Projects
Dear Dr. Goldthwait,
I have just returned from testifying at a Public Service Commission hearing in Charleston, West Virginia so I apologize for not responding to you sooner. Per your request I have re-evaluated the Cohocton and Dutch Hill Power Projects in terms of noise and shadow flicker.
My conclusions remain consistent, or perhaps even more emphatic, that the noise analysis and shadow flicker analysis for these projects is wholly inadequate and does not demonstrate necessary and proficient consideration of environmental changes that may impact residents. Emerging information, such as at the Mars Hills, Vt. project indicates that noise analyses, which generally follow the same methodology as in Cohocton, were insufficient resulting in widespread citizen complaints and intervention by government during construction of the wind farm.
To reiterate my objections, the noise analyses demonstrably did not assess the realistic background noises in the project areas The Cadna predictive noise modeling software specifically does not account for common atmospheric effects likely in Cohocton and is explicitly designed to conform to an ISO standard that is not to be used for non-terrestrial noise sources.
The shadow flicker studies incorrectly applied restrictive criteria to the WindPro software that greatly understates the true impact of shadow flicker in the project areas.
As you know the Lead Agency may not rely solely on studies submitted by the project sponsor. Those reports are likely biased toward an outcome favorable to the sponsor. Sufficient doubts exist that the Lead Agency in my opinion is mandated to seek an impartial reassessment of noise and shadow flicker for both projects.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter please let me know.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Bolton
Cc: Pat McAllister, Esq., Cohocton Town Attorney
262 East Lake Road Phone 585.554.5451
Rushville, NY 14544 Email barehill@aol.com
Richard H. Bolton, President
April 25, 2007
Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait
10141 Lake Hollow Rd.
Cohocton, NY 14826
Subject: Reassessment of Noise and Shadow Flicker for Dutch Hill and Cohocton Wind Projects
Dear Dr. Goldthwait,
I have just returned from testifying at a Public Service Commission hearing in Charleston, West Virginia so I apologize for not responding to you sooner. Per your request I have re-evaluated the Cohocton and Dutch Hill Power Projects in terms of noise and shadow flicker.
My conclusions remain consistent, or perhaps even more emphatic, that the noise analysis and shadow flicker analysis for these projects is wholly inadequate and does not demonstrate necessary and proficient consideration of environmental changes that may impact residents. Emerging information, such as at the Mars Hills, Vt. project indicates that noise analyses, which generally follow the same methodology as in Cohocton, were insufficient resulting in widespread citizen complaints and intervention by government during construction of the wind farm.
To reiterate my objections, the noise analyses demonstrably did not assess the realistic background noises in the project areas The Cadna predictive noise modeling software specifically does not account for common atmospheric effects likely in Cohocton and is explicitly designed to conform to an ISO standard that is not to be used for non-terrestrial noise sources.
The shadow flicker studies incorrectly applied restrictive criteria to the WindPro software that greatly understates the true impact of shadow flicker in the project areas.
As you know the Lead Agency may not rely solely on studies submitted by the project sponsor. Those reports are likely biased toward an outcome favorable to the sponsor. Sufficient doubts exist that the Lead Agency in my opinion is mandated to seek an impartial reassessment of noise and shadow flicker for both projects.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter please let me know.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Bolton
Cc: Pat McAllister, Esq., Cohocton Town Attorney
Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait April 26, 2007 letter to the Cohocton Planning and Town Boards
Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait
10141 Lake Hollow Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
April 26, 2007
Town of Cohocton Planning Board and Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Members of the Cohocton Planning Board and Town Board,
An Article 78 proceeding is currently pending before the New York State Supreme Court in Steuben County and has been for the entire series of Planning Board siting meetings up to and including this public hearing. None of these meetings were legally held, because the pleadings in the Article 78 lawsuit contest the legality of the entire local windmill law which contains in part all of the siting criteria for each of the wind turbines you have considered. The Planning Board should declare null and void any siting meetings held to date and await the final outcome of the pending lawsuit. What will you do if the courts final decision is that the current wind mill law is null and void? You would be well advised to adjourn this meeting until a final decision is rendered by the court.
Are you all aware that at the last meeting of the Town Board on April 23, 2007 that Town Board member Wayne Hunt revealed that we are not even negotiating financial agreements directly, but have completely turned our financial fate over to SCIDA and Steuben County, each of whom stand to profit more by giving us less? Cohocton and we the people will individually bear all the risk, all the damage to our environment, property values and the probable future financial stability of our town. We demand that the Town Board take the appropriate legal action to retake the power to negotiate any and all agreements between the Town of Cohocton and UPC.
I submit for the record the attached letter dated April 25, 20007 received from Richard H. Bolton, President of the Environmental Compliance Alliance, the only independent expert retained in this matter.
I hereby incorporate by reference and file as part of the record of this public hearing the following documents:
1. Letter to Town Board and Planning Board of Cohocton, by Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, dated June 20, 2006, filed with and received by Cohocton Town Clerk on June 20, 2006.
2. Research Study Noise Radiation From Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health (With appendix on Wind Turbine effects on property values) by B.J. Frey & P.J. Hadden, February 2007 v.1. Hand delivered by Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait to Raymond Schrader, Chairman, Planning Board on April 5, 2007.
3. Notarized covering Affidavit dated November 17, 2006 and: 1. Petition for Moratorium On All Industrial Wind Turbine Projects In The Town Of Cohocton, N.Y. with 215 duly witnessed signatories and 2. Petition for Immediate Review, Revision and Update of The “Comprehensive Master Plan’ For the Town and Village of Cohocton, New York” with 196 duly witnessed signatories filed with and received by Cohocton Town Clerk on November 17, 2006.
You have clearly done your best to negligently expedite applicant UPC’s proposed Industrial Wind Turbine projects for the town of Cohocton. You have consistently acted in a reckless and negligent manner that is well beyond the scope of your employment and appointment. You have without exception and without excuse negligently failed to respond to any of the hundreds of legitimate requests for answers to questions respectfully submitted to you by us the people of Cohocton. Each and every one of you has on multiple occasions violated the oath you individually signed to abide by and support the United States and New York State Constitutions.
You have not fairly and equally considered with due diligence the best property, financial, health, safety and welfare interests of the vast majority of the citizens of Cohocton.
However, you have been thoroughly, recklessly and without conscience in your support, furtherance and defense of the best financial and business interests of the applicant UPC and its progeny LLC’s Cohocton Wind and Dutch Hill Wind.
Both boards were asked repeatedly to retain the services of truly independent legal, environmental, financial and insurance experts that would provide a true, correct and unbiased assessment of the proposed UPC project. You acted negligently, recklessly and beyond the scope of your employment and appointment in blatantly refusing to take that necessary action of due diligence in order to serve and protect the best interests of all the people of Cohocton. The very people you swore to fairly and lawfully represent. Instead, you deplorably, negligently and recklessly chose to accept as fact and without question and exception the consistently self serving and UPC biased advice, facts and conclusions presented to you by UPC’s recommended bought and paid for “hired gun” legal and environmental consultants. When asked about those hired UPC guns, Mr. Schrader, the Planning Board Chairman has been heard by witnesses to have stated “I just do what they tell me to do”. That statement speaks for itself loud and clear.
Our Planning Board and Town Board members are merely puppets and willing victims representing the best interests of UPC. Board members you have almost come to the end of the road or of your rope as the case may be as it pertains to the proposed UPC Industrial Wind Turbine application. There is still time for a last minute reprieve. You could redeem yourselves by refusing to issue a special use permit to UPC until truly independent legal, environmental, financial and insurance experts have provided a true, correct and unbiased assessment of the proposed UPC project are retained by the Town of Cohocton.
We the vast majority of the people of Cohocton would fully support that action. In the final analysis the ultimate question will be “did each board member act with the best interests of the people of Cohocton at heart or the purely selfish financial interests of a foreign based Italian company against which we will have no future legal recourse?
Please let me know if Mr. Bolton or I can be of any further assistance in this most important matter as it has grave probable future health, safety, welfare and financial consequences for all of us who live in Cohocton.
Very truly yours,
Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait
cc: Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the US
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, State of NY
State of NY, Department of State, Committee on Open Government
Mr. Patrick McAllister, Esquire, Cohocton Town Attorney
10141 Lake Hollow Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
April 26, 2007
Town of Cohocton Planning Board and Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Members of the Cohocton Planning Board and Town Board,
An Article 78 proceeding is currently pending before the New York State Supreme Court in Steuben County and has been for the entire series of Planning Board siting meetings up to and including this public hearing. None of these meetings were legally held, because the pleadings in the Article 78 lawsuit contest the legality of the entire local windmill law which contains in part all of the siting criteria for each of the wind turbines you have considered. The Planning Board should declare null and void any siting meetings held to date and await the final outcome of the pending lawsuit. What will you do if the courts final decision is that the current wind mill law is null and void? You would be well advised to adjourn this meeting until a final decision is rendered by the court.
Are you all aware that at the last meeting of the Town Board on April 23, 2007 that Town Board member Wayne Hunt revealed that we are not even negotiating financial agreements directly, but have completely turned our financial fate over to SCIDA and Steuben County, each of whom stand to profit more by giving us less? Cohocton and we the people will individually bear all the risk, all the damage to our environment, property values and the probable future financial stability of our town. We demand that the Town Board take the appropriate legal action to retake the power to negotiate any and all agreements between the Town of Cohocton and UPC.
I submit for the record the attached letter dated April 25, 20007 received from Richard H. Bolton, President of the Environmental Compliance Alliance, the only independent expert retained in this matter.
I hereby incorporate by reference and file as part of the record of this public hearing the following documents:
1. Letter to Town Board and Planning Board of Cohocton, by Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, dated June 20, 2006, filed with and received by Cohocton Town Clerk on June 20, 2006.
2. Research Study Noise Radiation From Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health (With appendix on Wind Turbine effects on property values) by B.J. Frey & P.J. Hadden, February 2007 v.1. Hand delivered by Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait to Raymond Schrader, Chairman, Planning Board on April 5, 2007.
3. Notarized covering Affidavit dated November 17, 2006 and: 1. Petition for Moratorium On All Industrial Wind Turbine Projects In The Town Of Cohocton, N.Y. with 215 duly witnessed signatories and 2. Petition for Immediate Review, Revision and Update of The “Comprehensive Master Plan’ For the Town and Village of Cohocton, New York” with 196 duly witnessed signatories filed with and received by Cohocton Town Clerk on November 17, 2006.
You have clearly done your best to negligently expedite applicant UPC’s proposed Industrial Wind Turbine projects for the town of Cohocton. You have consistently acted in a reckless and negligent manner that is well beyond the scope of your employment and appointment. You have without exception and without excuse negligently failed to respond to any of the hundreds of legitimate requests for answers to questions respectfully submitted to you by us the people of Cohocton. Each and every one of you has on multiple occasions violated the oath you individually signed to abide by and support the United States and New York State Constitutions.
You have not fairly and equally considered with due diligence the best property, financial, health, safety and welfare interests of the vast majority of the citizens of Cohocton.
However, you have been thoroughly, recklessly and without conscience in your support, furtherance and defense of the best financial and business interests of the applicant UPC and its progeny LLC’s Cohocton Wind and Dutch Hill Wind.
Both boards were asked repeatedly to retain the services of truly independent legal, environmental, financial and insurance experts that would provide a true, correct and unbiased assessment of the proposed UPC project. You acted negligently, recklessly and beyond the scope of your employment and appointment in blatantly refusing to take that necessary action of due diligence in order to serve and protect the best interests of all the people of Cohocton. The very people you swore to fairly and lawfully represent. Instead, you deplorably, negligently and recklessly chose to accept as fact and without question and exception the consistently self serving and UPC biased advice, facts and conclusions presented to you by UPC’s recommended bought and paid for “hired gun” legal and environmental consultants. When asked about those hired UPC guns, Mr. Schrader, the Planning Board Chairman has been heard by witnesses to have stated “I just do what they tell me to do”. That statement speaks for itself loud and clear.
Our Planning Board and Town Board members are merely puppets and willing victims representing the best interests of UPC. Board members you have almost come to the end of the road or of your rope as the case may be as it pertains to the proposed UPC Industrial Wind Turbine application. There is still time for a last minute reprieve. You could redeem yourselves by refusing to issue a special use permit to UPC until truly independent legal, environmental, financial and insurance experts have provided a true, correct and unbiased assessment of the proposed UPC project are retained by the Town of Cohocton.
We the vast majority of the people of Cohocton would fully support that action. In the final analysis the ultimate question will be “did each board member act with the best interests of the people of Cohocton at heart or the purely selfish financial interests of a foreign based Italian company against which we will have no future legal recourse?
Please let me know if Mr. Bolton or I can be of any further assistance in this most important matter as it has grave probable future health, safety, welfare and financial consequences for all of us who live in Cohocton.
Very truly yours,
Dr. F. Jeffrey Goldthwait
cc: Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the US
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, State of NY
State of NY, Department of State, Committee on Open Government
Mr. Patrick McAllister, Esquire, Cohocton Town Attorney
Coalition of Citizens File Anti-Trust Complaint With the Department Of Justice Against the Wind Energy Industry
A grass roots coalition of nearly 100 citizens from New York, Vermont, and other states have filed a federal Anti-Trust 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.
This Complaint, filed today with the Department Of Justice Anti-Trust 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.
Questions regarding this Complaint, or requests for copies of the entire Complaint, may be directed to:
Bradley E. Jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585-374-2627 (H), 585-233-8539 (M)
This Complaint, filed today with the Department Of Justice Anti-Trust 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.
Questions regarding this Complaint, or requests for copies of the entire Complaint, may be directed to:
Bradley E. Jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585-374-2627 (H), 585-233-8539 (M)
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Spitzer OKs incentives for Jordanville wind project
The Final Environmental Impact Statement has yet to be completed, but the Spitzer Administration is showering largesse on Community Energy’s 68-turbine Jordanville Wind Project.
The project is one of nine wind projects – 21 clean-energy projects in all, when hydroelectric and biomass are included – targeted for $295 million in “performance incentives” in Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s speech, “15 by 15, A Clean Energy Strategy for New York,” delivered to Crain’s Breakfast Business Roundtable in New York City on Thursday, April 19. He said such incentives have attracted $2 billion in private investment to date in clean energy.
The incentives were announced jointly by NYSERDA (the state Energy Research & Development Agency) and the state Public Service Commission in conjunction with Spitzer’s speech, but few speech, but few details were immediately forthcoming from those quarters.
(Click to read entire article)
The project is one of nine wind projects – 21 clean-energy projects in all, when hydroelectric and biomass are included – targeted for $295 million in “performance incentives” in Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s speech, “15 by 15, A Clean Energy Strategy for New York,” delivered to Crain’s Breakfast Business Roundtable in New York City on Thursday, April 19. He said such incentives have attracted $2 billion in private investment to date in clean energy.
The incentives were announced jointly by NYSERDA (the state Energy Research & Development Agency) and the state Public Service Commission in conjunction with Spitzer’s speech, but few speech, but few details were immediately forthcoming from those quarters.
(Click to read entire article)
Hinchey, Arcuri & Hall Stand Against NYRI
Washington, DC - In response to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) release of two draft designations of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors today, U.S. Representatives Maurice Hinchey (D- Hurley), Michael A. Arcuri (D-Utica), and John Hall (D-Dover Plains) restated their strong opposition to current law that could allow New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) and other private companies to utilize federal eminent domain to acquire private property and circumvent state authority.
“We have been opposed to this egregious process since the beginning, and plan to continue our efforts to prevent the NYRI proposal every step of the way,” said Reps. Hinchey, Arcuri, and Hall. “While we expected this announcement from the DOE, it comes as a great shock that we’re hearing the news a day after we held an oversight hearing in Washington where the senior official who oversees this subject at DOE answered questions about the implementation of this law, but failed to mention this announcement was imminent.
“Allowing private energy companies to run roughshod over local property rights, subvert state authority, and damage environmentally sensitive areas everywhere in the country - except for a large portion of Texas - is patently unjust. Unfortunately, this sort of action is indicative of this administration’s favoring of energy companies over the rights of average citizens. We are committed to working together in Congress on behalf of our constituents to fight tooth and nail against this proposal. We have already introduced legislation in the House to block the creation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, which would stop the NYRI project, and will be pushing that legislation vigorously.”
Included in the Department of Energy’s draft is a proposal to create a Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor which would include the following counties in New York State: Albany, Bronx, Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Delaware, Dutchess, Erie, Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Greene, Herkimer, Jefferson, Kings, Lewis, Livingston, Madison, Monroe, Montgomery, Nassau, New York, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario, Orange, Orleans, Otsego, Putnam, Queens, Renssalaer, Richmond, Rockland, St. Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Seneca, Suffolk Sullivan, Ulster, Wayne, Westchester, and Wyoming.
Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, created new federal authority to site electric transmission lines throughout the country. Under the Act, the Department of Energy may designate areas of the country as “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.” Within these corridors, state authority over transmission lines may be preempted and new federal eminent domain authority could be used to obtain land for approved electric utility transmission projects. Hinchey voted against the bill when it came before the House in 2005.
“We have been opposed to this egregious process since the beginning, and plan to continue our efforts to prevent the NYRI proposal every step of the way,” said Reps. Hinchey, Arcuri, and Hall. “While we expected this announcement from the DOE, it comes as a great shock that we’re hearing the news a day after we held an oversight hearing in Washington where the senior official who oversees this subject at DOE answered questions about the implementation of this law, but failed to mention this announcement was imminent.
“Allowing private energy companies to run roughshod over local property rights, subvert state authority, and damage environmentally sensitive areas everywhere in the country - except for a large portion of Texas - is patently unjust. Unfortunately, this sort of action is indicative of this administration’s favoring of energy companies over the rights of average citizens. We are committed to working together in Congress on behalf of our constituents to fight tooth and nail against this proposal. We have already introduced legislation in the House to block the creation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, which would stop the NYRI project, and will be pushing that legislation vigorously.”
Included in the Department of Energy’s draft is a proposal to create a Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor which would include the following counties in New York State: Albany, Bronx, Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Delaware, Dutchess, Erie, Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Greene, Herkimer, Jefferson, Kings, Lewis, Livingston, Madison, Monroe, Montgomery, Nassau, New York, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario, Orange, Orleans, Otsego, Putnam, Queens, Renssalaer, Richmond, Rockland, St. Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Seneca, Suffolk Sullivan, Ulster, Wayne, Westchester, and Wyoming.
Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, created new federal authority to site electric transmission lines throughout the country. Under the Act, the Department of Energy may designate areas of the country as “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.” Within these corridors, state authority over transmission lines may be preempted and new federal eminent domain authority could be used to obtain land for approved electric utility transmission projects. Hinchey voted against the bill when it came before the House in 2005.
NYRI ‘welcomes’ DoE proposed designation; lawmakers vow a continued fight
Washington - The US Department of Energy has approved a draft proposal to create a Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor, which would, among other things, let New York Regional Interconnect, take property by eminent domain to build their power line from Oneida County to Orange County.
In a prepared statement Thursday, the company said the proposed designations “are part of a clearly emerging consensus that the reliability of America’s and New York State’s electrical power transmission infrastructure must be addressed in a timely way.”
But, Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley, who vehemently opposes the power line, vowed to continue to fight it.
“We cannot allow this stuff to happen. We’re going to be fighting back against it very vigorously,” he said. Hinchey said he has already prepared legislation to remove those provisions of the current law.
Sullivan County Legislature Chairman Christopher Cunningham, chairman of the eight-county opposition group, said they will fight it all the way to court, if necessary. “We are prepared to fight this at the federal level and we will get the resources, I am confident, to do that if we have to.”
Forty-eight of New York’s counties would be included in the National Corridor designation if it gains final approvals.
In a prepared statement Thursday, the company said the proposed designations “are part of a clearly emerging consensus that the reliability of America’s and New York State’s electrical power transmission infrastructure must be addressed in a timely way.”
But, Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley, who vehemently opposes the power line, vowed to continue to fight it.
“We cannot allow this stuff to happen. We’re going to be fighting back against it very vigorously,” he said. Hinchey said he has already prepared legislation to remove those provisions of the current law.
Sullivan County Legislature Chairman Christopher Cunningham, chairman of the eight-county opposition group, said they will fight it all the way to court, if necessary. “We are prepared to fight this at the federal level and we will get the resources, I am confident, to do that if we have to.”
Forty-eight of New York’s counties would be included in the National Corridor designation if it gains final approvals.
Friday, April 27, 2007
ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES FOR THE AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION
One of the major goals of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is to create an environment where industry members can meet and share information with the understanding that AWEA activities will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the antitrust laws. AWEA recognizes the importance of the antitrust laws to preserve and foster competition and is committed to a policy that requires strict compliance with these laws. The AWEA Board of Directors has adopted the following Antitrust Compliance Guidelines to be used by members and staff in conducting AWEA activities.
Application of the Antitrust Laws to Association Activities:
AWEA understands that trade associations are subject to strict scrutiny under the antitrust laws because they are venues where competitors gather and share information about the way they conduct their business. Therefore associations must act carefully and cautiously in the way that they conduct their activities to ensure that they do not create situations that could be construed as violations of the antitrust laws.
Antitrust compliance is important for association members because violations of the law could result in felony convictions leading to jail sentences and civil fines and penalties. Thoughtless violations of the antitrust laws can result in innocent members and staff being subjected to costly investigations and litigation involving a great loss of time and payment of legal fees. Such thoughtless violations have been known to ruin industry associations and cause
great harm to individuals’ professional and personal lives. It is AWEA’s goal to make members aware of these laws and be proactive in ensuring compliance.
READ ENTIRE POLICY STATEMENT
AWEA_antitrust_Guidelines.pdf
Application of the Antitrust Laws to Association Activities:
AWEA understands that trade associations are subject to strict scrutiny under the antitrust laws because they are venues where competitors gather and share information about the way they conduct their business. Therefore associations must act carefully and cautiously in the way that they conduct their activities to ensure that they do not create situations that could be construed as violations of the antitrust laws.
Antitrust compliance is important for association members because violations of the law could result in felony convictions leading to jail sentences and civil fines and penalties. Thoughtless violations of the antitrust laws can result in innocent members and staff being subjected to costly investigations and litigation involving a great loss of time and payment of legal fees. Such thoughtless violations have been known to ruin industry associations and cause
great harm to individuals’ professional and personal lives. It is AWEA’s goal to make members aware of these laws and be proactive in ensuring compliance.
READ ENTIRE POLICY STATEMENT
AWEA_antitrust_Guidelines.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)