Cohocton, N.Y. -- A public hearing is set to happen on June 27th where town leaders in Cohocton are expected to grant developer U.P.C. Wind the permits it needs to begin construction on close to 50 wind turbines across the farmland there.
"We're going to have eleven turbines within a mile of our house," said Cohocton neighbor, Judy Hall, who is against the project. "Our house is right smack dab in the middle of farmland."
Judy and her husband, Jim, say they are suspicious about the proposed wind turbine project. "Up until this point, laws have been absolutely violated, procedure has been created to favor certain people at the expense of the public," said Jim Hall.
The developer, U.P.C. Wind, has already constructed several wind testing towers to test levels across the area. But the Halls say while farmers will benefit from leasing out their land to U.P.C., the turbines will hurt neighbors' property values, cause physical harm to animals, and noise pollution.
"There's a horrid noise every time one of the blades passes the tower," said Judy Hall, "which people say is like a 'thump thump' noise."
But town leaders say the entire community will benefit. "I can frame it this way," said Town Councilman Wayne Hunt. "Our total annual budget is now around $750,000. This project, at the bare minimum, will produce $250,000 in tax revenue for our town."
Hunt says those funds will go to the fire department, libraries, schools, and highway maintenance.
He says farming is Cohocton's one and only industry, and the farmers there, like farmers across the country, are experiencing financial difficulties.
Farmers who lease their land to U.P.C. will receive a flat sum of money per year, per wind turbine.
They will also receive around $5300 per megawatt produced.
Each turbine, according to U.P.C. Wind, will produce about 2.5 megawatts per year. U.P.C. profits by selling the clean power to power distributors, including NYSEG.
They will also benefit from several tax and other incentives at the state and federal levels directed at green power generation.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Federal officials get earful from power-line foes
Dan Buckingham is angry the federal government is considering a power corridor through his upstate New York community. He was doubly angry Tuesday that he had to travel nearly 140 miles to protest.
“This country needs a comprehensive energy policy. This is nothing more than a glorified extension cord,” said Buckingham, one of nearly two dozen Oneida County residents who traveled to Rochester to speak out against the proposed corridor at a U.S. Department of Energy public hearing.
“When they find they can’t bully us, they slap us in the face and insult us by refusing to even come listen to our concerns,” said Buckingham, an art professor who lives in Clayville, just south of Utica, along the route of a power-line project proposed by New York Regional Interconnect.
Buckingham was just one of many who took the Energy Department to task for not holding a hearing in the Utica area, which is in the middle of where the proposed corridor would run through New York. About 50 people attended the hearing.
The Energy Department has drawn two “national interest energy transmission corridors” — areas in which Washington officials could exercise eminent domain and approve new transmission lines over the objections of local and state authorities.
One would be located on the East Coast, covering a large swath of land that includes parts of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and all of New Jersey, Delaware and the District of Columbia. On the West Coast, a corridor has been proposed in southern California, Arizona, and Nevada.
The 2005 energy law establishing the electricity corridors was designed to relieve bottlenecks in the national power grid, decreasing the threat of blackouts like the one that swept from Ohio to New York City in 2003. However, critics say establishing the national corridors will make it easier — and cheaper — for power companies like New York Regional Interconnect to build power lines.
NYRI wants to build a 200- mile-long, high-voltage transmission line from Utica to the lower Hudson Valley but has met stiff opposition from local residents and elected officials.
“I know this country has an energy problem but how about more conservation, or build more local generating capacity. This will destroy our village,” said Karl Cehonski of Clayville, whose property would be cut in half by the NYRI line.
“I’ve lived in my home for 30 years. It’s a two-story Victorian home built in the 1860s. We’ve spent tons of money fixing it up. And now I have to worry about eminent domain,” said Cehonski, who was among two dozen Clayville residents who chartered a bus to attend the hearing.
Cehonski, a member of Upstate New York Citizens Alliance, a group that formed to oppose NYRI, said he took a day off from work.
“Not only do we have to travel two hours. It’s on a work day in the middle of the week. A lot of people can’t afford that,” Cehonski said.
A number of residents held signs with messages like “NYRI buys D.O.E.” and “$elling Upstate New York — No Power Lines.” Others wore T-shirts and buttons announcing their opposition.
The group also brought a mock power-line tower base constructed of plywood that they put up outside the hearing. The 16-foot-high structure — the same size as a real concrete base — read “Imagine this — No power lines.”
The hearing Tuesday was the third of four scheduled for the eastern corridor. Previous hearings were held last month in Arlington, Va., and New York City. Another is scheduled for today in Pittsburgh. Rochester was selected for Tuesday’s hearing because it sits in an arm that swings to the west off the main corridor, said Marshall Whitenton, an Energy Department official.
Establishing energy corridors does not mean the endorsement of any particular transmission projects, Whitenton said. The department is deciding whether the corridors are needed, and if so, where their boundaries should be drawn, he said.
The 60-day comment period ends July 6. After that, DOE staff will make its recommendations.
“This country needs a comprehensive energy policy. This is nothing more than a glorified extension cord,” said Buckingham, one of nearly two dozen Oneida County residents who traveled to Rochester to speak out against the proposed corridor at a U.S. Department of Energy public hearing.
“When they find they can’t bully us, they slap us in the face and insult us by refusing to even come listen to our concerns,” said Buckingham, an art professor who lives in Clayville, just south of Utica, along the route of a power-line project proposed by New York Regional Interconnect.
Buckingham was just one of many who took the Energy Department to task for not holding a hearing in the Utica area, which is in the middle of where the proposed corridor would run through New York. About 50 people attended the hearing.
The Energy Department has drawn two “national interest energy transmission corridors” — areas in which Washington officials could exercise eminent domain and approve new transmission lines over the objections of local and state authorities.
One would be located on the East Coast, covering a large swath of land that includes parts of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and all of New Jersey, Delaware and the District of Columbia. On the West Coast, a corridor has been proposed in southern California, Arizona, and Nevada.
The 2005 energy law establishing the electricity corridors was designed to relieve bottlenecks in the national power grid, decreasing the threat of blackouts like the one that swept from Ohio to New York City in 2003. However, critics say establishing the national corridors will make it easier — and cheaper — for power companies like New York Regional Interconnect to build power lines.
NYRI wants to build a 200- mile-long, high-voltage transmission line from Utica to the lower Hudson Valley but has met stiff opposition from local residents and elected officials.
“I know this country has an energy problem but how about more conservation, or build more local generating capacity. This will destroy our village,” said Karl Cehonski of Clayville, whose property would be cut in half by the NYRI line.
“I’ve lived in my home for 30 years. It’s a two-story Victorian home built in the 1860s. We’ve spent tons of money fixing it up. And now I have to worry about eminent domain,” said Cehonski, who was among two dozen Clayville residents who chartered a bus to attend the hearing.
Cehonski, a member of Upstate New York Citizens Alliance, a group that formed to oppose NYRI, said he took a day off from work.
“Not only do we have to travel two hours. It’s on a work day in the middle of the week. A lot of people can’t afford that,” Cehonski said.
A number of residents held signs with messages like “NYRI buys D.O.E.” and “$elling Upstate New York — No Power Lines.” Others wore T-shirts and buttons announcing their opposition.
The group also brought a mock power-line tower base constructed of plywood that they put up outside the hearing. The 16-foot-high structure — the same size as a real concrete base — read “Imagine this — No power lines.”
The hearing Tuesday was the third of four scheduled for the eastern corridor. Previous hearings were held last month in Arlington, Va., and New York City. Another is scheduled for today in Pittsburgh. Rochester was selected for Tuesday’s hearing because it sits in an arm that swings to the west off the main corridor, said Marshall Whitenton, an Energy Department official.
Establishing energy corridors does not mean the endorsement of any particular transmission projects, Whitenton said. The department is deciding whether the corridors are needed, and if so, where their boundaries should be drawn, he said.
The 60-day comment period ends July 6. After that, DOE staff will make its recommendations.
Environmental Assessment
Postconstruction Study:
To view the Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Farm -
Post Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2006,
please click here.
Preconstruction Studies:
Environmental Design & Research, P.C., of Syracuse, New York, under contract to FRWP, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Maple Ridge Wind Farm. The FEIS incorporates public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was circulated for public review from December 3, 2003, to January 15, 2004. Written comments were received during the pubic comment period in addition to verbal comments conveyed at a public hearing held on January 5, 2004, in the Town of Martinsburg, New York.
The DEIS and the FEIS examine the project purpose, need, and benefits and the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the project, providing proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts. Environmental studies undertaken for the document examine land use, vegetative communities, wildlife, hydrology (including floodplains and wetlands), geology, and visual and cultural (historical and archaeological) resources within a study area encompassing the proposed facilities. These studies examine all generating facility components, including proposed turbine locations, electrical interconnects, access roads, and substation facilities.
The studies conducted for the proposed facility conclude that both beneficial and adverse impacts will result from either the construction or operation of the proposed generating project. These impacts will be both temporary and permanent in certain cases. The Town of Martinsburg, acting as Lead Agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, has determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment and has issued a Positive Declaration.
To view the Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Farm -
Post Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2006,
please click here.
Preconstruction Studies:
Environmental Design & Research, P.C., of Syracuse, New York, under contract to FRWP, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Maple Ridge Wind Farm. The FEIS incorporates public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was circulated for public review from December 3, 2003, to January 15, 2004. Written comments were received during the pubic comment period in addition to verbal comments conveyed at a public hearing held on January 5, 2004, in the Town of Martinsburg, New York.
The DEIS and the FEIS examine the project purpose, need, and benefits and the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the project, providing proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts. Environmental studies undertaken for the document examine land use, vegetative communities, wildlife, hydrology (including floodplains and wetlands), geology, and visual and cultural (historical and archaeological) resources within a study area encompassing the proposed facilities. These studies examine all generating facility components, including proposed turbine locations, electrical interconnects, access roads, and substation facilities.
The studies conducted for the proposed facility conclude that both beneficial and adverse impacts will result from either the construction or operation of the proposed generating project. These impacts will be both temporary and permanent in certain cases. The Town of Martinsburg, acting as Lead Agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, has determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment and has issued a Positive Declaration.
Location of Right-of-Way
The Transmission Facility was constructed entirely within newly established rights-of-way obtained by Maple Ridge through easements from private landowners. Generally, a 150-foot-wide right-of-way corridor was constructed, with a clearing width of 100 feet. In certain heavily forested areas, a 200-foot-wide right-of-way was built, with a maximum clearing width of 150 feet.
The right-of-way originates at the Rector Road 230 kV Substation and terminates at the Chases Lake Road Interconnect Facility (see description and map). The substation isapproximately 0.75 acres in size, enclosed by a chain link fence, and surfaced with crushed stone. It includes transformers, breakers, switches, relays, meters, and associated equipment. The substation be connects to Rector Road by a new gravel access road. From the substation the right-of-way runs generally east along agricultural field edges and south across Rector Road traversing pasture and farmland to West Road (County Route 29). The route continues east, descending the Tug Hill Plateau for approximately two miles to State Route 26/12D in the town of Martinsburg. The route then continues east, crossing two seasonal roads (farm drives), named East and Loucks Roads on the USGS topographic map. Beyond the seasonal roads, the route heads south across Rainbow Creek and intersects with State Highway 12 north of Bush Road in East Martinsburg.
The second segment of the route generally heads in a northeasterly direction from State Route 12 to Pine Grove Road (County Route 39). This section of the proposed corridor traverses approximately 2.9 miles of relatively flat terrain dominated by active agricultural land uses. Portions of this segment of the line are within the Black River floodplain, and the line traverses an approximately 240-foot-wide section of the Black River. Road crossings along this segment include State Route 12 and East Martinsburg Road (County Route 22).
The third segment of the route heads in an easterly direction from Pine Grove Road to the east side of Wetmore Road, where a new interconnection station is located next to the NYPA 765 kV Massena-Marcy Transmission Line (Chases Lake Road Interconnect Facility), for the purposes of tapping into the NMPC 230 kV Adirondack-Porter Line. This section of the corridor traverses approximately 2.2 miles dominated by forestland. The proposed station site is also located in a forested area east of Wetmore Road. The station is approximately 0.80 acres in size, enclosed by a chain link fence and surfaced with crushed stone. Unlike the Rector Road substation, this facility does not include transformers, but instead houses only breakers, switches, relays, meters, and associated equipment. The station is connected to Wetmore Road by a new gravel access road.
The right-of-way originates at the Rector Road 230 kV Substation and terminates at the Chases Lake Road Interconnect Facility (see description and map). The substation isapproximately 0.75 acres in size, enclosed by a chain link fence, and surfaced with crushed stone. It includes transformers, breakers, switches, relays, meters, and associated equipment. The substation be connects to Rector Road by a new gravel access road. From the substation the right-of-way runs generally east along agricultural field edges and south across Rector Road traversing pasture and farmland to West Road (County Route 29). The route continues east, descending the Tug Hill Plateau for approximately two miles to State Route 26/12D in the town of Martinsburg. The route then continues east, crossing two seasonal roads (farm drives), named East and Loucks Roads on the USGS topographic map. Beyond the seasonal roads, the route heads south across Rainbow Creek and intersects with State Highway 12 north of Bush Road in East Martinsburg.
The second segment of the route generally heads in a northeasterly direction from State Route 12 to Pine Grove Road (County Route 39). This section of the proposed corridor traverses approximately 2.9 miles of relatively flat terrain dominated by active agricultural land uses. Portions of this segment of the line are within the Black River floodplain, and the line traverses an approximately 240-foot-wide section of the Black River. Road crossings along this segment include State Route 12 and East Martinsburg Road (County Route 22).
The third segment of the route heads in an easterly direction from Pine Grove Road to the east side of Wetmore Road, where a new interconnection station is located next to the NYPA 765 kV Massena-Marcy Transmission Line (Chases Lake Road Interconnect Facility), for the purposes of tapping into the NMPC 230 kV Adirondack-Porter Line. This section of the corridor traverses approximately 2.2 miles dominated by forestland. The proposed station site is also located in a forested area east of Wetmore Road. The station is approximately 0.80 acres in size, enclosed by a chain link fence and surfaced with crushed stone. Unlike the Rector Road substation, this facility does not include transformers, but instead houses only breakers, switches, relays, meters, and associated equipment. The station is connected to Wetmore Road by a new gravel access road.
The Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Windpower Industry makes for Projects in the Eastern United States
As I was researching the Criterion Project and Clipper Windpower to become more educated on the effect that building these large wind turbines will have on Garrett County and the Deep Creek Lake area I discovered the site http://www.stopillwind.com/.
The http://www.stopillwind.org/ site stats that it was created to provide information and educational resources for the public. The site is opened by the following paragraph:
Windpower promises much as an alternative to fossil fuels. However, those who make public policy should realize that if something seems too good to be true, it almost always is. Windpower's promises should be factual and rigorously validated, not self-serving wishful thinking. At a minimum, since no regulatory mechanism presently exists guiding the industry's deployment, government should mandate standards for siting huge wind generators which eliminate threats to wildlife, protect heritage views and property values, and allow nearby residents the quiet enjoyment of their property. Stop Ill Wind seeks to illuminate problems associated with the windpower industry and suggest means for correcting them. If windpower is to have a meaningful role in helping society achieve more beneficial, healthful means of producing electricity, its corporate agents and supporters must act responsibly—and be held accountable when they do not.
http://www.stopillwind.org/ also post:
The Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Windpower Industry makes for Projects in the Eastern United States
1. Industrial wind developers are interested only in providing a public service. Their primary purpose is to take advantage of extraordinary income sheltering opportunities... More...
2. Windplants do not harm wildlife. Despite industry insistence this won't happen, it already has... More...
3. Windplants will reduce the mining/burning of fossil fuels and lessen dependence on foreign oil. The wind industry in the East will not put much of a dent in our reliance on fossil fuels. More...
4. Windplants are highly efficient and provide power for significant numbers of homes. Wind technology is relatively feckless. More...
5. Locals who oppose the wind industry are NIMBYS. One of the most persistent hypocrisies from corporate wind... More...
6. Windplants will generate significant local revenue and increase property values. ...two recently constructed windplants... have contributed virtually nothing to the local tax base. More...
7. The wind industry will create many local jobs. This is a cruel untruth, especially in economically depressed areas... More...
8. Wind technology is noiseless and creates few disturbances. Large wind turbines... create profound noise reverberations extending out... More...
9. Wind technology consists of "windmills" on "wind farms." The reality is that they are mammoth industrial factories... More...
10. Those who are concerned about windpower are not true environmentalists. The facts demonstrate otherwise. Notable environmentalists who have studied... More...
If you are concerned about the effect that windmills will have on Garrett County I Strongly suggest checking out this site.
The http://www.stopillwind.org/ site stats that it was created to provide information and educational resources for the public. The site is opened by the following paragraph:
Windpower promises much as an alternative to fossil fuels. However, those who make public policy should realize that if something seems too good to be true, it almost always is. Windpower's promises should be factual and rigorously validated, not self-serving wishful thinking. At a minimum, since no regulatory mechanism presently exists guiding the industry's deployment, government should mandate standards for siting huge wind generators which eliminate threats to wildlife, protect heritage views and property values, and allow nearby residents the quiet enjoyment of their property. Stop Ill Wind seeks to illuminate problems associated with the windpower industry and suggest means for correcting them. If windpower is to have a meaningful role in helping society achieve more beneficial, healthful means of producing electricity, its corporate agents and supporters must act responsibly—and be held accountable when they do not.
http://www.stopillwind.org/ also post:
The Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Windpower Industry makes for Projects in the Eastern United States
1. Industrial wind developers are interested only in providing a public service. Their primary purpose is to take advantage of extraordinary income sheltering opportunities... More...
2. Windplants do not harm wildlife. Despite industry insistence this won't happen, it already has... More...
3. Windplants will reduce the mining/burning of fossil fuels and lessen dependence on foreign oil. The wind industry in the East will not put much of a dent in our reliance on fossil fuels. More...
4. Windplants are highly efficient and provide power for significant numbers of homes. Wind technology is relatively feckless. More...
5. Locals who oppose the wind industry are NIMBYS. One of the most persistent hypocrisies from corporate wind... More...
6. Windplants will generate significant local revenue and increase property values. ...two recently constructed windplants... have contributed virtually nothing to the local tax base. More...
7. The wind industry will create many local jobs. This is a cruel untruth, especially in economically depressed areas... More...
8. Wind technology is noiseless and creates few disturbances. Large wind turbines... create profound noise reverberations extending out... More...
9. Wind technology consists of "windmills" on "wind farms." The reality is that they are mammoth industrial factories... More...
10. Those who are concerned about windpower are not true environmentalists. The facts demonstrate otherwise. Notable environmentalists who have studied... More...
If you are concerned about the effect that windmills will have on Garrett County I Strongly suggest checking out this site.
Corruption of Zoning in Ellis County
Details of wind turbine easements, conflicts of interest, and chronology of events
With the help of others (especially Keith P.) I have been able to detail the corruption evident in the zoning process that led up to the conditional use application for a wind energy development here in Ellis County. In addition to the facts listed below, there have been multiple apparent errors of procedure, irregularities of process, and improper conduct on the part of zoning board members while they were supposedly acting in the interest of the general public, but these are probably best left for our legal council to address as most are legal technicalities of a rather tedious nature.
Wind Turbine Easements (according to data obtained in March, 2007)
These are the direct beneficiaries of the wind energy project, broken down as a percentage of the total turbines landholders with easements would have expected to receive at that time. Although a breakdown by property would be more detailed, we have compiled a breakdown by family to highlight the conflicts of interest on the zoning board. We have also included the York College easements in the those of the Kraus / Bemis extended family because this land was held by the Kraus family at the time of the project’s inception and subsequently inherited by York College.
Kraus / Bemis family 59 %
Gottschalk family 18 %
Stadlman family & trust 6 %
Johnson, N. 6 %
Befort family 4 %
Weilert family 4 %
Carrasco, C. 2 %
Conflicts of Interest
The primary conflict of interest arises from the key roles played by the zoning board chair and former co-chair, Lance Russell (step son to Harold Kraus) and Jo Kraus, in drafting the zoning regulations that facilitated wind energy development in Ellis County so as to directly benefit their extended family. These regulations contain more verbiage governing sign construction than governing a $500 million dollar industrial development covering 1100 acres. The same regulations limiting landholders to two and a half story buildings permits the construction industrial turbines 40 stories tall within 1000 feet of people’s homes – whether they object to them or not.
Jo Kraus, while serving on the zoning board, repeatedly represented the landholders with easements while petitioning support from the city commissions of Hays and Ellis. Lance Russell’s abstinence from voting on the board at this point does nothing to reduce his conflict of interest arising from his pivotal role in bringing this project to Ellis County.
In addition, it is illegal for paid public officials to serve on the zoning board. As chief of the Ellis County Fire Department, zoning board member Dick Klaus has a conflict of interest in that county public works, including the fire department, stand to benefit directly from the proposed payments to be made by Iberdrola.
Zoning board member Gene Bittel has publicly stated his desire to have turbines on his family's land north of I-70. A zoning decision to permit turbines in Ellis county would represent a direct benefit to his family in this regard, and yet another conflict of interest for this zoning board.
Given that these facts are all a matter of public record, it becomes quite clear that:
the zoning regulations were drafted to facilitate wind energy development in the county and at least four members of the zoning board had apparent conflicts of interest and were therefore serving their own interests, or their families’ interests, rather than the interests of the residents of Ellis county.
Concerned residents need to ask themselves these questions:
How much of this land is owned by absentee landlords or will be ceded to out of town residents? (answer - quite a bit)
How much of the direct proceeds from this project will really be spent in Ellis County - now, or 5 years from now? (answer - very little)
How much future income will be lost to the county because of this project superseding other more profitable uses of this land? (answer - a lot)
Who is naive enough to believe that money paid to these leaseholders will somehow 'trickle down' to benefit the community of Hays?
(Click to read entire article)
With the help of others (especially Keith P.) I have been able to detail the corruption evident in the zoning process that led up to the conditional use application for a wind energy development here in Ellis County. In addition to the facts listed below, there have been multiple apparent errors of procedure, irregularities of process, and improper conduct on the part of zoning board members while they were supposedly acting in the interest of the general public, but these are probably best left for our legal council to address as most are legal technicalities of a rather tedious nature.
Wind Turbine Easements (according to data obtained in March, 2007)
These are the direct beneficiaries of the wind energy project, broken down as a percentage of the total turbines landholders with easements would have expected to receive at that time. Although a breakdown by property would be more detailed, we have compiled a breakdown by family to highlight the conflicts of interest on the zoning board. We have also included the York College easements in the those of the Kraus / Bemis extended family because this land was held by the Kraus family at the time of the project’s inception and subsequently inherited by York College.
Kraus / Bemis family 59 %
Gottschalk family 18 %
Stadlman family & trust 6 %
Johnson, N. 6 %
Befort family 4 %
Weilert family 4 %
Carrasco, C. 2 %
Conflicts of Interest
The primary conflict of interest arises from the key roles played by the zoning board chair and former co-chair, Lance Russell (step son to Harold Kraus) and Jo Kraus, in drafting the zoning regulations that facilitated wind energy development in Ellis County so as to directly benefit their extended family. These regulations contain more verbiage governing sign construction than governing a $500 million dollar industrial development covering 1100 acres. The same regulations limiting landholders to two and a half story buildings permits the construction industrial turbines 40 stories tall within 1000 feet of people’s homes – whether they object to them or not.
Jo Kraus, while serving on the zoning board, repeatedly represented the landholders with easements while petitioning support from the city commissions of Hays and Ellis. Lance Russell’s abstinence from voting on the board at this point does nothing to reduce his conflict of interest arising from his pivotal role in bringing this project to Ellis County.
In addition, it is illegal for paid public officials to serve on the zoning board. As chief of the Ellis County Fire Department, zoning board member Dick Klaus has a conflict of interest in that county public works, including the fire department, stand to benefit directly from the proposed payments to be made by Iberdrola.
Zoning board member Gene Bittel has publicly stated his desire to have turbines on his family's land north of I-70. A zoning decision to permit turbines in Ellis county would represent a direct benefit to his family in this regard, and yet another conflict of interest for this zoning board.
Given that these facts are all a matter of public record, it becomes quite clear that:
the zoning regulations were drafted to facilitate wind energy development in the county and at least four members of the zoning board had apparent conflicts of interest and were therefore serving their own interests, or their families’ interests, rather than the interests of the residents of Ellis county.
Concerned residents need to ask themselves these questions:
How much of this land is owned by absentee landlords or will be ceded to out of town residents? (answer - quite a bit)
How much of the direct proceeds from this project will really be spent in Ellis County - now, or 5 years from now? (answer - very little)
How much future income will be lost to the county because of this project superseding other more profitable uses of this land? (answer - a lot)
Who is naive enough to believe that money paid to these leaseholders will somehow 'trickle down' to benefit the community of Hays?
(Click to read entire article)
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
State may delay new wind farms by LEEANNE ROOT
WAMPSVILLE - A bill proposed in the state Senate would put an 18-month hold on new wind farm projects in Madison County and the rest of the state.
While it wouldn't affect the Munnsville Wind Project under construction, it could delay other proposed projects.
"There's another one in the permitting stage that would run down through northwest Stockbridge and northeast Smithfield, that would be stopped in its tracks until 2009," said Jack Miller, Madison County's planning director. That project is being proposed by a company called AES, a global power company with headquarters in Arlington, Va.
He said that Green Power Energy is considering a project in the southern end of Fenner, near the existing one.
According to Miller there have also been discussions between Empire State Wind Energy, of Oneida, and the towns of DeRuyter, Georgetown and possibly Nelson.
"If something were to develop between them, a moratorium would be an obstacle," he said.
While the moratorium doesn't kill the projects entirely, it does put a hold on them and Miller fears that wouldn't be good for the industry.
"It would put a real damper on enthusiasm for developing Upstate New York," he said.
The following justification for the moratorium is given in the bill:
"Although the recent growth of the wind industry is welcomed by many in New York, local authorities and residents in wind-rich counties are concerned about their ability to address existing or anticipated proposals from wind energy developers interested in installing projects within their jurisdiction. With modern wind turbines standing between 200 and 400 feet tall, wind energy projects can have a major impact on the surrounding area. These wind energy production facilities have the potential of causing a significant negative impact on the scenic and historic character of our highways and byways."
Sen. David Valesky said he hasn't heard much support for the bill around the Capitol.
While it wouldn't affect the Munnsville Wind Project under construction, it could delay other proposed projects.
"There's another one in the permitting stage that would run down through northwest Stockbridge and northeast Smithfield, that would be stopped in its tracks until 2009," said Jack Miller, Madison County's planning director. That project is being proposed by a company called AES, a global power company with headquarters in Arlington, Va.
He said that Green Power Energy is considering a project in the southern end of Fenner, near the existing one.
According to Miller there have also been discussions between Empire State Wind Energy, of Oneida, and the towns of DeRuyter, Georgetown and possibly Nelson.
"If something were to develop between them, a moratorium would be an obstacle," he said.
While the moratorium doesn't kill the projects entirely, it does put a hold on them and Miller fears that wouldn't be good for the industry.
"It would put a real damper on enthusiasm for developing Upstate New York," he said.
The following justification for the moratorium is given in the bill:
"Although the recent growth of the wind industry is welcomed by many in New York, local authorities and residents in wind-rich counties are concerned about their ability to address existing or anticipated proposals from wind energy developers interested in installing projects within their jurisdiction. With modern wind turbines standing between 200 and 400 feet tall, wind energy projects can have a major impact on the surrounding area. These wind energy production facilities have the potential of causing a significant negative impact on the scenic and historic character of our highways and byways."
Sen. David Valesky said he hasn't heard much support for the bill around the Capitol.
PRESS RELEASE - CONSTITUTON PARTY OF NEW YORK
PRESS RELEASE - CONSTITUTON PARTY OF NEW YORK
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONSTITUTION PARTY ENDORSES REFORM COHOCTON CANDIDATES
Today, the Constitution Party of New York announced its endorsement of the Cohocton Reform ticket: Stoner Clark for Town Justice, Judith Hall for Town Supervisor, Robert Strasburg for Tax Assessor, and Steve Trude and Cesare Taccone for Town Council. Constitution Party chairman Burr Deitz said, "For too long the people of Cohocton have accepted a culture of corruption as the norm. Reform Cohocton will reverse the troubling reality that Cohocton elections have only one name on the ballot."
The Constitution Party is 100% pro life, supports the right to keep and bear arms, and opposes immigration. The platform can be found at:
www.nyconstitutionparty.com.
Submitted by: Mr. Paul Henderson,
Communications Director,
Constitution Party of New York
Contact: (877) 777-2932
vchaircpny@yahoo.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONSTITUTION PARTY ENDORSES REFORM COHOCTON CANDIDATES
Today, the Constitution Party of New York announced its endorsement of the Cohocton Reform ticket: Stoner Clark for Town Justice, Judith Hall for Town Supervisor, Robert Strasburg for Tax Assessor, and Steve Trude and Cesare Taccone for Town Council. Constitution Party chairman Burr Deitz said, "For too long the people of Cohocton have accepted a culture of corruption as the norm. Reform Cohocton will reverse the troubling reality that Cohocton elections have only one name on the ballot."
The Constitution Party is 100% pro life, supports the right to keep and bear arms, and opposes immigration. The platform can be found at:
www.nyconstitutionparty.com.
Submitted by: Mr. Paul Henderson,
Communications Director,
Constitution Party of New York
Contact: (877) 777-2932
vchaircpny@yahoo.com
Legislator proposes Broome wind farms by John Hill
The Southern Tier is not the windiest section of New York state, but one county legislator hopes to get the county into the wind-energy business.
"I think it's feasible for our area to do it," said Legislator Jason Garner, D-Binghamton.
Investors, foreign and domestic, are investing millions of dollars in wind energy-producing developments across New York, said Keith Pitman, CEO and president of the Oneida-based Empire State Wind Energy LLC.
But where other areas of the state are "hotbeds of wind," the Southern Tier's wind resources are more "hit and miss," Pitman said.
"In (Broome) County, your wind resources are not fabulous, so your options are limited," Pitman said.
But Garner said the county isn't looking to attract outside developers to build multi- million-dollar operations and leave with the profits.
Garner said he would like to see the county in charge of its own wind farms, in order to pass energy savings to county residents and business owners. An outside developer could make a larger investment and make more money from a project, he conceded, but the benefit to the county would be smaller.
Pitman, at the invitation of Garner, gave an hour-long presentation on wind- power generation projects Tuesday at a meeting of the Broome County Legislature Economic Development and Planning Committee.
Wind energy-generating projects come with pros and cons. The projects can bring in money via property tax agreements or payments in lieu of taxes, and they can bring large windfalls to land owners who sell developers land rights to build the large wind-gathering structures, Pitman said.
Wind farms have been opposed in some communities because the 300- or 400-foot tall windmill-like structures needed to collect the energy are considered unsightly by some people; they create noise; and birds and bats can be killed by the large, spinning blades, Pitman said.
Action on any kind of wind farm won't happen until at least next year, Garner said.
"I think it's feasible for our area to do it," said Legislator Jason Garner, D-Binghamton.
Investors, foreign and domestic, are investing millions of dollars in wind energy-producing developments across New York, said Keith Pitman, CEO and president of the Oneida-based Empire State Wind Energy LLC.
But where other areas of the state are "hotbeds of wind," the Southern Tier's wind resources are more "hit and miss," Pitman said.
"In (Broome) County, your wind resources are not fabulous, so your options are limited," Pitman said.
But Garner said the county isn't looking to attract outside developers to build multi- million-dollar operations and leave with the profits.
Garner said he would like to see the county in charge of its own wind farms, in order to pass energy savings to county residents and business owners. An outside developer could make a larger investment and make more money from a project, he conceded, but the benefit to the county would be smaller.
Pitman, at the invitation of Garner, gave an hour-long presentation on wind- power generation projects Tuesday at a meeting of the Broome County Legislature Economic Development and Planning Committee.
Wind energy-generating projects come with pros and cons. The projects can bring in money via property tax agreements or payments in lieu of taxes, and they can bring large windfalls to land owners who sell developers land rights to build the large wind-gathering structures, Pitman said.
Wind farms have been opposed in some communities because the 300- or 400-foot tall windmill-like structures needed to collect the energy are considered unsightly by some people; they create noise; and birds and bats can be killed by the large, spinning blades, Pitman said.
Action on any kind of wind farm won't happen until at least next year, Garner said.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Turbines to close to Wheaton Family Cemetery
I'm writing this letter to all Cohocton residents and anyone that is related to the Wheaton's.
The Wheaton Cemetery on Lent Hill may be invaded by Turbines that UPC wants to put around it. These turbines, will not be at that 1500' setback for a public use area.
#18 will be about 1200', #19 will be about 800', and #20 will be about 1300-1400'.
These distances are according to Rick Towner. UPC is not following Local Law #2 that was passed. People should beable to go to a cemetery without having to worry about there safety. These distances are unacceptable.
This cemetery is a part of my families history and anyone else that is related to the Wheaton's. This is a sacred place and should not be disrupted or invaded by these turbines. Even the access road will be unsafe.
What is wrong with you UPC people? Have you no sense of responsibility?
Why would you even think of putting people in danger?
My name is Charlene(Klug) Fairbrother. If anyone wants more information on this you may contact me at home (384-5063) or by email Char5352@yahoo.com
Please understand that UPC and its employees at the office in Cohocton are not telling anyone the truth, that is the whole truth, about these turbines.
Charlene Fairbrother
The Wheaton Cemetery on Lent Hill may be invaded by Turbines that UPC wants to put around it. These turbines, will not be at that 1500' setback for a public use area.
#18 will be about 1200', #19 will be about 800', and #20 will be about 1300-1400'.
These distances are according to Rick Towner. UPC is not following Local Law #2 that was passed. People should beable to go to a cemetery without having to worry about there safety. These distances are unacceptable.
This cemetery is a part of my families history and anyone else that is related to the Wheaton's. This is a sacred place and should not be disrupted or invaded by these turbines. Even the access road will be unsafe.
What is wrong with you UPC people? Have you no sense of responsibility?
Why would you even think of putting people in danger?
My name is Charlene(Klug) Fairbrother. If anyone wants more information on this you may contact me at home (384-5063) or by email Char5352@yahoo.com
Please understand that UPC and its employees at the office in Cohocton are not telling anyone the truth, that is the whole truth, about these turbines.
Charlene Fairbrother
Agency kicks back Sevenmile wind plan
An application to site a 40-tower, 60-megawatt wind farm on Sevenmile Hill, west of The Dalles, was deemed incomplete last week by the Oregon Department of Energy (ODE) and returned to its authors with a request for supplemental information in key areas of concern.
In a letter mailed June 7, ODE informed UPC Wind Development, LLC, the company behind the proposed Cascade Wind Project, that it had until June 20 to submit a date by which a complete application would be submitted.
According to ODE’s Adam Bless, “no one has ever submitted a complete application on the first try,” so this wrinkle doesn’t come as a great shock to those close to the process.
“What it says is that there’s a process and that we’re able to be part of the process,” said Scott Hege, who has actively opposed the project as a member of both Families for Sevenmile and Alliance for Smart Wind Development.
In its letter, ODE listed a large number of comments and qusetions that need to be addressed in a supplement to the approximately 1,000 page application.
“This is very typical for an energy facility siting application,” said UPC’s Krista Kisch.
Bless said that in the application comment period, which officially ended May 25, the department received approximately 100 letters regarding the Cascade Wind Project. Of those, Bless estimated that a mere three were in support of the proposed wind farm.
Concern over what roads would be used to transport the wind turbines and equipment was one of myriad issues identified by Bless. He also said that the application did not do an acceptable job of addressing the concerns of locals in the areas of noise — and the resulting health effects — or of the impact on wildlife.
Among the letters received by the department, Bless said many came from both the federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, testifying to the negative impact such a large-scale project could have on local biology.
Some comments, according to Bless, questioned the validity of UPC’s noise analysis at the proposed site, and asked if it properly took into account the unique, uneven and rocky terrain of the land.
The application “didn’t fully describe what the visual impact on the national scenic area would be,” according to Bless, who said the letter also asked UPC for more detail in that area.
“The next step is for UPC to figure out how long it would really take them to provide an adequate application supplement,” Bless said.
Kisch said UPC has been collecting feelings from the public since it began exploring the possibility of siting the wind farm on Sevenmile.
“We had a pretty good idea of what we were going to need to work on and now we have it officially,” she said.
An actual deadline was not imposed, according to Bless, because he’s “never been in the applicant’s shoes” and doesn’t know how long the process will take UPC.
The fact that the company will now have to enter phase two of drafting its application is not an indictment against the quality of the application, according to Bless.
“In terms of this application compared to other applications, I’d say they actually did a better than average job,” Bless said. “For a less controversial site, this application did a very good job.”
However, Cascade Winds is very controversial and thus must be approached with greater scrutiny. Bless said that the average proposal generates just a handful of comments. He cited the Golden Hills project in Sherman County as one that received only a few comments, all positive.
“I think it’s a pretty clear message,” Hege said, “that there’s a lot of concerns about this.
A copy of the letter ODE sent to UPC was not immediately available, but the department said it would be posted on its Web site sometime this week.
In a letter mailed June 7, ODE informed UPC Wind Development, LLC, the company behind the proposed Cascade Wind Project, that it had until June 20 to submit a date by which a complete application would be submitted.
According to ODE’s Adam Bless, “no one has ever submitted a complete application on the first try,” so this wrinkle doesn’t come as a great shock to those close to the process.
“What it says is that there’s a process and that we’re able to be part of the process,” said Scott Hege, who has actively opposed the project as a member of both Families for Sevenmile and Alliance for Smart Wind Development.
In its letter, ODE listed a large number of comments and qusetions that need to be addressed in a supplement to the approximately 1,000 page application.
“This is very typical for an energy facility siting application,” said UPC’s Krista Kisch.
Bless said that in the application comment period, which officially ended May 25, the department received approximately 100 letters regarding the Cascade Wind Project. Of those, Bless estimated that a mere three were in support of the proposed wind farm.
Concern over what roads would be used to transport the wind turbines and equipment was one of myriad issues identified by Bless. He also said that the application did not do an acceptable job of addressing the concerns of locals in the areas of noise — and the resulting health effects — or of the impact on wildlife.
Among the letters received by the department, Bless said many came from both the federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, testifying to the negative impact such a large-scale project could have on local biology.
Some comments, according to Bless, questioned the validity of UPC’s noise analysis at the proposed site, and asked if it properly took into account the unique, uneven and rocky terrain of the land.
The application “didn’t fully describe what the visual impact on the national scenic area would be,” according to Bless, who said the letter also asked UPC for more detail in that area.
“The next step is for UPC to figure out how long it would really take them to provide an adequate application supplement,” Bless said.
Kisch said UPC has been collecting feelings from the public since it began exploring the possibility of siting the wind farm on Sevenmile.
“We had a pretty good idea of what we were going to need to work on and now we have it officially,” she said.
An actual deadline was not imposed, according to Bless, because he’s “never been in the applicant’s shoes” and doesn’t know how long the process will take UPC.
The fact that the company will now have to enter phase two of drafting its application is not an indictment against the quality of the application, according to Bless.
“In terms of this application compared to other applications, I’d say they actually did a better than average job,” Bless said. “For a less controversial site, this application did a very good job.”
However, Cascade Winds is very controversial and thus must be approached with greater scrutiny. Bless said that the average proposal generates just a handful of comments. He cited the Golden Hills project in Sherman County as one that received only a few comments, all positive.
“I think it’s a pretty clear message,” Hege said, “that there’s a lot of concerns about this.
A copy of the letter ODE sent to UPC was not immediately available, but the department said it would be posted on its Web site sometime this week.
A Critical Evaluation of the Energy Plans and Actions Announced in April 2007
1%20Critical%20Evalutation%20of%20New%20York%20Energy%20Plans%20061207.pdf
Executive Summary - June 12, 2007
Recent energy policy announcements by the Governor of New York, the President of NYSERDA,1 and the Chairwoman of the NY State Public Service Commission must leave many people in New York – especially in Upstate and Western New York -- wondering what their elected and appointed leaders in Albany have against them.
New York’s Independent System Operator (NYISO), which manages the wholesale electric grid in NY and works to assure that electric service will be reliable, has concluded that New York will require additional generating capacity as electricity demand grows.
The Governor’s focus on the challenge of providing adequate electricity for New York may be a good sign, but the steps that he and other State officials announced in April are unlikely to achieve the goals he announced. Some of those steps would not be in the best interest of the people of New York -- particularly its electric customers and taxpayers, or homeowners in many rural areas and others who enjoy the state’s scenic areas. The claims of economic benefits and additional jobs, apparently assembled for the Governor by state officials, are not credible.
The costly proposals by the Governor, NYSERDA and NYSPSC to force greater use of “wind energy” are particularly puzzling. The state officials appear to be unaware of facts about wind energy that have been uncovered during the past two years – facts that contradict claims made by the wind industry and other wind advocates. For example, the officials seem unaware or unconcerned that:
• Huge wind turbines (35+ stories tall) produce very little electricity -- which electricity is low in quality and value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable and unlikely to be available when most needed.
• Wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce electricity at times of peak electricity demand (late summer afternoons on hot weekdays in July and August), and will not replace the need for the electric industry to add reliable electric generating capacity to supply increasing electric demand or replace aging generating plants.
• Huge tax breaks and subsidies for “wind farm” owners – not environmental and energy benefits – are the primary reasons that companies are eager to build wind farms.
• Wind energy advocates have greatly overstated environmental and economic benefits of wind energy and greatly understated adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, property value and human impacts.
In fact, policies and programs announced by the state officials would result in:
• Transferring nearly $ 1.3 billion additional dollars from the pockets of ordinary electric customers and taxpayers to pockets of large “wind farm” owning companies, particularly 2 Noble Environmental Power (majority owned by JP Morgan Partners, LLC), Massachusetts -based UPC Wind, and Community Energy, Inc. (wholly owned by Iberdola of Spain).
• Spending billions of capital investment dollars on energy projects that produce little electricity when needed and have little favorable local economic impact.
• Undermining the property values, peace and tranquility of thousands of families in rural New York who would be forced to live in the shadows of hundreds of huge, noisy wind turbines, and destroy some of New York’s beautiful scenery.
New York already has some of the nation’s highest tax burdens and, except for Hawaii, the highest residential electricity prices. The steps announced by the Governor, NYSERDA and NYSPSC are likely to make the situation worse.
This brief paper reviews and evaluates key aspects of energy policies and plans announced by New York State officials, and contrasts their electricity plans with those of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) which is responsible for the reliability of New York’s electricity grid. Both sets of plans have major implications for the people of New York.
Executive Summary - June 12, 2007
Recent energy policy announcements by the Governor of New York, the President of NYSERDA,1 and the Chairwoman of the NY State Public Service Commission must leave many people in New York – especially in Upstate and Western New York -- wondering what their elected and appointed leaders in Albany have against them.
New York’s Independent System Operator (NYISO), which manages the wholesale electric grid in NY and works to assure that electric service will be reliable, has concluded that New York will require additional generating capacity as electricity demand grows.
The Governor’s focus on the challenge of providing adequate electricity for New York may be a good sign, but the steps that he and other State officials announced in April are unlikely to achieve the goals he announced. Some of those steps would not be in the best interest of the people of New York -- particularly its electric customers and taxpayers, or homeowners in many rural areas and others who enjoy the state’s scenic areas. The claims of economic benefits and additional jobs, apparently assembled for the Governor by state officials, are not credible.
The costly proposals by the Governor, NYSERDA and NYSPSC to force greater use of “wind energy” are particularly puzzling. The state officials appear to be unaware of facts about wind energy that have been uncovered during the past two years – facts that contradict claims made by the wind industry and other wind advocates. For example, the officials seem unaware or unconcerned that:
• Huge wind turbines (35+ stories tall) produce very little electricity -- which electricity is low in quality and value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable and unlikely to be available when most needed.
• Wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce electricity at times of peak electricity demand (late summer afternoons on hot weekdays in July and August), and will not replace the need for the electric industry to add reliable electric generating capacity to supply increasing electric demand or replace aging generating plants.
• Huge tax breaks and subsidies for “wind farm” owners – not environmental and energy benefits – are the primary reasons that companies are eager to build wind farms.
• Wind energy advocates have greatly overstated environmental and economic benefits of wind energy and greatly understated adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, property value and human impacts.
In fact, policies and programs announced by the state officials would result in:
• Transferring nearly $ 1.3 billion additional dollars from the pockets of ordinary electric customers and taxpayers to pockets of large “wind farm” owning companies, particularly 2 Noble Environmental Power (majority owned by JP Morgan Partners, LLC), Massachusetts -based UPC Wind, and Community Energy, Inc. (wholly owned by Iberdola of Spain).
• Spending billions of capital investment dollars on energy projects that produce little electricity when needed and have little favorable local economic impact.
• Undermining the property values, peace and tranquility of thousands of families in rural New York who would be forced to live in the shadows of hundreds of huge, noisy wind turbines, and destroy some of New York’s beautiful scenery.
New York already has some of the nation’s highest tax burdens and, except for Hawaii, the highest residential electricity prices. The steps announced by the Governor, NYSERDA and NYSPSC are likely to make the situation worse.
This brief paper reviews and evaluates key aspects of energy policies and plans announced by New York State officials, and contrasts their electricity plans with those of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) which is responsible for the reliability of New York’s electricity grid. Both sets of plans have major implications for the people of New York.
Sierra Club Lobbies Against Legislation That Would Protect Endangered Birds and Bats
Do you know where your money and representation goes when you support a wildlife, environmental or nature organization? If you think it is going to save and protect wildlife you might want to take a second look.
While the Sierra Club asks its members for support to save The Endangered Species Act it is lobbying on the side of the American Wind Energy Association to defeat legislation that would protect endangered birds and bats. Even though thousands of birds, bats, eagles and other endangered species die every year from deadly collisions with wind turbines.
According to the Sierra Club's website:
"The Endangered Species Act is one of America's most effective tools for safeguarding our fish and wildlife heritage."
(Click to read entire article)
While the Sierra Club asks its members for support to save The Endangered Species Act it is lobbying on the side of the American Wind Energy Association to defeat legislation that would protect endangered birds and bats. Even though thousands of birds, bats, eagles and other endangered species die every year from deadly collisions with wind turbines.
According to the Sierra Club's website:
"The Endangered Species Act is one of America's most effective tools for safeguarding our fish and wildlife heritage."
(Click to read entire article)
Offshore wind farm project canceled
South Texas venture that would have been largest in U.S. wasn't economically viable, developer says.
Plans to build what would have been the nation's largest offshore wind farm in South Texas have been called off because the multibillion-dollar project didn't make economic sense, the developer said Monday.
John Calaway, chief development officer for Babcock & Brown Ltd., an Australian investment bank, said the company notified the state a month ago that it was giving up its 30-year lease on nearly 40,000 acres in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Padre Island.
Calaway was chief executive of Houston-based Superior Renewable Energy when the agreement was announced 14 months ago. Superior was acquired by Babcock & Brown last summer.
"We just don't see the economics working offshore in Texas," Calaway said, noting the project cost would have been "in the billions."
He said East Coast offshore wind farms, such as a proposed project off the coast of Massachusetts, are more logical and potentially viable because of land constraints and higher energy prices in the region.
The now-defunct Texas project called for construction of about 170 turbines, each 400 feet high, with the capacity to generate 500 megawatts of energy — enough to power about 125,000 homes.
Babcock is moving on with an onshore wind farm in South Texas' Kenedy County, a $700 million-plus venture that calls for 157 turbines on thousands of acres, Calaway said. He said the expense of building an offshore farm can be more than double the cost of one on land.
The Kenedy County wind farm, which is scheduled to begin spinning late next year, has been criticized by some conservationists because of its potential to kill migrating birds and harm the pristine nature of the area, which is popular for hunting and fishing.
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said he was disappointed to see Babcock drop the project, but he was confident another developer would be found because of the ideal location and the ease of doing business with only one land owner — the State of Texas.
Patterson said he spoke to a few potential suitors at a wind conference last week in Los Angeles, companies that have built offshore wind projects overseas.
"They want to do a little more due diligence," he said.
Land Office spokesman Jim Suydam said the offshore lease had called for an annual payment of $80,000 plus a percentage of production that could have generated $34 million to $100 million for public schools.
The state also has leased 11,355 acres off the coast of Galveston to a Louisiana company building a smaller farm. That venture, with 50 turbines, could be operating in the next few years, Patterson's office said.
Plans to build what would have been the nation's largest offshore wind farm in South Texas have been called off because the multibillion-dollar project didn't make economic sense, the developer said Monday.
John Calaway, chief development officer for Babcock & Brown Ltd., an Australian investment bank, said the company notified the state a month ago that it was giving up its 30-year lease on nearly 40,000 acres in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Padre Island.
Calaway was chief executive of Houston-based Superior Renewable Energy when the agreement was announced 14 months ago. Superior was acquired by Babcock & Brown last summer.
"We just don't see the economics working offshore in Texas," Calaway said, noting the project cost would have been "in the billions."
He said East Coast offshore wind farms, such as a proposed project off the coast of Massachusetts, are more logical and potentially viable because of land constraints and higher energy prices in the region.
The now-defunct Texas project called for construction of about 170 turbines, each 400 feet high, with the capacity to generate 500 megawatts of energy — enough to power about 125,000 homes.
Babcock is moving on with an onshore wind farm in South Texas' Kenedy County, a $700 million-plus venture that calls for 157 turbines on thousands of acres, Calaway said. He said the expense of building an offshore farm can be more than double the cost of one on land.
The Kenedy County wind farm, which is scheduled to begin spinning late next year, has been criticized by some conservationists because of its potential to kill migrating birds and harm the pristine nature of the area, which is popular for hunting and fishing.
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said he was disappointed to see Babcock drop the project, but he was confident another developer would be found because of the ideal location and the ease of doing business with only one land owner — the State of Texas.
Patterson said he spoke to a few potential suitors at a wind conference last week in Los Angeles, companies that have built offshore wind projects overseas.
"They want to do a little more due diligence," he said.
Land Office spokesman Jim Suydam said the offshore lease had called for an annual payment of $80,000 plus a percentage of production that could have generated $34 million to $100 million for public schools.
The state also has leased 11,355 acres off the coast of Galveston to a Louisiana company building a smaller farm. That venture, with 50 turbines, could be operating in the next few years, Patterson's office said.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Wind turbines appear to cause Vibro-Acoustic Disease (VAD), say Portuguese scientists
… in a press release 5-31-07 from the Vibro-Acoustic Disease (VAD) research group in Portugal, people living in the shadow of industrial wind turbines have moved a step closer to understanding the nature of the Wind Turbine Syndrome many of them experience and complain about.
Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira (an acoustical engineer) and Dr. Nuno Castelo Branco (a surgical pathologist) recently took numerous fine-grained noise/vibration measurements within a Portuguese home surrounded by four (4) industrial wind turbines. The closest turbine being nearly 1000 feet (300 meters), almost a fifth of a mile, from the affected home. (The turbines have been operating since November 2006.)
Alves-Pereira and Branco then matched these in-the-home (actually, in the bedroom of a 9-year-old child with obvious Wind Turbine Syndrome symptoms) Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise (ILFN) readings to ILFN readings taken within a home near Lisbon, Portugal, where a family of four is definitively suffering from Vibro-Acoustic Disease caused by a nearby deep-water grain elevator (where freighters off-load their grain). (The readings in this second home were taken in the bedroom of a 10-year-old child with demonstrated VAD, again from the deep-water grain elevator about a mile away across the Tagus River.) Incidentally, VAD is conclusively demonstrated by echocardiograms (checking for thickened pericardium and valves not related to any inflammatory process), bronchoscopy (looking for a characteristic “pink lesion”), pulmonary function tests (especially the PCO2 test, which is abnormal in all VAD patients), brain MRI’s and brain wave studies (brainstem auditory evoked potentials and the P300), and, when possible, postmortem tissue pathology and animal experimentation. VAD, in other words, produces a distinctive pathological fingerprint (click on http://www.ninapierpont.com/pdf/Branco_&_Alves-Pereira,_Vibroacoustic_Disease.pdf).
Their results stunned them: the ILFN readings in the bedroom of the 9-year-old with obvious Wind Turbine Syndrome symptoms are actually higher than ILFN readings in the bedroom of the 10-year-old with demonstrated VAD caused by the nearby grain elevator. Alves-Pereira and Branco published a case study of the 10-year-old and his family in the Proceedings of Internoise 2004 (click on http://www.ninapierpont.com/pdf/Alves-Pereira_grain_elevator_VAD.pdf).
Their conclusion?
These results irrefutably demonstrate that wind turbines in the proximity of residential areas produce acoustical environments that can lead to the development of VAD in nearby home-dwellers.
I have attached a copy of the press release. You are welcome to circulate this at will, and to post it on websites. Nina & I urge you to bring this to the attention of news media and government officials. The VAD research team can be contacted at vibroacoustic.disease@gmail.com
The credentials of Alves-Pereira and Branco?
Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira
School of Health Sciences (ERISA)
Lusofona University
Portugal
and/
Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering
New University of Lisbon
Portugal
Nuno Castelo Branco, MD
Surgical Pathologist
President, Scientific Board
Center for Human Performance (CPH)
The Center for Human Performance is a civilian, non-profit organization dedicated to research in vibro-acoustic disease. CPH was founded in 1992 and has been the organization which coordinates all the different teams that work on vibro-acoustic disease research, and that include (in Portugal) the cardiology and pulmonary departments of the Cascais Hospital, the neurophysiology department of the National Institute of Cancer, the department of human genetics of the National Institute of Public Health, the department of speech pathology of the School of Health Sciences of the Polytechnical Institute of Setúbal, among several others over the past 25 years.
All of this information is currently posted on Nina Pierpont’s website: www.ninapierpont.com > Wind energy > Articles by other authors. Scroll down to close to the bottom. On the website, Nina has given a short introduction and comment to VAD and Wind Turbine Syndrome, which I have copied and pasted immediately below this note.
Calvin Luther Martin, PhD
www.calvinluthermartin.com
Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira (an acoustical engineer) and Dr. Nuno Castelo Branco (a surgical pathologist) recently took numerous fine-grained noise/vibration measurements within a Portuguese home surrounded by four (4) industrial wind turbines. The closest turbine being nearly 1000 feet (300 meters), almost a fifth of a mile, from the affected home. (The turbines have been operating since November 2006.)
Alves-Pereira and Branco then matched these in-the-home (actually, in the bedroom of a 9-year-old child with obvious Wind Turbine Syndrome symptoms) Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise (ILFN) readings to ILFN readings taken within a home near Lisbon, Portugal, where a family of four is definitively suffering from Vibro-Acoustic Disease caused by a nearby deep-water grain elevator (where freighters off-load their grain). (The readings in this second home were taken in the bedroom of a 10-year-old child with demonstrated VAD, again from the deep-water grain elevator about a mile away across the Tagus River.) Incidentally, VAD is conclusively demonstrated by echocardiograms (checking for thickened pericardium and valves not related to any inflammatory process), bronchoscopy (looking for a characteristic “pink lesion”), pulmonary function tests (especially the PCO2 test, which is abnormal in all VAD patients), brain MRI’s and brain wave studies (brainstem auditory evoked potentials and the P300), and, when possible, postmortem tissue pathology and animal experimentation. VAD, in other words, produces a distinctive pathological fingerprint (click on http://www.ninapierpont.com/pdf/Branco_&_Alves-Pereira,_Vibroacoustic_Disease.pdf).
Their results stunned them: the ILFN readings in the bedroom of the 9-year-old with obvious Wind Turbine Syndrome symptoms are actually higher than ILFN readings in the bedroom of the 10-year-old with demonstrated VAD caused by the nearby grain elevator. Alves-Pereira and Branco published a case study of the 10-year-old and his family in the Proceedings of Internoise 2004 (click on http://www.ninapierpont.com/pdf/Alves-Pereira_grain_elevator_VAD.pdf).
Their conclusion?
These results irrefutably demonstrate that wind turbines in the proximity of residential areas produce acoustical environments that can lead to the development of VAD in nearby home-dwellers.
I have attached a copy of the press release. You are welcome to circulate this at will, and to post it on websites. Nina & I urge you to bring this to the attention of news media and government officials. The VAD research team can be contacted at vibroacoustic.disease@gmail.com
The credentials of Alves-Pereira and Branco?
Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira
School of Health Sciences (ERISA)
Lusofona University
Portugal
and/
Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering
New University of Lisbon
Portugal
Nuno Castelo Branco, MD
Surgical Pathologist
President, Scientific Board
Center for Human Performance (CPH)
The Center for Human Performance is a civilian, non-profit organization dedicated to research in vibro-acoustic disease. CPH was founded in 1992 and has been the organization which coordinates all the different teams that work on vibro-acoustic disease research, and that include (in Portugal) the cardiology and pulmonary departments of the Cascais Hospital, the neurophysiology department of the National Institute of Cancer, the department of human genetics of the National Institute of Public Health, the department of speech pathology of the School of Health Sciences of the Polytechnical Institute of Setúbal, among several others over the past 25 years.
All of this information is currently posted on Nina Pierpont’s website: www.ninapierpont.com > Wind energy > Articles by other authors. Scroll down to close to the bottom. On the website, Nina has given a short introduction and comment to VAD and Wind Turbine Syndrome, which I have copied and pasted immediately below this note.
Calvin Luther Martin, PhD
www.calvinluthermartin.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)