June 25 (Bloomberg) -- Iberdrola SA, the Spanish power company that acquired Scottish Power Plc earlier this year, agreed to buy Energy East Corp. for $4.5 billion, fulfilling its ambition of gaining a foothold in the U.S. utility industry to supplement its growing wind-power business.
Energy East shareholders will receive $28.50 in cash per share, the companies said today in a joint statement. That's 26 percent more than the $22.54 closing price in New York today for Portland, Maine-based Energy East.
Iberdrola, based in Bilboa, Spain, has sought more assets in the U.S. and investments in renewable energy since its 12 billion pound ($24 billion) purchase of Scottish Power in April. European utilities are expanding overseas because of increasing competition in their home markets, said Amin Bishara, global sector leader for utilities at consultant Capgemini in Dallas.
``Energy East is in a good geographic location and can help Iberdrola establish a foundation to grow further in the U.S.,'' Bishara said. ``The next wave'' of acquisitions in the utility industry ``is going to be the big European companies buying assets in the U.S.,'' he said.
Other European utilities that have expanded in the U.S. through acquisitions include National Grid Plc of the U.K., which owns utilities in New York and Massachusetts and is working on a $7.3 billion takeover of Brooklyn-based KeySpan Corp., the largest natural-gas distributor in the Northeast.
Buying Energy East ``will serve to enhance the international expansion we initiated several years ago in markets with stable growth,'' Iberdrola Chief Executive Officer Ignacio Galan said in the statement.
Energy East has 2.9 million customers and owns U.S. Northeast utilities including New York State Electric & Gas, Central Maine Power and Rochester Gas & Electric.
Tax Incentives
Iberdrola, the biggest producer of electricity from windmills, also said the acquisition will help the company reap tax savings tied to U.S. government incentives for wind power. The company had 4,500 megawatts of wind power at the end of the first quarter and its purchase of Scottish Power made it the second-largest wind-power producer in the U.S.
``Iberdrola has really made known its intention to diversify into the United States,'' said Carl Seligson, a senior vice president with consultant Nyack Management Co. in New York.
Iberdrola, which also owns power plants in Brazil and Mexico, has been buying U.S. wind-power developers. The company in April agreed to purchase Maryland-based CPV Wind Ventures LLC and said it would invest 1.5 billion euros ($2 billion) to develop wind energy in the U.S.
Environmentally Friendly
State governments in the U.S. are requiring utilities to buy more environmentally friendly energy such as wind power to curb pollution and reduce reliance on fossil fuels such as gas and oil. The U.S. Congress debated mandating that 15 percent of the nation's electricity come from renewable sources by 2020 before dropping the measure last week.
Wind-power developers in the U.S. added facilities that can generate more than 2,400 megawatts last year, bringing total wind capacity in the nation to more than 11,600 megawatts, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
Iberdrola's Scottish Power acquisition added about 5.2 million customers and 6,200 megawatts of power-generation capacity in Britain, including two wind-turbine farms.
Energy East's utilities primarily distribute and transmit electricity and transport, store and distribute natural gas. The company owns hydroelectric generating plants, natural-gas fired plants and one coal generator with a combined capacity of 555 megawatts, according to its most recent annual report.
Energy East also owns the Seneca Lake Natural Gas Storage Facility, which can hold 1.4 billion cubic feet of gas.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Greenhill & Co. were advisers to Energy East.
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Chang in San Francisco at gchang1@bloomberg.net
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Mars Hill wind project sound level study
Summary:
In response to noise complaints at the Mars Hill wind facility, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requested developer UPC Wind Management LLC conduct a sound level study at the site. Here is the cover letter and document ("Sound Level Study - Ambient & Operations Sound Level Monitoring") submitted by UPC to the Maine DEP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download File(s):
UPC Letter to MEDEP Filing RSE Re Sound 06 21 07.pdf (130.73 kB)
Mars Hill Sound Study w Appendices.pdf (4.86 MB)
In response to noise complaints at the Mars Hill wind facility, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requested developer UPC Wind Management LLC conduct a sound level study at the site. Here is the cover letter and document ("Sound Level Study - Ambient & Operations Sound Level Monitoring") submitted by UPC to the Maine DEP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download File(s):
UPC Letter to MEDEP Filing RSE Re Sound 06 21 07.pdf (130.73 kB)
Mars Hill Sound Study w Appendices.pdf (4.86 MB)
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Open Letter by Latisha Snyder
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Latisha Snyder, and I would like to voice my opinion about these turbines.
To put these in, you have to destroy the very same land you believe you are preserving.
You would be killing the wildlife, trees, and the land itself. Plants and animals need certain kinds of environments, such as forests or wetlands. You would be changing their environment, and changing the environment may also harm the quality of our own lives. These will not benefit me, or my future! DO THE RESEARCH!!!!
You people have no right to take what belongs to the wildlife, nor do you have the right to take our freedom of speech away from us!!! The Board members believe that they and their followers have every right to voice their opinions, but when it comes to us who do not want the turbines, you tell us to GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE; which you have no right to do.
I am only eighteen years old, but I thought if you got my opinion you might change your minds and dig a little deeper into more research. If it doesn't, maybe you're the ones that should GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank You,
Latisha Snyder
My name is Latisha Snyder, and I would like to voice my opinion about these turbines.
To put these in, you have to destroy the very same land you believe you are preserving.
You would be killing the wildlife, trees, and the land itself. Plants and animals need certain kinds of environments, such as forests or wetlands. You would be changing their environment, and changing the environment may also harm the quality of our own lives. These will not benefit me, or my future! DO THE RESEARCH!!!!
You people have no right to take what belongs to the wildlife, nor do you have the right to take our freedom of speech away from us!!! The Board members believe that they and their followers have every right to voice their opinions, but when it comes to us who do not want the turbines, you tell us to GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE; which you have no right to do.
I am only eighteen years old, but I thought if you got my opinion you might change your minds and dig a little deeper into more research. If it doesn't, maybe you're the ones that should GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank You,
Latisha Snyder
Industrial Wind Turbine will destroy Cohocton - Tiffany M. Washburn (Weber)
Over the last few months, I have heard more and more about the proposals for the Wind Farms in Cohocton. I spent 20 years of my life in this sleepy little town, and I wouldn't change it for anything! Especially not something that is going to be unsafe for the environment and the people. The moment that a question could not be answered, is the moment that the whole thing should have been thrown away.
When I heard about the Wind Farm proposal and UPC Wind, I asked myself numerous questions:
What will it take to build these wind turbines? It will take 10-30+ acres of land, and over $2 million per wind turbine. Not to mention the destruction of the roads and land to transport them to their respective construction site.
Who is going to pay to fix the roads after UPC Wind comes in here and tears them up to get their monstrous machines onto our hills? WE are going to pay as taxpayers. We are the ones that pay to make sure our roads are kept in good shape.
Where will they get the materials to widen and construct new roadways? According to websites from around the world...they make "borrow pits" and hope that the surrounding towns do not notice them blasting apart land. They don't buy the materials locally they make or acquire them locally!
Who is going to benefit from these Turbines? UPC Wind and NEW YORK CITY! Our electricity isn't going to get cheaper, because all of this "Saved wind Energy" is going to the New York City grid!
How much more in taxes will each resident of Cohocton have to pay? No one really knows. Supposedly, UPC wind will be paying taxes to our towns for using our land. It seems that the only money they will be paying is the ridiculously minute amount that the lease holders will receive.
Will this impact the environment? I read an article on a hydraulic failure on a 1.5 MW turbine. It dumped 160 gallons of hydraulic fluid into the ground which seeped into the drinking water for a local town. Another article I read mentioned that the wind turbines had killed over 700 bats within a period of 6 weeks. I've also seen pictures of birds and owls that have been murdered by the turbine blades.
What kind of damages can these Turbines cause? Besides the mechanical failures that can cause hydraulic fluid to leak, many reports have been made that these turbines can malfunction and spin out of control, throwing debris over 250 meters. If they catch on fire, nothing can be done accept watch and hope that all of the surrounding land doesn’t catch on fire. They fling large chunks of ice which can be deadly projectiles. Lighting strikes cause pieces to fly off and be thrown, need I say more?
What about the shadow effect from these Turbines? If you know someone who is epileptic, you know exactly what I'm talking about! The shadow effect or "strobe" effect from these turbines can cause an epileptic to go into a seizure.
How loud are they? Apparently, they are as loud and an idling jet engine at 750ft away. Add a little bit of humidity and some wind that blows towards town and it amplifies that noise a great deal.
And now I ask...What exactly does UPC stand for? It's amazing, that when a close friend of mine asked what UPC stood for, the person they asked who works for this company couldn't even give them an answer.
I'm pretty sure by now, you get my point! There is nothing I can say or research that would benefit our small town of about 1,000 people. It will benefit certain people, who sign over their land to build these wind farms, by giving these people a small amount of money, compared to the millions that this power company will make from the energy they will generate.
Many landowners are going to lose land. Surrounding land owners are going to lose building privileges. Farmers are going to lose rich farming soil, their land, and possibly lose buildings and livestock due to damage caused by these Turbines.
People on Brown Hill, Dutch Hill, Lent Hill, Pine Hill....the damage that these Turbines can cause, can be devastating. I've seen reports and pictures of ice and debris flying over 250 meters penetrating buildings, entire turbines collapsing, catching on fire. Have you seen what lightning does to a tree or a house? Picture lighting hitting a 500 foot Wind Turbine!
The transport of these enormous monstrosities can cause fatal accidents. A crane has already tipped over at Foster Wheeler while unloading a Turbine base. What would have happened if someone had gotten killed or injured from this? Would it make people think twice about being for or against this proposal? I'm not sure!
I wonder every day if these lease holders, town seats, and power companies realize the impacts that this proposal will have upon this town and the amazing people that live in it. This proposal, in my opinion, is in no way a positive one for this town.
I have served this country for the past four years and the words and actions expressed by our community leaders have angered me. Daily, we have many men and women fighting and dying to protect the rights that we have come to know, that many have taken for granted. The property rights that are in danger of being violently stripped away from so many of our community’s land owners is unbelievable. Why is it that many feel they can just take away those rights?
For those of you who are for this, I pray for you and every other person who will have to suffer from the end result. And for those that are against it, I stand behind you all 110%. I hope that in some way this may change the minds of those who are blind to the consequences, and also change the minds of those who are full of greed. There is no amount of money in the world, worth the well-being of our community.
I have included references from some of the sites I have personally researched. If you are one that is against this proposal then you have done your research and are possibly aware of some of the things that I have mentioned. If you are for this proposal, then I hope that you will consider doing more research into the “cons”, rather than ignore them and think of nothing other than the “pros” of this proposal. And, if you don’t care or you’re not sure, then all I can do is hope that you will read this and trust my findings and opinions to help you make your decision.
Tiffany M. Washburn (Weber)
http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/WindTurbineAccidentComp.pdf
http://www.powernaturally.com/Programs/Wind/toolkit/7_visualimpactupfront.pdf
http://www.eswr.com/latest/307/nrcwind.htm
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos
http://www.wind-watch.org/
http://capecodliving.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
These are just a handful of the places that I have gotten my opinions from. What says that some, if not all of these problems will or will not arise in Cohocton?
When I heard about the Wind Farm proposal and UPC Wind, I asked myself numerous questions:
What will it take to build these wind turbines? It will take 10-30+ acres of land, and over $2 million per wind turbine. Not to mention the destruction of the roads and land to transport them to their respective construction site.
Who is going to pay to fix the roads after UPC Wind comes in here and tears them up to get their monstrous machines onto our hills? WE are going to pay as taxpayers. We are the ones that pay to make sure our roads are kept in good shape.
Where will they get the materials to widen and construct new roadways? According to websites from around the world...they make "borrow pits" and hope that the surrounding towns do not notice them blasting apart land. They don't buy the materials locally they make or acquire them locally!
Who is going to benefit from these Turbines? UPC Wind and NEW YORK CITY! Our electricity isn't going to get cheaper, because all of this "Saved wind Energy" is going to the New York City grid!
How much more in taxes will each resident of Cohocton have to pay? No one really knows. Supposedly, UPC wind will be paying taxes to our towns for using our land. It seems that the only money they will be paying is the ridiculously minute amount that the lease holders will receive.
Will this impact the environment? I read an article on a hydraulic failure on a 1.5 MW turbine. It dumped 160 gallons of hydraulic fluid into the ground which seeped into the drinking water for a local town. Another article I read mentioned that the wind turbines had killed over 700 bats within a period of 6 weeks. I've also seen pictures of birds and owls that have been murdered by the turbine blades.
What kind of damages can these Turbines cause? Besides the mechanical failures that can cause hydraulic fluid to leak, many reports have been made that these turbines can malfunction and spin out of control, throwing debris over 250 meters. If they catch on fire, nothing can be done accept watch and hope that all of the surrounding land doesn’t catch on fire. They fling large chunks of ice which can be deadly projectiles. Lighting strikes cause pieces to fly off and be thrown, need I say more?
What about the shadow effect from these Turbines? If you know someone who is epileptic, you know exactly what I'm talking about! The shadow effect or "strobe" effect from these turbines can cause an epileptic to go into a seizure.
How loud are they? Apparently, they are as loud and an idling jet engine at 750ft away. Add a little bit of humidity and some wind that blows towards town and it amplifies that noise a great deal.
And now I ask...What exactly does UPC stand for? It's amazing, that when a close friend of mine asked what UPC stood for, the person they asked who works for this company couldn't even give them an answer.
I'm pretty sure by now, you get my point! There is nothing I can say or research that would benefit our small town of about 1,000 people. It will benefit certain people, who sign over their land to build these wind farms, by giving these people a small amount of money, compared to the millions that this power company will make from the energy they will generate.
Many landowners are going to lose land. Surrounding land owners are going to lose building privileges. Farmers are going to lose rich farming soil, their land, and possibly lose buildings and livestock due to damage caused by these Turbines.
People on Brown Hill, Dutch Hill, Lent Hill, Pine Hill....the damage that these Turbines can cause, can be devastating. I've seen reports and pictures of ice and debris flying over 250 meters penetrating buildings, entire turbines collapsing, catching on fire. Have you seen what lightning does to a tree or a house? Picture lighting hitting a 500 foot Wind Turbine!
The transport of these enormous monstrosities can cause fatal accidents. A crane has already tipped over at Foster Wheeler while unloading a Turbine base. What would have happened if someone had gotten killed or injured from this? Would it make people think twice about being for or against this proposal? I'm not sure!
I wonder every day if these lease holders, town seats, and power companies realize the impacts that this proposal will have upon this town and the amazing people that live in it. This proposal, in my opinion, is in no way a positive one for this town.
I have served this country for the past four years and the words and actions expressed by our community leaders have angered me. Daily, we have many men and women fighting and dying to protect the rights that we have come to know, that many have taken for granted. The property rights that are in danger of being violently stripped away from so many of our community’s land owners is unbelievable. Why is it that many feel they can just take away those rights?
For those of you who are for this, I pray for you and every other person who will have to suffer from the end result. And for those that are against it, I stand behind you all 110%. I hope that in some way this may change the minds of those who are blind to the consequences, and also change the minds of those who are full of greed. There is no amount of money in the world, worth the well-being of our community.
I have included references from some of the sites I have personally researched. If you are one that is against this proposal then you have done your research and are possibly aware of some of the things that I have mentioned. If you are for this proposal, then I hope that you will consider doing more research into the “cons”, rather than ignore them and think of nothing other than the “pros” of this proposal. And, if you don’t care or you’re not sure, then all I can do is hope that you will read this and trust my findings and opinions to help you make your decision.
Tiffany M. Washburn (Weber)
http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/WindTurbineAccidentComp.pdf
http://www.powernaturally.com/Programs/Wind/toolkit/7_visualimpactupfront.pdf
http://www.eswr.com/latest/307/nrcwind.htm
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos
http://www.wind-watch.org/
http://capecodliving.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
These are just a handful of the places that I have gotten my opinions from. What says that some, if not all of these problems will or will not arise in Cohocton?
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Albany power grab?: Local wind projects could be impacted by proposed state energy law; Winner says it would keep towns in the loop, provide ‘one-stop
How much money wind projects blow into local communities is still up in the air - and it could be changing as the state Senate and Assembly work on Article X, a bill to regulate energy production in New York.
State Sen. George Winner, R-Elmira, is part of the conference committee comprised of Senate and Assembly members to come up with a joint bill. He said the two bodies are “very far apart” in terms of coming to terms on a joint offering.
The bulk of the bills deal with natural gas and clean air standards, but wind energy could be impacted as well.
“To the extent that a wind project would exceed - in the Senate bill - a 50-megawatt level,” Winner said, adding the Assembly bill calls for regulations to kick in at the 30-megawatt level. “It would obviously be subject to Article X.”
He said there are lots of issues to consider, and they are still under discussion.
“We're in the process of trying to deal with issues such as how it would impact projects that are already in development, how they would be grandfathered in, if any would be,” Winner said. “We're looking at the impact to local land use planning processes, and how it would affect those.
“We certainly don't want to diminish the municipalities' involvement,” he added. “The whole theory of Article X is to provide a one-stop shopping for the siting of power plants, not to have them subject to lots of varying local rules.”
Winner said municipal officials, as well as wind proponents and opponents have been consulted while developing the proposal. He said the proposal would have municipal officials as mandatory members of siting boards for proposed wind farm projects. He also said he's had conversations with a UPC Wind Management lobbyist in Albany.
“I think their concern is whether they would be grandfathered in if they are a certain ways down the road in developing their projects,” Winner said, adding he feels if a company has already gone through the SEQR process it should be grandfathered. “If they've already gone through that process, I think it's fair that should be the major hurdle for them, rather than having them do it all over again.
“In the proposed Article X, some of what they may have done through SEQR may be, in some instances, more comprehensive than what they would have to do under the proposed siting board,” he added, “but we haven't agreed to any of this yet, it has not been finalized.”
The fact that UPC Wind Management contributed $1,000 to Winner's 2006 campaign has impacted him “not one bit” in his decision making, Winner said. He raised $202,285 in 2006, the top contributor - Friends for Kuhl - giving $6,036.
“If that's where this is going, it's unfortunate,” Winner said after being asked about the contribution. “Some of the proposals we're trying to make sure the municipalities are involved, as well as wind opponents.
“They're the ones that have raised the issues of land use planning, municipal impact fees, requiring assured PILOT agreements and other tax revenues to municipalities,” he added.
The only other wind company proposing a project found to have donated to an election campaign in 2006 was Airtricity - proposing a project for Hartsville and Hornellsville - $1,000 to Eliot Spitzer's campaign for governor.
Winner said the conference committee is trying to figure that out and how municipalities' rights to impact fees could be preserved. He said the new legislation would have no negative impact on Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreements being worked on in local municipalities for wind farms.
“It has not been finalized as to what municipalities would be entitled to in the form of impact fees. Notwithstanding, those can be part of what the company can be offering,” Winner said, “there just hasn't been any discussion about precluding them. Nor has there been discussion about requiring them.”
Winner touted a provision in the legislation that would allow local residents to have a voice through “intervenor funds,” that would be available to groups opposing development, such as Cohocton Wind Watch. Municipalities would be eligible to receive up to 50 percent of the intervenor funds - if they apply for it - under the proposal.
Developers would be required to pay $100,000 to the intervenor fund on its pre-application stage, with ability for another $25,000 to be requested at the pre-application or application stage, Winner said. He said projects that exceed the 80-megawatt level would be required to cough up another $500,000.
“It's not taking public participation away, the whole issue is that participation is being strengthened,” Winner said. “Right now, in municipalities that don't have land use, planning or zoning, they don't have a lot of involvement now. The whole siting process would be much stronger.
“Anyone with concerns would have a major opportunity to make sure they are addressed, whether it be a wind farm, a coal plant or a gas plant,” he added. “If anything, this is strengthening major public participation.”
Winner said there would a host of hearings and notifications, and the ability to use the intervenor funds paid by developers to hire lawyers, experts and others to challenge any aspect of the development.
“Whether it's wind or anything else,” he said.
State Sen. George Winner, R-Elmira, is part of the conference committee comprised of Senate and Assembly members to come up with a joint bill. He said the two bodies are “very far apart” in terms of coming to terms on a joint offering.
The bulk of the bills deal with natural gas and clean air standards, but wind energy could be impacted as well.
“To the extent that a wind project would exceed - in the Senate bill - a 50-megawatt level,” Winner said, adding the Assembly bill calls for regulations to kick in at the 30-megawatt level. “It would obviously be subject to Article X.”
He said there are lots of issues to consider, and they are still under discussion.
“We're in the process of trying to deal with issues such as how it would impact projects that are already in development, how they would be grandfathered in, if any would be,” Winner said. “We're looking at the impact to local land use planning processes, and how it would affect those.
“We certainly don't want to diminish the municipalities' involvement,” he added. “The whole theory of Article X is to provide a one-stop shopping for the siting of power plants, not to have them subject to lots of varying local rules.”
Winner said municipal officials, as well as wind proponents and opponents have been consulted while developing the proposal. He said the proposal would have municipal officials as mandatory members of siting boards for proposed wind farm projects. He also said he's had conversations with a UPC Wind Management lobbyist in Albany.
“I think their concern is whether they would be grandfathered in if they are a certain ways down the road in developing their projects,” Winner said, adding he feels if a company has already gone through the SEQR process it should be grandfathered. “If they've already gone through that process, I think it's fair that should be the major hurdle for them, rather than having them do it all over again.
“In the proposed Article X, some of what they may have done through SEQR may be, in some instances, more comprehensive than what they would have to do under the proposed siting board,” he added, “but we haven't agreed to any of this yet, it has not been finalized.”
The fact that UPC Wind Management contributed $1,000 to Winner's 2006 campaign has impacted him “not one bit” in his decision making, Winner said. He raised $202,285 in 2006, the top contributor - Friends for Kuhl - giving $6,036.
“If that's where this is going, it's unfortunate,” Winner said after being asked about the contribution. “Some of the proposals we're trying to make sure the municipalities are involved, as well as wind opponents.
“They're the ones that have raised the issues of land use planning, municipal impact fees, requiring assured PILOT agreements and other tax revenues to municipalities,” he added.
The only other wind company proposing a project found to have donated to an election campaign in 2006 was Airtricity - proposing a project for Hartsville and Hornellsville - $1,000 to Eliot Spitzer's campaign for governor.
Winner said the conference committee is trying to figure that out and how municipalities' rights to impact fees could be preserved. He said the new legislation would have no negative impact on Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreements being worked on in local municipalities for wind farms.
“It has not been finalized as to what municipalities would be entitled to in the form of impact fees. Notwithstanding, those can be part of what the company can be offering,” Winner said, “there just hasn't been any discussion about precluding them. Nor has there been discussion about requiring them.”
Winner touted a provision in the legislation that would allow local residents to have a voice through “intervenor funds,” that would be available to groups opposing development, such as Cohocton Wind Watch. Municipalities would be eligible to receive up to 50 percent of the intervenor funds - if they apply for it - under the proposal.
Developers would be required to pay $100,000 to the intervenor fund on its pre-application stage, with ability for another $25,000 to be requested at the pre-application or application stage, Winner said. He said projects that exceed the 80-megawatt level would be required to cough up another $500,000.
“It's not taking public participation away, the whole issue is that participation is being strengthened,” Winner said. “Right now, in municipalities that don't have land use, planning or zoning, they don't have a lot of involvement now. The whole siting process would be much stronger.
“Anyone with concerns would have a major opportunity to make sure they are addressed, whether it be a wind farm, a coal plant or a gas plant,” he added. “If anything, this is strengthening major public participation.”
Winner said there would a host of hearings and notifications, and the ability to use the intervenor funds paid by developers to hire lawyers, experts and others to challenge any aspect of the development.
“Whether it's wind or anything else,” he said.
Friday, June 22, 2007
New York Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
(Click on link to visit program information)
See Federal Incentives
See All Summaries
See Homeowner Incentive Summaries Only
Financial Incentives
Corporate Tax Credit
Green Building Tax Credit Program - Corporate
Industry Recruitment
NYSERDA - Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing Incentive Program
NYSERDA - Energy Star Home Builders
Personal Tax Credit
Green Building Tax Credit Program - Personal
Solar and Fuel Cell Tax Credit
Property Tax Exemption
Energy Conservation Improvements Property Exemption
Solar, Wind & Biomass Energy Systems Exemption
Sales Tax Exemption
Solar Sales Tax Exemption
State Grant Program
NYSERDA - Assisted Home Performance Grants
NYSERDA - Assisted Multifamily Program
NYSERDA - EmPower New York
NYSERDA - Renewables R&D Grant Program
State Loan Program
NYSERDA - Energy $mart Loan Fund
NYSERDA - Home Performance with Energy Star - Loan Program
State Rebate Program
NYSERDA - Energy $mart New Construction Program
NYSERDA - Enhanced Commercial/Industrial Performance Program
NYSERDA - On-Site Small Wind Incentive Program
NYSERDA - Peak Load Reduction Program
NYSERDA - PV Incentive Program
NYSERDA - Small Commercial Lighting Incentives Program
Utility Rebate Program
Freeport Electric - Commercial Energy Efficiency Partnership Rebate Program
LIPA - Solar Pioneer Program
Long Island Power Authority - Energy Efficient Commercial Construction Rebate Program
Long Island Power Authority - Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Incentives
U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center
Rules, Regulations & Policies
Appliance/Equipment Efficiency Standards
Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Standards
Building Energy Code
New York Building Energy Codes
Generation Disclosure
Environmental Disclosure Program
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
New York - Renewable Power Procurement Policy
Suffolk County - Green Power Purchasing Policy
Interconnection
Interconnection Standards
Net Metering Rules
New York - Net Metering
Public Benefits Fund
New York Energy $mart Program
Renewables Portfolio Standard
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Solar Access Law/Guideline
Solar Easements
Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Policies
U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center
Related Programs & Initiatives
Green Power Network: Buying Green Power in Your State
The U.S. Department of Energy's Green Power Network provides news and information on green power markets and related activities. This site provides state-by-state information on Green Power Marketing in Competitive Electricity Markets and Utility Green Pricing Programs.
In addition, the site lists marketers of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)(also known as green tags or tradable renewable certificates), which represent the environmental attributes of the power produced from a renewable energy project. Whether or not consumers have access to green power through their local utility or a competitive electricity marketer, consumers can purchase RECs without having to switch electricity suppliers.
Wind Powering America
The U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Powering America site provides state-by-state wind project information, including validated wind maps, anemometer loan programs, small wind guides, legislative briefings, wind working groups, and state-specific news.
See Federal Incentives
See All Summaries
See Homeowner Incentive Summaries Only
Financial Incentives
Corporate Tax Credit
Green Building Tax Credit Program - Corporate
Industry Recruitment
NYSERDA - Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing Incentive Program
NYSERDA - Energy Star Home Builders
Personal Tax Credit
Green Building Tax Credit Program - Personal
Solar and Fuel Cell Tax Credit
Property Tax Exemption
Energy Conservation Improvements Property Exemption
Solar, Wind & Biomass Energy Systems Exemption
Sales Tax Exemption
Solar Sales Tax Exemption
State Grant Program
NYSERDA - Assisted Home Performance Grants
NYSERDA - Assisted Multifamily Program
NYSERDA - EmPower New York
NYSERDA - Renewables R&D Grant Program
State Loan Program
NYSERDA - Energy $mart Loan Fund
NYSERDA - Home Performance with Energy Star - Loan Program
State Rebate Program
NYSERDA - Energy $mart New Construction Program
NYSERDA - Enhanced Commercial/Industrial Performance Program
NYSERDA - On-Site Small Wind Incentive Program
NYSERDA - Peak Load Reduction Program
NYSERDA - PV Incentive Program
NYSERDA - Small Commercial Lighting Incentives Program
Utility Rebate Program
Freeport Electric - Commercial Energy Efficiency Partnership Rebate Program
LIPA - Solar Pioneer Program
Long Island Power Authority - Energy Efficient Commercial Construction Rebate Program
Long Island Power Authority - Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program
Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Incentives
U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center
Rules, Regulations & Policies
Appliance/Equipment Efficiency Standards
Appliance and Equipment Energy Efficiency Standards
Building Energy Code
New York Building Energy Codes
Generation Disclosure
Environmental Disclosure Program
Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation
New York - Renewable Power Procurement Policy
Suffolk County - Green Power Purchasing Policy
Interconnection
Interconnection Standards
Net Metering Rules
New York - Net Metering
Public Benefits Fund
New York Energy $mart Program
Renewables Portfolio Standard
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Solar Access Law/Guideline
Solar Easements
Alternative Fuel and Vehicle Policies
U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center
Related Programs & Initiatives
Green Power Network: Buying Green Power in Your State
The U.S. Department of Energy's Green Power Network provides news and information on green power markets and related activities. This site provides state-by-state information on Green Power Marketing in Competitive Electricity Markets and Utility Green Pricing Programs.
In addition, the site lists marketers of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)(also known as green tags or tradable renewable certificates), which represent the environmental attributes of the power produced from a renewable energy project. Whether or not consumers have access to green power through their local utility or a competitive electricity marketer, consumers can purchase RECs without having to switch electricity suppliers.
Wind Powering America
The U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Powering America site provides state-by-state wind project information, including validated wind maps, anemometer loan programs, small wind guides, legislative briefings, wind working groups, and state-specific news.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land
Windfarmsfinalreport.pdf
At what stage do wind farm developments start to impact on property values For those surveyors who believe that residential property values are lower as a result of wind farm developments, a majority (67%) believe that there is an impact on values as early as the planning application stage. A further 22% report that the impact is first evident at the construction phase of development (Figure 3). The results suggest that buyers are wary of potential developments at a very early stage in anticipation of a negative impact because of uncertainty over the size and location of a proposed wind farm.
At what stage do wind farm developments start to impact on property values For those surveyors who believe that residential property values are lower as a result of wind farm developments, a majority (67%) believe that there is an impact on values as early as the planning application stage. A further 22% report that the impact is first evident at the construction phase of development (Figure 3). The results suggest that buyers are wary of potential developments at a very early stage in anticipation of a negative impact because of uncertainty over the size and location of a proposed wind farm.
Use fuel-neutral terms in New York plant plan
Your June 11 editorial, "Power politics," spoke of setting an example for the nation by embracing clean, renewable energy within the context of the currently debated Article X siting law. Yet you also stated that it is unrealistic to assume that alternative energy sources alone can meet the demands of today.
You were correct on both counts, which is why it is imperative that the state's next power plant siting law be fuel-neutral, ensuring that New York does not face threats to its electric system reliability.
New York already sets an example for the nation through its Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which aims to have 25 percent of the state's power provided through renewable resources by 2013. However, by 2011 (according to the New York Independent System Operator), New York's energy resources will have dipped to a level that puts electric system reliability in jeopardy.
The reason: New York needs additional generation but does not have a power plant siting law that facilitates the development and construction of this much-needed generation. What kind of example would it set for the country if New York were unable to provide its own reliable power?
To avoid such a circumstance, New York's siting law must be open to all technologies that conform to the state's existing environmental regulations (which happen to be among the strictest in the country).
If a plant can operate within New York's existing regulations, why shouldn't it be part of the solution to meet rising energy demand? Clean coal technology has the potential to allow plants to operate at near zero emissions; nuclear power already achieves that goal. It makes no sense to institute a policy that excludes their contributions.
GAVIN DONOHUE
President and CEO
Independent Power Producers of NY
Albany
You were correct on both counts, which is why it is imperative that the state's next power plant siting law be fuel-neutral, ensuring that New York does not face threats to its electric system reliability.
New York already sets an example for the nation through its Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which aims to have 25 percent of the state's power provided through renewable resources by 2013. However, by 2011 (according to the New York Independent System Operator), New York's energy resources will have dipped to a level that puts electric system reliability in jeopardy.
The reason: New York needs additional generation but does not have a power plant siting law that facilitates the development and construction of this much-needed generation. What kind of example would it set for the country if New York were unable to provide its own reliable power?
To avoid such a circumstance, New York's siting law must be open to all technologies that conform to the state's existing environmental regulations (which happen to be among the strictest in the country).
If a plant can operate within New York's existing regulations, why shouldn't it be part of the solution to meet rising energy demand? Clean coal technology has the potential to allow plants to operate at near zero emissions; nuclear power already achieves that goal. It makes no sense to institute a policy that excludes their contributions.
GAVIN DONOHUE
President and CEO
Independent Power Producers of NY
Albany
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Article X could put more power in New York
You make some excellent points in your June 11 editorial regarding the Legislature's attempt to revive Article X to permit power plants. While few plants were ever built under Article X because of economics, the mechanism is necessary and would encourage new power plants.
However, I disagree that nuclear and coal are "looking backward." While new renewable energy and conservation are needed, they aren't enough.
GE and other energy companies have been improving and building improved modern nuclear plants almost everywhere in the world in the last decades -- except the United States.
Lack of public education and political courage has damaged us here, as in many other areas of public concern. It may yet happen, but not without a policy permitting and promoting it. Nuclear has no carbon dioxide, and we can deal with the waste technically -- it's just politically that's the problem.
And coal can be clean too, even without the advanced technology of integrated gasification combined cycle and supercritical pulverized coal technology -- not sure if one of those is the "coal fusion" you referred to; but there are several of those operating now.
Existing plants could practice carbon capture and sequestration to remove carbon dioxide at existing coal-fired power plants virtually "tomorrow," if Bush ever had a forward-looking idea in U.S. energy policy. Now there's where the "backward looking" really is. There are signs of hope, though.
New York with its Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative could team with California and the budding Western States Climate Initiative to promote these technologies, as well as renewing Article X with provisions to include "good old" energy technologies, but with incentives for carbon dioxide and other pollutant reductions.
"Clean coal" is here today, but needs incentives -- these, too, will be encouraged with a good Article X in New York.
Renewal of Article X needs support and encouragement in the right places, to get the power industry moving again in New York -- and moving toward clean energy.
PETER DESROCHERS
Ballston Lake
However, I disagree that nuclear and coal are "looking backward." While new renewable energy and conservation are needed, they aren't enough.
GE and other energy companies have been improving and building improved modern nuclear plants almost everywhere in the world in the last decades -- except the United States.
Lack of public education and political courage has damaged us here, as in many other areas of public concern. It may yet happen, but not without a policy permitting and promoting it. Nuclear has no carbon dioxide, and we can deal with the waste technically -- it's just politically that's the problem.
And coal can be clean too, even without the advanced technology of integrated gasification combined cycle and supercritical pulverized coal technology -- not sure if one of those is the "coal fusion" you referred to; but there are several of those operating now.
Existing plants could practice carbon capture and sequestration to remove carbon dioxide at existing coal-fired power plants virtually "tomorrow," if Bush ever had a forward-looking idea in U.S. energy policy. Now there's where the "backward looking" really is. There are signs of hope, though.
New York with its Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative could team with California and the budding Western States Climate Initiative to promote these technologies, as well as renewing Article X with provisions to include "good old" energy technologies, but with incentives for carbon dioxide and other pollutant reductions.
"Clean coal" is here today, but needs incentives -- these, too, will be encouraged with a good Article X in New York.
Renewal of Article X needs support and encouragement in the right places, to get the power industry moving again in New York -- and moving toward clean energy.
PETER DESROCHERS
Ballston Lake
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Article X legislation utility siting law letter to NYS by James Hall
Dear Legislator,
Cohocton Wind Watch regrets that NYS is considering an Article X bill that has serious public policy flaws. While we favor "Home Rule" we recognize that NYS has a fundamental responsibility to protect the public safety of all citizens.
Therefore, Cohocton Wind Watch urges both the Senate and Assembly to reject Governor Spitzer's version and bring back most of the provisions in the old Article X.
CWW opposes the siting of any industrial wind project that endangers the public health and safety of residents. The distance set backs from all public roads and property borders of adjacent property owners must be significantly increased to ensure the safety of the motoring public and ensure that property rights of any adjoining land can be protected from the sever negative impacts of industrial wind turbines.
All set backs must be measured from property lines, not from dwelling boundaries. Distance for set backs in most local laws are entirely inadequate. Industrial wind turbines need to be sited at least 1.5 miles from any public road or adjacent property border line.
Article X would be beneficial to the general public if strict NYS public safety standards are adopted and regulated, while maintaining the principle of "Home Rule".
Industrial wind turbine projects are not appropriate and certainly not safe to be located near populated residential properties. If NYS wants to encourage alternative energy projects there must be a balance in public policy that will demand that citizen's safety and property rights will not be sacrificed for the business interests of foreign wind developers.
Cohocton Wind Watch opposes the versions of Article X that are being considered. New public protective safeguards need to be the cornerstone of any legislation that reauthorizes Article X.
Your duty is to protect resident's health and safety before any energy development project. NYS can do better. Industrial wind turbines are not a practical solution but are an Enron model scheme to defraud the public and destroy the local tax base of rural New York State.
People need strict and comprehensive oversight regulation over the entire wind industry. Place the public interest first, especially since anti-trust investigations are looking into the suspect business practices of wind developer LLCs. Collusion and corruption of public officials are well known to the voters.
The future of New York State is at risk by ill-conceived and flawed wind projects. Cohocton Wind Watch appeals to your moral conscience and sworn duty to protect the public. If you approve any version of Article X, guarantee that it includes safety standards that are meaningful.
Cordially,
James Hall for Cohocton Wind Watch - June 19, 2007
Cohocton Wind Watch regrets that NYS is considering an Article X bill that has serious public policy flaws. While we favor "Home Rule" we recognize that NYS has a fundamental responsibility to protect the public safety of all citizens.
Therefore, Cohocton Wind Watch urges both the Senate and Assembly to reject Governor Spitzer's version and bring back most of the provisions in the old Article X.
CWW opposes the siting of any industrial wind project that endangers the public health and safety of residents. The distance set backs from all public roads and property borders of adjacent property owners must be significantly increased to ensure the safety of the motoring public and ensure that property rights of any adjoining land can be protected from the sever negative impacts of industrial wind turbines.
All set backs must be measured from property lines, not from dwelling boundaries. Distance for set backs in most local laws are entirely inadequate. Industrial wind turbines need to be sited at least 1.5 miles from any public road or adjacent property border line.
Article X would be beneficial to the general public if strict NYS public safety standards are adopted and regulated, while maintaining the principle of "Home Rule".
Industrial wind turbine projects are not appropriate and certainly not safe to be located near populated residential properties. If NYS wants to encourage alternative energy projects there must be a balance in public policy that will demand that citizen's safety and property rights will not be sacrificed for the business interests of foreign wind developers.
Cohocton Wind Watch opposes the versions of Article X that are being considered. New public protective safeguards need to be the cornerstone of any legislation that reauthorizes Article X.
Your duty is to protect resident's health and safety before any energy development project. NYS can do better. Industrial wind turbines are not a practical solution but are an Enron model scheme to defraud the public and destroy the local tax base of rural New York State.
People need strict and comprehensive oversight regulation over the entire wind industry. Place the public interest first, especially since anti-trust investigations are looking into the suspect business practices of wind developer LLCs. Collusion and corruption of public officials are well known to the voters.
The future of New York State is at risk by ill-conceived and flawed wind projects. Cohocton Wind Watch appeals to your moral conscience and sworn duty to protect the public. If you approve any version of Article X, guarantee that it includes safety standards that are meaningful.
Cordially,
James Hall for Cohocton Wind Watch - June 19, 2007
Energy corridors draw fire
Property in Franklin, Clinton and St. Lawrence counties could be seized in the interest of national security if the land is where a federal commission says power lines should go.
The initiative is meant to improve the delivery of electricity to populated areas along the Eastern Seaboard.
And it is designed to prevent the kind of wide-spread, rolling blackouts and power interruptions that California experienced — situations that experts predict will start in New York and other eastern states in 2011 unless system upgrades are made.
But opponents, such as the Sierra Club and historic-preservation groups, contend that state and local governments would be stripped of the power to control what occurs within their boundaries under the plan and that host communities and land owners would get little compensation.
Anyone interested in expressing views about the plan can submit comments to the U.S. Department of Energy until Friday, July 6.
U.S. Rep. John McHugh (R-Pierrepont Manor) is co-sponsor of three bills in the House of Representatives that would amend parts and rescind portions of the federal policy that granted such broad powers to protect property owners from intrusion.
To comply with the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve electrical-delivery systems in the U.S., the Department of Energy commissioned a study to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and offer solutions.
The study concluded that an answer would be to establish national corridors to link places that could increase their power-production capacity to places that need more power.
Those corridors would be in effect for 12 years.
In April, the Energy Department presented a draft proposal to establish two National Interest Electric Transmission areas.
The Southwest Area National Interest Corridor would include California, Arizona and Nevada.
And the Mid-Atlantic Area National Interest Corridor would include the District of Columbia, eight states including New York — specifically Franklin, Clinton and St. Lawrence counties.
Two factors that make the North Country areas of interest for increased power production are the hydropower-production system operated by the New York Power Authority at the St. Lawrence-Franklin Delano Roosevelt Power Project in Massena and the construction and planned development of wind-energy farms in northwest Clinton and eastern Franklin County.
Losing local voice?
Under the proposal, the final say in where power facilities and transmission lines would be built for these corridors would go to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
But critics say states and local governments lose their voice in the process to a group of commission members who are not elected yet but will determine if, how and when property can be taken.
The Energy Department also wants the Regulatory Commission to have the authority to overrule states when an application for a new transmission facility is denied.
According to its Web site, the department states “if an applicant does not receive approval from a state to site a proposed new transmission facility within a national corridor, FERC may consider whether to issue a permit and to authorize the construction of the facility.”
A right-of-way permit obtained from a federal district court would “empower the project developer to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire necessary property rights to build the facilities.”
Critics say that is an end run around the law.
Power project in works
Another branch of the issue is the proposed construction of a $1.26 billion power project from Marcy in Central New York to New Windsor in Orange County.
The New York Regional Interconnection is an Albany-based corporation that would build a high voltage, direct current power line to span 190 miles across southern New York.
It includes 400 kilovolt power lines, two converter substations and two transmission stations that would link with the New York Independent System Operator network.
There would also be $13.5 million in upgrades made to two existing substations to generate 1,200 megawatts of power to feed the New York bulk-power system.
Estimates are that the system would save consumers $11.7 billion over 20 years statewide.
The Regional Interconnection plan would also provide the same eminent-domain powers to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the energy-transmission corridor does.
Backers hope to begin construction in 2008 and have the power project operational by 2011.
It has been in the planning stages since 2004, when Gov. George Pataki was in office, but Gov. Eliot Spitzer has said he will not approve such a project.
Questioning the process
McHugh is co-sponsoring three bills that either repeal sections of the Energy Act of 2005 or amend parts to eliminate eminent-domain privileges for Regulatory Commission members.
The bills, HR 809, HR 810 and HR 829, have each been forwarded to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for action.
“Letter writing still means something around here, and it still is an effective way to bring about change,” said his press secretary, Matt Lavoie.
That’s why McHugh fired off letters to Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan and Peter Visclosky, chairman of Energy and Water Development.
“It’s the process he’s questioning, not the policy,” Lavoie said. “It’s not a question of the technology, but he is deeply concerned about the attempt to circumvent state’s rights and the permit process.”
He said the congressman “has been at the forefront of renewable-energy initiatives and finding alternatives to dependence on oil.
“The problem he has is with the process,” Lavoie said. “He is not against energy companies, but the process exists for a reason.”
In the Bodman letter, McHugh and the other co-sponsors point out that 50 million Americans spread out across 117,000 miles will be impacted by the Energy Department’s decision.
They said holding just seven public meetings “in the middle of the work week simply does not accommodate the rights of American citizens to have their voice heard by federal officials.”
The sponsors asked for the deadline for comments to be extended another 30 days so additional public meetings can be held.
The letter to Dingell, the co-sponsors state that the corridors are “setting the wheels in motion to allow federal siting of new transmission lines to shore up an archaic transmission grid.”
They argue that the law does not address or encourage alternative-energy sources, management of electricity demand or other factors.
The group urged Dingell’s committee to consider adding a new transmission grid to its deliberations as it develops a policy on climate change and alternative-energy solutions.
McHugh’s co-sponsored letter to Visclosky declared the energy-transmission corridor flawed and that any corridor designations should be delayed.
Open for public comment
A 60-day public-comment period for both the New York Regional Interconnection and the energy-transmission corridors proposal ends July 6.
Three meetings were initially held to allow public comment before a panel of Department of Energy officials, but they were held in Washington, D.C., San Diego, Calif., and New York City.
After an outcry from members of Congress, who said those impacted the most by the plans were not able to attend meetings hundreds of miles away, four more meetings were added.
The closest to northern New York was held in Rochester last week while the others were scheduled later this month in Pittsburgh, Pa., Las Vegas, Nev., and Phoenix, Ariz.
Written comments can be submitted through the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Web site at [http://nietc.anl.gov/] or mailed to The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C., 20585.
By Denise A. Raymo
Staff Writer
The initiative is meant to improve the delivery of electricity to populated areas along the Eastern Seaboard.
And it is designed to prevent the kind of wide-spread, rolling blackouts and power interruptions that California experienced — situations that experts predict will start in New York and other eastern states in 2011 unless system upgrades are made.
But opponents, such as the Sierra Club and historic-preservation groups, contend that state and local governments would be stripped of the power to control what occurs within their boundaries under the plan and that host communities and land owners would get little compensation.
Anyone interested in expressing views about the plan can submit comments to the U.S. Department of Energy until Friday, July 6.
U.S. Rep. John McHugh (R-Pierrepont Manor) is co-sponsor of three bills in the House of Representatives that would amend parts and rescind portions of the federal policy that granted such broad powers to protect property owners from intrusion.
To comply with the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve electrical-delivery systems in the U.S., the Department of Energy commissioned a study to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and offer solutions.
The study concluded that an answer would be to establish national corridors to link places that could increase their power-production capacity to places that need more power.
Those corridors would be in effect for 12 years.
In April, the Energy Department presented a draft proposal to establish two National Interest Electric Transmission areas.
The Southwest Area National Interest Corridor would include California, Arizona and Nevada.
And the Mid-Atlantic Area National Interest Corridor would include the District of Columbia, eight states including New York — specifically Franklin, Clinton and St. Lawrence counties.
Two factors that make the North Country areas of interest for increased power production are the hydropower-production system operated by the New York Power Authority at the St. Lawrence-Franklin Delano Roosevelt Power Project in Massena and the construction and planned development of wind-energy farms in northwest Clinton and eastern Franklin County.
Losing local voice?
Under the proposal, the final say in where power facilities and transmission lines would be built for these corridors would go to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
But critics say states and local governments lose their voice in the process to a group of commission members who are not elected yet but will determine if, how and when property can be taken.
The Energy Department also wants the Regulatory Commission to have the authority to overrule states when an application for a new transmission facility is denied.
According to its Web site, the department states “if an applicant does not receive approval from a state to site a proposed new transmission facility within a national corridor, FERC may consider whether to issue a permit and to authorize the construction of the facility.”
A right-of-way permit obtained from a federal district court would “empower the project developer to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire necessary property rights to build the facilities.”
Critics say that is an end run around the law.
Power project in works
Another branch of the issue is the proposed construction of a $1.26 billion power project from Marcy in Central New York to New Windsor in Orange County.
The New York Regional Interconnection is an Albany-based corporation that would build a high voltage, direct current power line to span 190 miles across southern New York.
It includes 400 kilovolt power lines, two converter substations and two transmission stations that would link with the New York Independent System Operator network.
There would also be $13.5 million in upgrades made to two existing substations to generate 1,200 megawatts of power to feed the New York bulk-power system.
Estimates are that the system would save consumers $11.7 billion over 20 years statewide.
The Regional Interconnection plan would also provide the same eminent-domain powers to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the energy-transmission corridor does.
Backers hope to begin construction in 2008 and have the power project operational by 2011.
It has been in the planning stages since 2004, when Gov. George Pataki was in office, but Gov. Eliot Spitzer has said he will not approve such a project.
Questioning the process
McHugh is co-sponsoring three bills that either repeal sections of the Energy Act of 2005 or amend parts to eliminate eminent-domain privileges for Regulatory Commission members.
The bills, HR 809, HR 810 and HR 829, have each been forwarded to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for action.
“Letter writing still means something around here, and it still is an effective way to bring about change,” said his press secretary, Matt Lavoie.
That’s why McHugh fired off letters to Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan and Peter Visclosky, chairman of Energy and Water Development.
“It’s the process he’s questioning, not the policy,” Lavoie said. “It’s not a question of the technology, but he is deeply concerned about the attempt to circumvent state’s rights and the permit process.”
He said the congressman “has been at the forefront of renewable-energy initiatives and finding alternatives to dependence on oil.
“The problem he has is with the process,” Lavoie said. “He is not against energy companies, but the process exists for a reason.”
In the Bodman letter, McHugh and the other co-sponsors point out that 50 million Americans spread out across 117,000 miles will be impacted by the Energy Department’s decision.
They said holding just seven public meetings “in the middle of the work week simply does not accommodate the rights of American citizens to have their voice heard by federal officials.”
The sponsors asked for the deadline for comments to be extended another 30 days so additional public meetings can be held.
The letter to Dingell, the co-sponsors state that the corridors are “setting the wheels in motion to allow federal siting of new transmission lines to shore up an archaic transmission grid.”
They argue that the law does not address or encourage alternative-energy sources, management of electricity demand or other factors.
The group urged Dingell’s committee to consider adding a new transmission grid to its deliberations as it develops a policy on climate change and alternative-energy solutions.
McHugh’s co-sponsored letter to Visclosky declared the energy-transmission corridor flawed and that any corridor designations should be delayed.
Open for public comment
A 60-day public-comment period for both the New York Regional Interconnection and the energy-transmission corridors proposal ends July 6.
Three meetings were initially held to allow public comment before a panel of Department of Energy officials, but they were held in Washington, D.C., San Diego, Calif., and New York City.
After an outcry from members of Congress, who said those impacted the most by the plans were not able to attend meetings hundreds of miles away, four more meetings were added.
The closest to northern New York was held in Rochester last week while the others were scheduled later this month in Pittsburgh, Pa., Las Vegas, Nev., and Phoenix, Ariz.
Written comments can be submitted through the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor Web site at [http://nietc.anl.gov/] or mailed to The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C., 20585.
By Denise A. Raymo
Staff Writer
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Steuben County and City of Hornell Industrial Development Agencies Project Approval, Evaluation and Monitoring Efforts
2006mr5.pdf2006mr5.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2006-MR-5 March 2007
There are 115 Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) in the towns, villages, cities and counties of New York State. The powers and duties of IDAs are set forth under Article 18-A of General Municipal Law. IDAs are independent public benefi t corporations whose purpose is to promote, develop, encourage, and assist industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, commercial, research and recreation facilities. The overall goal of IDAs is to advance the job opportunities, health, general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of the State of New York.
Each IDA is governed by a Board appointed by the sponsoring municipality. To carry out their mandate, IDAs offer fi nancial incentives to attract, retain and expand businesses within their jurisdiction. Such incentives could include one or more of the following: issuance of a low interest-rate bond, abatements from real property tax, and exemptions from sales tax and mortgage recording tax. To obtain fi nancial assistance from an IDA, a business must fi le a project application that includes, among other things, the number of jobs the project will create or retain. IDA Boards should monitor and evaluate the performance of IDA project owners to determine whether the businesses are meeting these job goals. IDAs may place provisions in project contracts that allow them to “recapture” economic benefi ts if companies do not meet their project goals.
Scope and Objective
We audited two active IDAs in Steuben County: the Steuben County IDA and the City of Hornell IDA. We reviewed selected projects between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005 that evidenced how IDA offi cials estimated incentives; approved, monitored and evaluated projects; and utilized their recapture provision. The objective of our audit was to address the following related questions:
• Do the IDAs have criteria for selecting fi rms or businesses receiving sponsorship and economic development incentives and are those criteria consistently applied?
• Are the IDAs designing and implementing systems to evaluate and monitor job data, project performance and to recapture benefi ts for performance shortfall?
Audit Results
Both IDAs utilized the statutes and their own various policies to determine project eligibility and to provide some general guidance offi cials should consider when making project sponsorship 6 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER decisions. However, neither IDA developed and documented formal project evaluation criteria for selecting fi rms or businesses receiving sponsorship and economic development incentives. In addition, neither IDA has systems in place to adequately verify project application information.
In order for IDA offi cials and the public to evaluate the effectiveness of IDA economic development projects, IDAs need to have systems in place to monitor project performance and to determine if benefi ts should be recaptured. We were unable to determine if projects achieved anticipated employment levels since neither IDA requires that documentation of employment fi gures be submitted annually. In addition, offi cials from both IDAs informed us that they have never attempted to recapture benefi ts and that they do not have formal procedures to invoke these provisions.
IDA offi cials do not compare estimated sales tax exemptions at application to actual sales tax exemptions reported by sponsored businesses. A comparison of estimated sales tax exemptions with actual exemptions claimed would enable IDA offi cials to identify and investigate large variances, and to use the information to develop more accurate estimates. It would also improve accountability if IDA offi cials were to follow-up with those businesses that reported sales tax exemptions which signifi cantly exceeded estimates to help ensure that the sales tax exemptions were only used for the intended purpose.
Comments of Agency Officials
The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed with officials from the Steuben County and City of Hornell IDAs, and their comments, which appear in Appendix A, have been considered in preparing this report. Except as specifi ed in Appendix A, Agency offi cials generally agreed with our recommendations and indicated that they planned to take corrective action. Appendix B includes our comments on the issues raised in the Agencies’ response letters.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2006-MR-5 March 2007
There are 115 Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) in the towns, villages, cities and counties of New York State. The powers and duties of IDAs are set forth under Article 18-A of General Municipal Law. IDAs are independent public benefi t corporations whose purpose is to promote, develop, encourage, and assist industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, commercial, research and recreation facilities. The overall goal of IDAs is to advance the job opportunities, health, general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of the State of New York.
Each IDA is governed by a Board appointed by the sponsoring municipality. To carry out their mandate, IDAs offer fi nancial incentives to attract, retain and expand businesses within their jurisdiction. Such incentives could include one or more of the following: issuance of a low interest-rate bond, abatements from real property tax, and exemptions from sales tax and mortgage recording tax. To obtain fi nancial assistance from an IDA, a business must fi le a project application that includes, among other things, the number of jobs the project will create or retain. IDA Boards should monitor and evaluate the performance of IDA project owners to determine whether the businesses are meeting these job goals. IDAs may place provisions in project contracts that allow them to “recapture” economic benefi ts if companies do not meet their project goals.
Scope and Objective
We audited two active IDAs in Steuben County: the Steuben County IDA and the City of Hornell IDA. We reviewed selected projects between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005 that evidenced how IDA offi cials estimated incentives; approved, monitored and evaluated projects; and utilized their recapture provision. The objective of our audit was to address the following related questions:
• Do the IDAs have criteria for selecting fi rms or businesses receiving sponsorship and economic development incentives and are those criteria consistently applied?
• Are the IDAs designing and implementing systems to evaluate and monitor job data, project performance and to recapture benefi ts for performance shortfall?
Audit Results
Both IDAs utilized the statutes and their own various policies to determine project eligibility and to provide some general guidance offi cials should consider when making project sponsorship 6 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER decisions. However, neither IDA developed and documented formal project evaluation criteria for selecting fi rms or businesses receiving sponsorship and economic development incentives. In addition, neither IDA has systems in place to adequately verify project application information.
In order for IDA offi cials and the public to evaluate the effectiveness of IDA economic development projects, IDAs need to have systems in place to monitor project performance and to determine if benefi ts should be recaptured. We were unable to determine if projects achieved anticipated employment levels since neither IDA requires that documentation of employment fi gures be submitted annually. In addition, offi cials from both IDAs informed us that they have never attempted to recapture benefi ts and that they do not have formal procedures to invoke these provisions.
IDA offi cials do not compare estimated sales tax exemptions at application to actual sales tax exemptions reported by sponsored businesses. A comparison of estimated sales tax exemptions with actual exemptions claimed would enable IDA offi cials to identify and investigate large variances, and to use the information to develop more accurate estimates. It would also improve accountability if IDA offi cials were to follow-up with those businesses that reported sales tax exemptions which signifi cantly exceeded estimates to help ensure that the sales tax exemptions were only used for the intended purpose.
Comments of Agency Officials
The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed with officials from the Steuben County and City of Hornell IDAs, and their comments, which appear in Appendix A, have been considered in preparing this report. Except as specifi ed in Appendix A, Agency offi cials generally agreed with our recommendations and indicated that they planned to take corrective action. Appendix B includes our comments on the issues raised in the Agencies’ response letters.
SCIDA Audit March 28, 2007 OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
Summary of Findings
Our examination disclosed that SCIDA officials have not established formal criteria which can be applied consistently for selecting firms or businesses receiving sponsorship and economic development incentives. In addition, SCIDA does not have systems in place to adequately verify project application information. SCIDA officials do not attempt to evaluate project performance to see if the businesses are producing benefits to the community as intended or if benefits should be recaptured. Finally, SCIDA officials do not compare estimated sales tax exemptions at application to actual sales tax exemptions reported by sponsored businesses.
costeubenida.pdf
Our examination disclosed that SCIDA officials have not established formal criteria which can be applied consistently for selecting firms or businesses receiving sponsorship and economic development incentives. In addition, SCIDA does not have systems in place to adequately verify project application information. SCIDA officials do not attempt to evaluate project performance to see if the businesses are producing benefits to the community as intended or if benefits should be recaptured. Finally, SCIDA officials do not compare estimated sales tax exemptions at application to actual sales tax exemptions reported by sponsored businesses.
costeubenida.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)