The Freeman's Journal, July 6,2007
As the Holy Trinity monks hold prayer services and mount a letter-writing campaign, Otsego 2000 is seeking out the most appropriate “petitioners” to file an Article 78 complaint against the 68-turbine Jordanville Wind Farm, a preliminary step to going to court to block the 400-foot-tall towers in view of James Fenimore Cooper’s Glimmerglass.
The Otsego 2000 board of directors met for two hours Tuesday afternoon, July 3, but were not forthcoming after leaving the meeting on whether a firm decision was reached on a course of action. An announcement is planned early next week, according to Martha Frey, Otsego 2000 executive director.
Henry S.F. Cooper Jr., Otsego 2000 president and the only person authorized to speak for the board, could not be reached.
However, it was learned an extensive conference call was conducted at the meeting, with Otsego 2000’s environmental lawyer, Drayton Grant of Rhinebeck and New York City, participating.
Polly Renckens, an Otsego 2000 board member, said “no decision has been made” one way or the other. “We are working very hard to make the right decision,” she said.
“We’re still deciding,” echoed Kent Barwick, another board member who attended the meeting and was encountered at the Springfield Center Independence Day parade the following day.
Still another Otsego 2000 director, attorney Robert Poulson, was unable to attend the meeting, but said he supports a strong challenge if tenable. “Do I want to see windmills at the other end of the lake?” He answered his own question: “Of course not.”
The first legal hurdle to get over is the question of “standing” – finding people with the most to lose from the wind farm, which is planned by Community Energy on both side of the ridge between Van Hornesville and Jordanville in the southern Herkimer County towns of Warren and Stark.
“The fact of the matter is people living 10 to 15 miles out will see it,” said Sue Brander of Advocates for Stark. “But they won’t hear it. It won’t ruin their water supply. It won’t give their children learning disabilities.”
She added, however, “real estate values will effect us all.”
At Otsego 2000’s request, she agreed to be a petitioner, and lined up four other people who are in proximity to turbines and have spoken up at hearings and information meetings over the past year.
One, Denise Como, a one-time truck driver, has objected to the damage she perceives will be done by the large trucks that would be needed.
Another, Steve Reichenbach, has “a baby a week old and a turbine 1,200 feet from his home.” The others are Yuri Zycoff and Diane Thomas.
Harry Levine, who heads Advocates for Springfield, said at mid-week if the Advocates and Otsego 2000 are in sync – as they well may be – they may file an appeal jointly; if there are profound differences, the Advocates may file their own appeal, Levine said.
After a year working through the State Environmental Quality Review Act process, the towns of Warren and Stark, on June 20 and 21 respectively, accepted the final Environmental Impact Statement on the project and approved special-use permits. That step started a 30-day clock running on the Article 78 proceeding.
The next step for Community Energy is to apply for a certificate of necessity from the state Public Service Commission, which would require a further public hearing before action could be taken. The towns must then issue building permits for each turbine and related building in their jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, the monks at Holy Trinity Monastery, the Russian Orthodox Church’s spiritual headquarters overseas, have begun a cycle of “molebin,” prayers of supplication somewhat like the Roman Catholic novena, and as many as a dozen people from the community have been attending. Father Luke Murianka, the deputy abbott, said all are welcome. But, since the services are not being held on a set schedule, prospective participants should call the monastery, (315) 858-0940.
“Certainly, we feel that prayer is one of the best methods,” Father Luke said, but influential Russian Orthodox clerics are also weighing in, and their letters will be sent to Gov. Eliot Spitzer and others in state government.
Archbishop Hilarian Kapral of Australia, former abbot at Jordanville and metropolitan in Manhattan, had visited a wind farm in Tasmania and concluded “it would be terrible tragedy to have it here.”
The archbishop in Manhattan, Gabriel Chemodakov, has also written a letter decrying “the desecration of the landscape.”
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
Letter to Governor Spitzer by Andy McEvoy
June 25, 2007
New York State Governor Spitzer, Senate and Assembly Members,
Please give careful consideration to issues involving the siting of “Industrial Wind Turbines” in rural residential areas. You have a responsibility to protect the People by keeping the turbines a safe distance from them. In Fairfield, N.Y., the proposed project would allow approximately 70 – 400’ tall turbines to be constructed within 3000’ of over 130 homes! There is a great deal of medical and scientific documentation now available to support turbine setbacks of 1.5 miles. The 1200’ – 1500’ setbacks currently being used are inadequate and are not protecting the people living near them. With so many reasons; Health Effects, Noise, Declining Property Values, Wildlife Kills and Destruction of Scenic Vistas….., how can you let this continue? You need to make “our” best interests your priority. An Industry that is NOT planned to operate indefinitely without a subsidy (our tax dollars) from the government should not have the support of any politician.
“Home Rule” should be left as is, but “minimum standards” should be implemented to prevent officials on a Local level from passing ordinances that will allow the turbines to negatively impact the landowners and people in close proximity to them. Guidelines should be developed before we are overrun with thousands of the 400’ monstrosities in our scenic State. We need to protect the view sheds that draw people here.
Turbines were developed in the 70’s and built in the deserts and open areas, away from habitation. They were never intended to be placed near people. They are now being built “anywhere” because of the tax advantages and subsidies. The turbines contribute a very small percentage of electricity to the grid because of their intermittent and unreliable operation. They do after all, depend on the Wind.
Germany, at just 2.8 times the size of New York State has over 16,000 wind turbines and considers that reliable output is only 8% of installed capacity. Is this how we want New York State to end up? I think NOT! Our electricity demand will never be alleviated by wind power.
More research needs to be done regarding the “Negative” aspects of the Industrial Wind Turbines, including whether or not the people want them constructed around their homes. With as many Negative Impacts as these projects have, there needs to be more studies done on impacts vs. benefits. First and foremost though, the people, remember “We The People” should have a right to be heard. If you politicians allow the Wind Industry to overrun the State of New York with total disregard for the people, I guess nothing is Sacred anymore.
Please let me know how you plan to address this situation.
Sincerely,
Andy McEvoy
Co-director Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc.
P.O. Box 1013,
Little Falls, NY 13365
New York State Governor Spitzer, Senate and Assembly Members,
Please give careful consideration to issues involving the siting of “Industrial Wind Turbines” in rural residential areas. You have a responsibility to protect the People by keeping the turbines a safe distance from them. In Fairfield, N.Y., the proposed project would allow approximately 70 – 400’ tall turbines to be constructed within 3000’ of over 130 homes! There is a great deal of medical and scientific documentation now available to support turbine setbacks of 1.5 miles. The 1200’ – 1500’ setbacks currently being used are inadequate and are not protecting the people living near them. With so many reasons; Health Effects, Noise, Declining Property Values, Wildlife Kills and Destruction of Scenic Vistas….., how can you let this continue? You need to make “our” best interests your priority. An Industry that is NOT planned to operate indefinitely without a subsidy (our tax dollars) from the government should not have the support of any politician.
“Home Rule” should be left as is, but “minimum standards” should be implemented to prevent officials on a Local level from passing ordinances that will allow the turbines to negatively impact the landowners and people in close proximity to them. Guidelines should be developed before we are overrun with thousands of the 400’ monstrosities in our scenic State. We need to protect the view sheds that draw people here.
Turbines were developed in the 70’s and built in the deserts and open areas, away from habitation. They were never intended to be placed near people. They are now being built “anywhere” because of the tax advantages and subsidies. The turbines contribute a very small percentage of electricity to the grid because of their intermittent and unreliable operation. They do after all, depend on the Wind.
Germany, at just 2.8 times the size of New York State has over 16,000 wind turbines and considers that reliable output is only 8% of installed capacity. Is this how we want New York State to end up? I think NOT! Our electricity demand will never be alleviated by wind power.
More research needs to be done regarding the “Negative” aspects of the Industrial Wind Turbines, including whether or not the people want them constructed around their homes. With as many Negative Impacts as these projects have, there needs to be more studies done on impacts vs. benefits. First and foremost though, the people, remember “We The People” should have a right to be heard. If you politicians allow the Wind Industry to overrun the State of New York with total disregard for the people, I guess nothing is Sacred anymore.
Please let me know how you plan to address this situation.
Sincerely,
Andy McEvoy
Co-director Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc.
P.O. Box 1013,
Little Falls, NY 13365
Letter to Wayne Hunt by Gary Struck
After reading the most recent letter in this week’s Valley News from our most honorable councilman Wayne Hunt, I must say he scares me to death with his intelligence. To have such a person guiding our town is almost criminal. He is so hell bent on getting wind towers on the top of these hills, it makes no difference at what cost to anyone else. The Cohocton Wind Watch group has provided a tremendous amount of factual information to both the town board and planning board and all of it has been totally ignored.
It appears to be full speed ahead, “Damn the Torpedoes” type of thinking, going on in this town, just to show they can do what they want and deal with the ramifications later. Well there’s no doubt in this persons mind they will. Unfortunately, in the end it will break the town and every one of us will pay the price. At that time I hope every one of you Wayne Hunt supporters sit down and write him a nice thank you letter.
By the way Wayne, why don’t you tell the people of Cohocton where all the electricity being produced by our wind turbines is going? A lot of the people here in town seem to think they’re going to get cheaper electricity when in fact all of it will be going through those cross country transmission lines, you talked about, headed for New York City. In fact our electric bills most likely will be going up, not down.
About the only true facts you have right in your letter are the “Dedicated Dozen” of people, and in fact there are many more, who have been working tremendously hard to stop or slow the progress of wind development in Cohocton. Although we haven’t stopped it, we surely have slowed it down. The only reason for that is, to get it done legally and safely. So far that seems to have failed also.
The Reform Cohocton group was formed to give the voters of Cohocton a choice in government they haven’t had in quite some time. Although it may appear to be just about wind ( only because that’s the hottest topic going right now ), it is not. It’s about letting the people have a voice in what goes on in their town, speaking at public meetings and maybe even getting answers to some of their questions. It’s about doing things the right way and legal way. I’m sure Wayne, by the time the new administration gets in place it will be to late for any torpedoing from the inside, you will already have done that. The new administration will only be able to clean up your mess and make sure everything is done legally from that point on.
By the way, Iberdrola has not yet purchased Energy East ( owners of NYSEG and RG&E ) . The deal has not been voted on by stock holders or government officials. We as citizens of this country had better hope this deal does not go through. It would be a major security risk to our country to have major utilities owned and controlled by a foreign country. Wayne, if you think this is a great thing, you definitely need to be removed from your political seat.
Gary Struck
Cohocton, NY
P.S. By the way Wayne, your little wind mills don’t turn much more than the real thing will. Oh well, I guess we’ll all just have to sit in the dark more.
It appears to be full speed ahead, “Damn the Torpedoes” type of thinking, going on in this town, just to show they can do what they want and deal with the ramifications later. Well there’s no doubt in this persons mind they will. Unfortunately, in the end it will break the town and every one of us will pay the price. At that time I hope every one of you Wayne Hunt supporters sit down and write him a nice thank you letter.
By the way Wayne, why don’t you tell the people of Cohocton where all the electricity being produced by our wind turbines is going? A lot of the people here in town seem to think they’re going to get cheaper electricity when in fact all of it will be going through those cross country transmission lines, you talked about, headed for New York City. In fact our electric bills most likely will be going up, not down.
About the only true facts you have right in your letter are the “Dedicated Dozen” of people, and in fact there are many more, who have been working tremendously hard to stop or slow the progress of wind development in Cohocton. Although we haven’t stopped it, we surely have slowed it down. The only reason for that is, to get it done legally and safely. So far that seems to have failed also.
The Reform Cohocton group was formed to give the voters of Cohocton a choice in government they haven’t had in quite some time. Although it may appear to be just about wind ( only because that’s the hottest topic going right now ), it is not. It’s about letting the people have a voice in what goes on in their town, speaking at public meetings and maybe even getting answers to some of their questions. It’s about doing things the right way and legal way. I’m sure Wayne, by the time the new administration gets in place it will be to late for any torpedoing from the inside, you will already have done that. The new administration will only be able to clean up your mess and make sure everything is done legally from that point on.
By the way, Iberdrola has not yet purchased Energy East ( owners of NYSEG and RG&E ) . The deal has not been voted on by stock holders or government officials. We as citizens of this country had better hope this deal does not go through. It would be a major security risk to our country to have major utilities owned and controlled by a foreign country. Wayne, if you think this is a great thing, you definitely need to be removed from your political seat.
Gary Struck
Cohocton, NY
P.S. By the way Wayne, your little wind mills don’t turn much more than the real thing will. Oh well, I guess we’ll all just have to sit in the dark more.
Letter to Governor Spitzer by Charles Kota
Dear Gov. Eliot Spitzer,
I have lived in New York State all of my life. I can remember when our economy was superior to what it is today. We have given our industrial manufacturing base away to foreign interests. No longer is this a prosperous and productive state. We are at the bottom of the totem pole.
There used to be a slogan, BUY AMERICAN. This is no longer applicable. It is now, BUY AMERICA, THEY ARE GIVING IT AWAY. We are the highest taxed state in the nation. No wonder our young college grads are leaving here for better jobs and lining conditions. I spend more money on gasoline than I do on food. Why? A Spanish company called Iberdola wants to buy Energy East. Are we stupid or what? Foreigners dictating to us how much we pay for energy and how it is generated! How absurd to have foreigners in control of our energy supplies! What the hell is wrong with this country! It is all about money, corporate greed. Iberdola is going to give the CEO of Energy East 28.5 million dollars. For selling out!
I live in the Finger Lakes region in the town of Cohocton. New York State has invested millions of dollars to promote tourism and wineries in the Finger Lakes region. Now, you want to inundate this beautiful country with wind turbines. You are ruining this great state with this mentality. There is only one Finger Lakes in the world. When it is ruined it is gone. Do you think tourists will come here to see these 500 foot tall monsters? I don't think so.
Wind turbines have been in Europe for the past 20 years. They don't work. Many are obsolete and in-operative. Wind doesn't move by the clock. Turbines use electricity even when they are not operating. Where do you think that comes from? Power plants of course. All the wind farms in existence have not shut down one fossil fuel generating plant. This is GREEN POWER?
You are flushing millions of New York State taxpayer dollars down the toilet. The foreign companies and investors are laughing all the way to the bank. The dumb Americans will buy anything. I am not against renewable energy. But wind power is not the answer. Coal fired generating plants can be made to be clean and efficient. This country has more coal than it can use. Why not use it? Most foreign oil used in this country is for vehicular use, not energy generating plants.
My town government is corrupt and totally incompetent. Everything regarding wind turbines in this town has been done illegally, under the table, through the back door, in secrecy in violation of town laws, rules and regulations. Yet, the Attorney General office does nothing about it. Whatever happened to the government by the people and for the people? We as citizens of this great state are slowly being stripped of our rights.
Property values are declining, property taxes have doubled and electricity bills are out of sight. Is there no end to it? We live on a fixed income and it doesn't go very far today. I voted for you and believed in you. But, I guess it's just politics as usual.
A disgusted New York State taxpayer, Charles Kota
I have lived in New York State all of my life. I can remember when our economy was superior to what it is today. We have given our industrial manufacturing base away to foreign interests. No longer is this a prosperous and productive state. We are at the bottom of the totem pole.
There used to be a slogan, BUY AMERICAN. This is no longer applicable. It is now, BUY AMERICA, THEY ARE GIVING IT AWAY. We are the highest taxed state in the nation. No wonder our young college grads are leaving here for better jobs and lining conditions. I spend more money on gasoline than I do on food. Why? A Spanish company called Iberdola wants to buy Energy East. Are we stupid or what? Foreigners dictating to us how much we pay for energy and how it is generated! How absurd to have foreigners in control of our energy supplies! What the hell is wrong with this country! It is all about money, corporate greed. Iberdola is going to give the CEO of Energy East 28.5 million dollars. For selling out!
I live in the Finger Lakes region in the town of Cohocton. New York State has invested millions of dollars to promote tourism and wineries in the Finger Lakes region. Now, you want to inundate this beautiful country with wind turbines. You are ruining this great state with this mentality. There is only one Finger Lakes in the world. When it is ruined it is gone. Do you think tourists will come here to see these 500 foot tall monsters? I don't think so.
Wind turbines have been in Europe for the past 20 years. They don't work. Many are obsolete and in-operative. Wind doesn't move by the clock. Turbines use electricity even when they are not operating. Where do you think that comes from? Power plants of course. All the wind farms in existence have not shut down one fossil fuel generating plant. This is GREEN POWER?
You are flushing millions of New York State taxpayer dollars down the toilet. The foreign companies and investors are laughing all the way to the bank. The dumb Americans will buy anything. I am not against renewable energy. But wind power is not the answer. Coal fired generating plants can be made to be clean and efficient. This country has more coal than it can use. Why not use it? Most foreign oil used in this country is for vehicular use, not energy generating plants.
My town government is corrupt and totally incompetent. Everything regarding wind turbines in this town has been done illegally, under the table, through the back door, in secrecy in violation of town laws, rules and regulations. Yet, the Attorney General office does nothing about it. Whatever happened to the government by the people and for the people? We as citizens of this great state are slowly being stripped of our rights.
Property values are declining, property taxes have doubled and electricity bills are out of sight. Is there no end to it? We live on a fixed income and it doesn't go very far today. I voted for you and believed in you. But, I guess it's just politics as usual.
A disgusted New York State taxpayer, Charles Kota
Goldman Ride the Wind
Portuguese utility Energias de Portugal’s planned purchase of Horizon Wind Energy LLC from Goldman Sachs Group for more than $2 billion plus debt will bulk up EdP’s power portfolio and tap the rapidly growing U.S. renewable-energy market.
The acquisition will create a global renewable-energy player with more than 3,800 gross megawatts of wind-power generation in operation by the end of 2007, EdP said. The Horizon deal will rank EdP as the world’s 4th-biggest wind-power producer after U.S. company FPL Energy, part of FPL Group Inc. (FPL), and Spanish companies Iberdrola and Acciona, EdP said.
As the U.S. government creates a raft of incentives designed to reduce consumers’ dependence on oil and other energy imports, wind-power investment there has become ever more enticing. The country’s renewable-power capacity is set to rise to 12 gigawatts by the end of the year, according to Ernst & Young. The bank rates the U.S. as the most attractive country for renewable-energy investment.
Goldman Sachs bought Horizon Wind Energy two years ago for less than $1 billion and appears set to make a healthy profit. Widely considered Wall Street’s most environmentally friendly bank, it also helped engineer the TXU deal to satisfy environmentalists — though some shareholders are starting to question whether it’s sacrificing a sliver of its massive profitability to green initiatives, The Wall Street Journal reported today.
In any event, analysts see the purchase as a positive move for EdP. The Portuguese utility “is not getting it cheap, but it’s a fair price,” one Madrid-based analyst said. “EdP is certainly amongst the bigger (renewable-power producers) now. It’s a big acquisition.”
Horizon, which develops, owns and operates wind-power generation, has wind farms in New York, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oklahoma. It also has wind-power projects under construction in Minnesota, Oregon, Texas and Illinois.
The acquisition will create a global renewable-energy player with more than 3,800 gross megawatts of wind-power generation in operation by the end of 2007, EdP said. The Horizon deal will rank EdP as the world’s 4th-biggest wind-power producer after U.S. company FPL Energy, part of FPL Group Inc. (FPL), and Spanish companies Iberdrola and Acciona, EdP said.
As the U.S. government creates a raft of incentives designed to reduce consumers’ dependence on oil and other energy imports, wind-power investment there has become ever more enticing. The country’s renewable-power capacity is set to rise to 12 gigawatts by the end of the year, according to Ernst & Young. The bank rates the U.S. as the most attractive country for renewable-energy investment.
Goldman Sachs bought Horizon Wind Energy two years ago for less than $1 billion and appears set to make a healthy profit. Widely considered Wall Street’s most environmentally friendly bank, it also helped engineer the TXU deal to satisfy environmentalists — though some shareholders are starting to question whether it’s sacrificing a sliver of its massive profitability to green initiatives, The Wall Street Journal reported today.
In any event, analysts see the purchase as a positive move for EdP. The Portuguese utility “is not getting it cheap, but it’s a fair price,” one Madrid-based analyst said. “EdP is certainly amongst the bigger (renewable-power producers) now. It’s a big acquisition.”
Horizon, which develops, owns and operates wind-power generation, has wind farms in New York, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oklahoma. It also has wind-power projects under construction in Minnesota, Oregon, Texas and Illinois.
Energias de Portugal to Hold Press Conference on Its Acquisition of Horizon Wind Energy
On Tuesday, July 10, 2007 there will be a press conference coinciding with the closing of Energias de Portugal's, S.A. ("EDP") acquisition of Horizon Wind Energy LLC ("Horizon"), a leading developer, owner and operator of wind power generation in the United States, from The Goldman Sachs Group. The transaction values the equity of Horizon at USD 2.74 billion. Antonio Mexia, CEO, EDP, will both discuss the transaction and take questions from reporters.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Vibroacoustic disease not a fabrication
This editorial is in response to those who have questioned the veracity of viboracoustic disease and ‘wind turbine syndrome', most recently S.R. Zwenger who asked "can anyone provide published articles on this mysterious and elusive disease?".
July 4, 2007 by J.P. Michaud, Hays in Ellis County Environmental Awareness
This editorial is in response to those who have questioned the veracity of viboracoustic disease and ‘wind turbine syndrome', most recently S.R. Zwenger who asked "can anyone provide published articles on this mysterious and elusive disease?".
First of all, ‘wind turbine syndrome' is not yet recognized as a disease, but is a term coined by Dr. Pierpont to encompass an emerging complex of symptoms associated with prolonged exposre to wind turbines that derive from both visual and auditory disturbances. Description of a syndrome is the first stage in the recognition of a disease, whether it arises from biological or physical causes. Thus, the human form of mad cow disease was labelled Creutzfeld-Jacob Syndrome before its cause was identified. However, one component of wind turbine syndrome, vibroacoustic disease (VAD), is already a recognized disease and is known to be caused by low frequency noise (LFN).
Links between wind turbines and VAD have been established in a number of publications by accredited scientists, notably the doctoral dissertation of P. van den Berg at the University of Groningen, Germany and articles in the Journal of Sound and Vibration and the Journal of Low Fequency Noise, Vibration, and Acitve Control. It is an established fact that wind turbines produce LFN - it is only the varying perception of that noise and its propagation under various atmospheric conditions that is still debated.
A search of the database PubMed for ‘vibroacoustic disease' will produce 37 peer-reviewed articles, the majority published within the past 8 years. It bears remembering that people had been smoking for almost a century before research began establishing a link to lung cancer in the late 1950's.
Russian doctors in the 1980's were the first to begin research into what they refered to as 'vibration disease' in industrial machinists "to develop a system of medical, technical and organizational preventive measures... in order to control noise- and vibration-caused diseases...". These studies were followed by others that established links between LFN and pathologies observed in textile workers (Cardoso et al. 2006, Rev. Port. Pneumol. 12: 326), the aeronautical industry (Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2007, 93: 256-279, helicopter pilots (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 539-544) and other occupations with prolonged LFN exposure.
Recently, a review article summarized 25 years of research on the subject (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 13: 129-135). Furthermore, the respiratory symptoms of VAD in humans have been reliably reproduced in rodents by exposing them to LFN (Lung. 2001, 179:225-232). Based on a comprehensive study of 140 patients (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999, 70: A32-A39) 3 stages of VAD were recognized. Stage I, mild signs (behavioral and mood associated with repeated infections of the respiratory tract, e.g., bronchitis); Stage II, moderate signs (depression and aggressiveness, pericardial thickening and other extracellular matrix changes, light to moderate hearing impairment, and discrete neurovascular disorders); Stage III, severe signs (myocardial infarction, stroke, malignancy, epilepsy, and suicide). And before anyone scoffs at these symptoms, they should consider that the Pentagon spent decades researching LFN for its ‘weaponization' potential.
Chronic exposure to LFN, similar to that produced by wind turbines, appears to specifically target the respiratory system causing various structural abnormalities to develop, but other pathologies also are significantly increased. These include abnormal function of the auditory lobe of the brain (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 369-274), immune system impairment (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999 3: A141-A144), cancers of the lung, especially squamous cell carcinoma (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 539-544) and induction of epileptic seizures (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999, 3: A122-A127).
In case someone contends that these peer-reviewed studies are somehow unreliable because they originate in a European country, let me point out that the US is no longer the international leader in scientific research that it was 50 years ago, and that an increasingly large proportion of scientific research in the US is now conducted by foreign-born scientists (myself included).
Belief can boil down to opinion, as Zwenger notes in his attempt to dismiss Dr. Ottley's earlier letter, but the opinions of doctors and researchers should be given more weight than the idle musings of lay people, for these are the opinions that actively guide the advancement of science.
(Click to read the post on blog source)
July 4, 2007 by J.P. Michaud, Hays in Ellis County Environmental Awareness
This editorial is in response to those who have questioned the veracity of viboracoustic disease and ‘wind turbine syndrome', most recently S.R. Zwenger who asked "can anyone provide published articles on this mysterious and elusive disease?".
First of all, ‘wind turbine syndrome' is not yet recognized as a disease, but is a term coined by Dr. Pierpont to encompass an emerging complex of symptoms associated with prolonged exposre to wind turbines that derive from both visual and auditory disturbances. Description of a syndrome is the first stage in the recognition of a disease, whether it arises from biological or physical causes. Thus, the human form of mad cow disease was labelled Creutzfeld-Jacob Syndrome before its cause was identified. However, one component of wind turbine syndrome, vibroacoustic disease (VAD), is already a recognized disease and is known to be caused by low frequency noise (LFN).
Links between wind turbines and VAD have been established in a number of publications by accredited scientists, notably the doctoral dissertation of P. van den Berg at the University of Groningen, Germany and articles in the Journal of Sound and Vibration and the Journal of Low Fequency Noise, Vibration, and Acitve Control. It is an established fact that wind turbines produce LFN - it is only the varying perception of that noise and its propagation under various atmospheric conditions that is still debated.
A search of the database PubMed for ‘vibroacoustic disease' will produce 37 peer-reviewed articles, the majority published within the past 8 years. It bears remembering that people had been smoking for almost a century before research began establishing a link to lung cancer in the late 1950's.
Russian doctors in the 1980's were the first to begin research into what they refered to as 'vibration disease' in industrial machinists "to develop a system of medical, technical and organizational preventive measures... in order to control noise- and vibration-caused diseases...". These studies were followed by others that established links between LFN and pathologies observed in textile workers (Cardoso et al. 2006, Rev. Port. Pneumol. 12: 326), the aeronautical industry (Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2007, 93: 256-279, helicopter pilots (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 539-544) and other occupations with prolonged LFN exposure.
Recently, a review article summarized 25 years of research on the subject (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 13: 129-135). Furthermore, the respiratory symptoms of VAD in humans have been reliably reproduced in rodents by exposing them to LFN (Lung. 2001, 179:225-232). Based on a comprehensive study of 140 patients (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999, 70: A32-A39) 3 stages of VAD were recognized. Stage I, mild signs (behavioral and mood associated with repeated infections of the respiratory tract, e.g., bronchitis); Stage II, moderate signs (depression and aggressiveness, pericardial thickening and other extracellular matrix changes, light to moderate hearing impairment, and discrete neurovascular disorders); Stage III, severe signs (myocardial infarction, stroke, malignancy, epilepsy, and suicide). And before anyone scoffs at these symptoms, they should consider that the Pentagon spent decades researching LFN for its ‘weaponization' potential.
Chronic exposure to LFN, similar to that produced by wind turbines, appears to specifically target the respiratory system causing various structural abnormalities to develop, but other pathologies also are significantly increased. These include abnormal function of the auditory lobe of the brain (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 369-274), immune system impairment (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999 3: A141-A144), cancers of the lung, especially squamous cell carcinoma (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 539-544) and induction of epileptic seizures (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999, 3: A122-A127).
In case someone contends that these peer-reviewed studies are somehow unreliable because they originate in a European country, let me point out that the US is no longer the international leader in scientific research that it was 50 years ago, and that an increasingly large proportion of scientific research in the US is now conducted by foreign-born scientists (myself included).
Belief can boil down to opinion, as Zwenger notes in his attempt to dismiss Dr. Ottley's earlier letter, but the opinions of doctors and researchers should be given more weight than the idle musings of lay people, for these are the opinions that actively guide the advancement of science.
(Click to read the post on blog source)
Recent rulings aid “Alternatives”… and screw the rest of us?
The U.S. Department of Energy’s declaration last week of high-priority “energy corridors” in the Southwest and mid-Atlantic regions, coupled with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approval of a new California policy on transmission financing, removed two potential stumbling blocks to the construction of new high-capacity power lines.
While expanding the nation’s power supply and transmission grid remains complex endeavor, in a nutshell the two decisions make it easier to connect wind generators in remote areas to consumers in the big city.
The unique arrangement is seen by wind proponents as benefiting both the development of remote wind farms and satisfying growing requirements that utilities obtain a specific percentage of their power from renewable sources.
So, let me see if I have this right…Wind power lobbyists “assist” the passage of federal and state laws that:
Lower wind developers’ federal tax requirements (IRS tax clause: 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation – 50% recovered in the first two years or less).
Pay them extra for producing power (also from federal taxpayer money the Production Tax Credit).
Exempt them from state sales and use taxes (Washington State – exemptions on all turbines, supporting equipment, and labor/services when a wind farm is built).
Remove local authority in permitting their facilities (Washington State – 2001 EFSEC rule change).
Mandate the use of their product and eliminate the most viable competition (I-937 in Washington State mandating 15% renewable power from utilities, but not allowing hydro-electric to count).
Summary?
So you take a technology (commercial wind power generation) that generates electricity intermittently/inefficiently, and cannot be stored for use when needed. Next you force consumers to buy it (with the assistance of their tax dollars). Because there is still not enough money there to make it economically viable, due to added grid integration costs, you raise consumer power rates. AND then, after creating this mandated over-priced market for your product, you inform everyone of the need to spend billions of dollars more to transport the product to the consumers. Yeah, I would buy some lobbyists too.
The final insult…
…is that the product being force-fed to everyone will not reduce green house gas emissions or reduce dependence on foreign oil. In fact, in some places this has been tried, it has increased it.
While expanding the nation’s power supply and transmission grid remains complex endeavor, in a nutshell the two decisions make it easier to connect wind generators in remote areas to consumers in the big city.
The unique arrangement is seen by wind proponents as benefiting both the development of remote wind farms and satisfying growing requirements that utilities obtain a specific percentage of their power from renewable sources.
So, let me see if I have this right…Wind power lobbyists “assist” the passage of federal and state laws that:
Lower wind developers’ federal tax requirements (IRS tax clause: 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation – 50% recovered in the first two years or less).
Pay them extra for producing power (also from federal taxpayer money the Production Tax Credit).
Exempt them from state sales and use taxes (Washington State – exemptions on all turbines, supporting equipment, and labor/services when a wind farm is built).
Remove local authority in permitting their facilities (Washington State – 2001 EFSEC rule change).
Mandate the use of their product and eliminate the most viable competition (I-937 in Washington State mandating 15% renewable power from utilities, but not allowing hydro-electric to count).
Summary?
So you take a technology (commercial wind power generation) that generates electricity intermittently/inefficiently, and cannot be stored for use when needed. Next you force consumers to buy it (with the assistance of their tax dollars). Because there is still not enough money there to make it economically viable, due to added grid integration costs, you raise consumer power rates. AND then, after creating this mandated over-priced market for your product, you inform everyone of the need to spend billions of dollars more to transport the product to the consumers. Yeah, I would buy some lobbyists too.
The final insult…
…is that the product being force-fed to everyone will not reduce green house gas emissions or reduce dependence on foreign oil. In fact, in some places this has been tried, it has increased it.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Article X to be Topic for July Session
The New York Legislature ended its regular session Friday without passing legislation that would allow expedited siting of power plants. Utilities, power producers and the New York Independent System Operator have said the measure is needed to attract investment in plants and avoid electricity shortages.
The legislature could possibly take up the matter again as early as July, when he expects lawmakers will reconvene for a limited, special session. At issue is the Article X law, which provided a single process for obtaining all permits, and guaranteed a one-year limit to the review process. Article X also gave the state authority to override local objections to plants.
But the law expired at the end of 2002, and lawmakers since have been unable to agree on a new bill. The Republican-controlled Senate has passed bills calling for a re-authorization of the existing law, which required full siting review for plants of 80 MW or more. But the Democratic-controlled Assembly wanted to lower the threshold to 30 MW, and to allow more local input, as well as more attention to "environmental justice" issues.
At the end of May, both houses passed bill that included those differences and also diverged on fuel sources, with the Senate measure allowing nuclear and coal plants, and the Assembly allowing only coal plants that did not increasing global warming.
That proved to be one of the deal-breakers given that the Assembly and Senate conferees could not agree which resources would be covered by Article X's 12-month review, Lynch said.
In addition, the two sides disagreed on measures to address local impacts an environmental justice--the assurance that plants are not disproportionately sited in low-income areas.
The ISO has vigorously pressed for a siting law, warning that parts of the state could face shortages if new plants are not built by 2012. The Independent Power Producers of New York said that without Article X's one-stop permitting, developers face a lengthy, expensive process, as well as the inconsistent and often arbitrary judgments of local officials.
The legislature could possibly take up the matter again as early as July, when he expects lawmakers will reconvene for a limited, special session. At issue is the Article X law, which provided a single process for obtaining all permits, and guaranteed a one-year limit to the review process. Article X also gave the state authority to override local objections to plants.
But the law expired at the end of 2002, and lawmakers since have been unable to agree on a new bill. The Republican-controlled Senate has passed bills calling for a re-authorization of the existing law, which required full siting review for plants of 80 MW or more. But the Democratic-controlled Assembly wanted to lower the threshold to 30 MW, and to allow more local input, as well as more attention to "environmental justice" issues.
At the end of May, both houses passed bill that included those differences and also diverged on fuel sources, with the Senate measure allowing nuclear and coal plants, and the Assembly allowing only coal plants that did not increasing global warming.
That proved to be one of the deal-breakers given that the Assembly and Senate conferees could not agree which resources would be covered by Article X's 12-month review, Lynch said.
In addition, the two sides disagreed on measures to address local impacts an environmental justice--the assurance that plants are not disproportionately sited in low-income areas.
The ISO has vigorously pressed for a siting law, warning that parts of the state could face shortages if new plants are not built by 2012. The Independent Power Producers of New York said that without Article X's one-stop permitting, developers face a lengthy, expensive process, as well as the inconsistent and often arbitrary judgments of local officials.
Comptroller’s Reports Prove IDAs Must be Abolished by James Ostrowski
Free%2520New%2520York%2520News%2520Alert%2520No10--IDAS.pdf
Abolishing Industrial Development Agencies was part of the initial Free Buffalo package of proposals in 2004-5.1
Subsequently, we issued News Alert No. 6—“Public Authorities Have Failed the Public.” That report stated:
It is time to recognize that the authority system of public administration in New York has failed. . . . The authority system failed because authorities are not subject to the discipline of the marketplace or the ballot box. When things go wrong, those in charge are neither voted out of office nor do they lose their investment.. . . authorities, like all government agencies, are bureaucracies, that is, organizations governed by rules and not by the desire to earn profits by satisfying customers. Authorities share with other government agencies all the defects of bureaucratic management but have one major additional defect: you can’t vote the managers out of office.
1 http://www.speakupwny.com/article_1948.shtml (scroll down).
This much can be said with certainty today: get rid of the IDAs (Industrial Development Agencies). They are unnecessary, unproductive, wasteful and a violation of the concept of equal protection of the laws—facts which, in a less decadent political climate, would be obvious to all.
Well, the political climate in New York is getting less decadent all the time as evidenced by two reports last week by the State Comptroller Alan Hevesi:
• Industrial Development Agencies’ Project Approval, Evaluation and Monitoring Efforts
• Industrial Development Agencies in New York State: Background, Issues and Recommendations
The substance of these reports fully supports Free New York’s position that IDAs should be abolished. If the concluding recommendations of the reports do not say as much, that’s a mystery only the Comptroller’s office could explain.
These reports, taken together, offer the following facts and inferences:
• IDAs generally underproduce on promised job creation.
• Both IDAs and their clients keep poor records.
• This prevents any reasonable cost-benefit analysis of their activities.
• IDAs don’t “recapture” tax breaks when companies fail to create new jobs.
• There is no unbiased study that demonstrates that IDAs accomplish their stated mission of improving the economy of New York.
• IDAs do consume considerable economic resources in personnel, independent contractors and labor costs.
• IDAs shift the tax burden from their clients to the vast majority of citizens who are not their clients.
These reports are a devastating critique of IDAs in every aspect of their activities.
When one turns to the recommendations of these reports, one expects to read: The 36-year experiment with IDAs has been a failure. No one has or can prove their worth. Abolish them!
Instead, a series of dubious reforms are proposed. None will work because none creates incentives for the IDAs to do what they are supposed to do: improve the economy. The simple fact is that IDAs are very good at closing development deals because that’s the trigger for getting paid a percentage of the deal as their fee. Once they are paid, they have little financial incentive to follow-up with their clients to see if they have fulfilled their job-creation projections.
Statewide, IDAs spend over $90 million shifting $388 million in taxes from a small number of businesses, mostly larger ones, and onto all state taxpayers, without any proof that this is helping the economy. Not included in this figure are costs such as delays in development projects caused by bureaucratic inertia and paperwork, and the costs of clients maintaining records (haphazardly).
Simple math tells us that if we took the $90 million the IDAs take from developers to save them $388 million in taxes, the total cost of IDAs is $478 million annually (based on 2004 figures). Abolishing IDAs could return nearly half a billion dollars to New Yorkers each year in the form of across-the-board tax cuts and other savings. Those funds would themselves stimulate economic activity and employment. The difference is that this stimulus would be market-driven—awarding the most efficient entrepreneurs--as opposed to the IDAs politically-driven investment decisions that reward the politically-shrewd and well-connected.
IDAs distract our attention from the real work that needs to be done to revive the New York economy: reducing the cost of state and local government. New York government spending is at least twenty percent higher than Pennsylvania’s.2 Twenty percent of New York’s state and local spending (about $190 billion) is about $38 billion! Thus, in terms of making New York competitive with Pennsylvania, not to mention Texas, North Carolina, India, and China, our IDAs are inconsequential. Their main effect is to dampen support for generalized tax cuts among influential business leaders who might otherwise lead the charge for such cuts. IDAs are thus serving to prop up the stagnant status quo in New York’s political economy.
Summarizing a 1992 report by State Senator Franz S. Leichter, the Comptroller’s second report cited above states, and Free Buffalo agrees:
“IDAs routinely provide support to projects that would have been completed without such assistance; existing relationships between developers and IDAs often determine which projects are granted assistance; politically connected contractors, consultants, attorneys, and IDA board members similarly benefit from and determine which applications for IDA assistance are approved; piracy is commonplace; and IDAs, whose fees are based on a percentage of project-related bond issues, are induced to support large projects.”
Would a private corporation suffer a failed division like the IDAs for 36 years?
2 The Tax Foundation estimates that New Yorkers pay 12.9% of income in state and local taxes whereas Pennsylvanians pay only 10.4%. Total state and local spending in New York is at least $190 billion. Source: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf2004/stlocalspending.htm
Abolishing Industrial Development Agencies was part of the initial Free Buffalo package of proposals in 2004-5.1
Subsequently, we issued News Alert No. 6—“Public Authorities Have Failed the Public.” That report stated:
It is time to recognize that the authority system of public administration in New York has failed. . . . The authority system failed because authorities are not subject to the discipline of the marketplace or the ballot box. When things go wrong, those in charge are neither voted out of office nor do they lose their investment.. . . authorities, like all government agencies, are bureaucracies, that is, organizations governed by rules and not by the desire to earn profits by satisfying customers. Authorities share with other government agencies all the defects of bureaucratic management but have one major additional defect: you can’t vote the managers out of office.
1 http://www.speakupwny.com/article_1948.shtml (scroll down).
This much can be said with certainty today: get rid of the IDAs (Industrial Development Agencies). They are unnecessary, unproductive, wasteful and a violation of the concept of equal protection of the laws—facts which, in a less decadent political climate, would be obvious to all.
Well, the political climate in New York is getting less decadent all the time as evidenced by two reports last week by the State Comptroller Alan Hevesi:
• Industrial Development Agencies’ Project Approval, Evaluation and Monitoring Efforts
• Industrial Development Agencies in New York State: Background, Issues and Recommendations
The substance of these reports fully supports Free New York’s position that IDAs should be abolished. If the concluding recommendations of the reports do not say as much, that’s a mystery only the Comptroller’s office could explain.
These reports, taken together, offer the following facts and inferences:
• IDAs generally underproduce on promised job creation.
• Both IDAs and their clients keep poor records.
• This prevents any reasonable cost-benefit analysis of their activities.
• IDAs don’t “recapture” tax breaks when companies fail to create new jobs.
• There is no unbiased study that demonstrates that IDAs accomplish their stated mission of improving the economy of New York.
• IDAs do consume considerable economic resources in personnel, independent contractors and labor costs.
• IDAs shift the tax burden from their clients to the vast majority of citizens who are not their clients.
These reports are a devastating critique of IDAs in every aspect of their activities.
When one turns to the recommendations of these reports, one expects to read: The 36-year experiment with IDAs has been a failure. No one has or can prove their worth. Abolish them!
Instead, a series of dubious reforms are proposed. None will work because none creates incentives for the IDAs to do what they are supposed to do: improve the economy. The simple fact is that IDAs are very good at closing development deals because that’s the trigger for getting paid a percentage of the deal as their fee. Once they are paid, they have little financial incentive to follow-up with their clients to see if they have fulfilled their job-creation projections.
Statewide, IDAs spend over $90 million shifting $388 million in taxes from a small number of businesses, mostly larger ones, and onto all state taxpayers, without any proof that this is helping the economy. Not included in this figure are costs such as delays in development projects caused by bureaucratic inertia and paperwork, and the costs of clients maintaining records (haphazardly).
Simple math tells us that if we took the $90 million the IDAs take from developers to save them $388 million in taxes, the total cost of IDAs is $478 million annually (based on 2004 figures). Abolishing IDAs could return nearly half a billion dollars to New Yorkers each year in the form of across-the-board tax cuts and other savings. Those funds would themselves stimulate economic activity and employment. The difference is that this stimulus would be market-driven—awarding the most efficient entrepreneurs--as opposed to the IDAs politically-driven investment decisions that reward the politically-shrewd and well-connected.
IDAs distract our attention from the real work that needs to be done to revive the New York economy: reducing the cost of state and local government. New York government spending is at least twenty percent higher than Pennsylvania’s.2 Twenty percent of New York’s state and local spending (about $190 billion) is about $38 billion! Thus, in terms of making New York competitive with Pennsylvania, not to mention Texas, North Carolina, India, and China, our IDAs are inconsequential. Their main effect is to dampen support for generalized tax cuts among influential business leaders who might otherwise lead the charge for such cuts. IDAs are thus serving to prop up the stagnant status quo in New York’s political economy.
Summarizing a 1992 report by State Senator Franz S. Leichter, the Comptroller’s second report cited above states, and Free Buffalo agrees:
“IDAs routinely provide support to projects that would have been completed without such assistance; existing relationships between developers and IDAs often determine which projects are granted assistance; politically connected contractors, consultants, attorneys, and IDA board members similarly benefit from and determine which applications for IDA assistance are approved; piracy is commonplace; and IDAs, whose fees are based on a percentage of project-related bond issues, are induced to support large projects.”
Would a private corporation suffer a failed division like the IDAs for 36 years?
2 The Tax Foundation estimates that New Yorkers pay 12.9% of income in state and local taxes whereas Pennsylvanians pay only 10.4%. Total state and local spending in New York is at least $190 billion. Source: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf2004/stlocalspending.htm
Monday, July 02, 2007
Analysis of Hevesi Audit of the IDA's by Glenn Schleede
This is sad but not surprising. I discovered, when reviewing the April 19, 2007, energy announcements by New York's Governor, NYSERDA and NYSPSC, that the economic benefit and job benefits that were claimed were grossly overstated. (That's in my June 12, 2007, paper, "A Critical Evaluation of...."
In that case, whomever developed the claims made several fundamental errors in their economic analysis; that is:
a. They assumed that all the capital cost of the energy projects would be spent in the state or local area. As you know, in the case of "wind farms" well over 75% (probably close to 90%)of the capital costs goes for turbines, towers, blades and other components that aren't produced in NY (In some cases much of the capital cost -- and associated economic benefits -- are for turbines, etc. that are produced in other countries!
b. They assume that the full $ value of everything purchased locally provides a local economic benefit. In fact, it's only the value added locally that may have local economic benefit. (I used gasoline in the "critical evaluation paper to illustrate this error.)
c. Many of the jobs during construction (80% in one case study) are filled by people -- often people with special skills such as those who assemble turbines, towers, blades, controls, etc. for wind farms -- who are brought in temporarily to do the work. Some of the few jobs on wind farms that exist after operations begin are also filled by temporary "itinerant" workers. Quite likely, all the people who come in for short stints even pay income taxes elsewhere. Few of the construction and permanent jobs are filled by local people.
d. Money from rent payments may not be spent or invested locally. Depending on the land owners' financial situation, the rental payment money may be spent or invested locally or in may be spent or invested elsewhere. This is particularly the case with absentee landlords.
The net effect of the errors are huge. As indicated in the "Critical evaluation" paper, an objective analysis may show that the state and local economic benefits are less than the $295 million that NYSERDA plans to pay the three companies (none headquartered in NY) that own the 9 "wind farms" and the owners of the small hydro and biofuels projects. (The money NYSERDA is using comes directly from that 1.42% "system benefit charge" that the NYS PSC tacks onto your month electric bills!!)
I suspect that the same kind of errors are being made by the IDA's.
(Click to read Hevesi Audit of the IDA's)
In that case, whomever developed the claims made several fundamental errors in their economic analysis; that is:
a. They assumed that all the capital cost of the energy projects would be spent in the state or local area. As you know, in the case of "wind farms" well over 75% (probably close to 90%)of the capital costs goes for turbines, towers, blades and other components that aren't produced in NY (In some cases much of the capital cost -- and associated economic benefits -- are for turbines, etc. that are produced in other countries!
b. They assume that the full $ value of everything purchased locally provides a local economic benefit. In fact, it's only the value added locally that may have local economic benefit. (I used gasoline in the "critical evaluation paper to illustrate this error.)
c. Many of the jobs during construction (80% in one case study) are filled by people -- often people with special skills such as those who assemble turbines, towers, blades, controls, etc. for wind farms -- who are brought in temporarily to do the work. Some of the few jobs on wind farms that exist after operations begin are also filled by temporary "itinerant" workers. Quite likely, all the people who come in for short stints even pay income taxes elsewhere. Few of the construction and permanent jobs are filled by local people.
d. Money from rent payments may not be spent or invested locally. Depending on the land owners' financial situation, the rental payment money may be spent or invested locally or in may be spent or invested elsewhere. This is particularly the case with absentee landlords.
The net effect of the errors are huge. As indicated in the "Critical evaluation" paper, an objective analysis may show that the state and local economic benefits are less than the $295 million that NYSERDA plans to pay the three companies (none headquartered in NY) that own the 9 "wind farms" and the owners of the small hydro and biofuels projects. (The money NYSERDA is using comes directly from that 1.42% "system benefit charge" that the NYS PSC tacks onto your month electric bills!!)
I suspect that the same kind of errors are being made by the IDA's.
(Click to read Hevesi Audit of the IDA's)
Sunday, July 01, 2007
UPC Cohocton/Dutch Hill FEIS report
FINAL DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)
ACCEPTED JUNE 2007
DOCUMENTS (PDFs)
DIVIDERS
TEXT
2007-06-28_Final
FIGURES
Figure 1_Project Site
Figure 2_Project Modifications
Figure 3_Surface Waters
Figure 4_State Mapped Wetland
Figure 5_Federal Mapped Wetlands
Figure 6_Delineated Wetlands
Figure 7_Vegetative Communities
Figure 8_Agricultural Districts
APPENDICES
Appendix-A_Wetland Figures
05005_FEIS_Appendix A_Delineated Wetlands
Appendix-B_Raptor Survey
Dutch Hill 2006 Radar and Bat report 010307
Table_Summary of Weather Conditions Fall 2006
Appendix C_Agency Correspondence
2007-03-02_from SHPO
DPS to OPRHP Consultation Request Letter
NHP Response 12-20-06
Appendix-D_VIA
Text
2007-06-13_Swartley_SVIA Addend
Figures
1-05005 SVIA_ADD_Figures 1-4
5-25_Visual Simulation Comparisons
Appendix-E_Shadow Flicker
1-Dutch Hill Shadow Flicker Briefing, Brown Hill turbines
2-070618 Map of 3-Turbines, all receptors, 1000m 070612
3-070612 3-Turbines, all receptors, 1000mf
4-Cohocton Shadow Flicker Briefing r3f
5-Cohocton SF_ Mid Eastern part, 070331 Clipper 96
6-Cohocton SF_ Mid-Western part, 070331 Clipper 96
7-Cohocton SF_ Northeast part, 070331 Clipper 96
8-Cohocton SF_ Southern part, 070331 Clipper 96
9-Cohocton SF_Mid-Northeast part, 070331 Clipper 96
99-Cohocton SF_North part, 070402 Clipper 96
Appendix-F_Noise
1-Rpt 1755-010606 Addendum Rev C
2-Graphic B Revised 5-31-07
3-Graphic C Revised 5-31-07
Appendix-G_Revised Transportation Routing Plan
1-Cohocton Map 1 - revised
2-Transportation Figures
Appendix-H_Communications
1-RFImpactStudyReportCohocton
2-Cohocton-Dutch Hill Addendum revised
policecom memo
sattv memo
Appendix-I_DEIS Public Hearing
I_Comments 203-236 (Public Hearing)
Appendix-J_DEIS Written Comments
A_Comments 1-32
B_Comments 33-72
C_Comments 73-106
D_Comments 107-131
E_Comments 132-146
F_Comment 147-181
G_Comments 182-202
I_Comment ltr 237 - 337
Appendix-K_SDEIS Public Hearing
1-19-07 Public Hearing Transcript_Marked
Appendix-L_SDEIS Written Comments
Cohocton SDEIS Comments 1-53
Appendix-M_Height Comparison Figure
STRUCTURE HEIGHTS
Appendix-N_Public Attitude Study
App B - Warren Et al -05-Public Perceptions of Wind in Scot
Appendix-O_SDEIS Response Figures
Cohocton SDEIS Response Figures
(Click for all the links to this FEIS report)
ACCEPTED JUNE 2007
DOCUMENTS (PDFs)
DIVIDERS
TEXT
2007-06-28_Final
FIGURES
Figure 1_Project Site
Figure 2_Project Modifications
Figure 3_Surface Waters
Figure 4_State Mapped Wetland
Figure 5_Federal Mapped Wetlands
Figure 6_Delineated Wetlands
Figure 7_Vegetative Communities
Figure 8_Agricultural Districts
APPENDICES
Appendix-A_Wetland Figures
05005_FEIS_Appendix A_Delineated Wetlands
Appendix-B_Raptor Survey
Dutch Hill 2006 Radar and Bat report 010307
Table_Summary of Weather Conditions Fall 2006
Appendix C_Agency Correspondence
2007-03-02_from SHPO
DPS to OPRHP Consultation Request Letter
NHP Response 12-20-06
Appendix-D_VIA
Text
2007-06-13_Swartley_SVIA Addend
Figures
1-05005 SVIA_ADD_Figures 1-4
5-25_Visual Simulation Comparisons
Appendix-E_Shadow Flicker
1-Dutch Hill Shadow Flicker Briefing, Brown Hill turbines
2-070618 Map of 3-Turbines, all receptors, 1000m 070612
3-070612 3-Turbines, all receptors, 1000mf
4-Cohocton Shadow Flicker Briefing r3f
5-Cohocton SF_ Mid Eastern part, 070331 Clipper 96
6-Cohocton SF_ Mid-Western part, 070331 Clipper 96
7-Cohocton SF_ Northeast part, 070331 Clipper 96
8-Cohocton SF_ Southern part, 070331 Clipper 96
9-Cohocton SF_Mid-Northeast part, 070331 Clipper 96
99-Cohocton SF_North part, 070402 Clipper 96
Appendix-F_Noise
1-Rpt 1755-010606 Addendum Rev C
2-Graphic B Revised 5-31-07
3-Graphic C Revised 5-31-07
Appendix-G_Revised Transportation Routing Plan
1-Cohocton Map 1 - revised
2-Transportation Figures
Appendix-H_Communications
1-RFImpactStudyReportCohocton
2-Cohocton-Dutch Hill Addendum revised
policecom memo
sattv memo
Appendix-I_DEIS Public Hearing
I_Comments 203-236 (Public Hearing)
Appendix-J_DEIS Written Comments
A_Comments 1-32
B_Comments 33-72
C_Comments 73-106
D_Comments 107-131
E_Comments 132-146
F_Comment 147-181
G_Comments 182-202
I_Comment ltr 237 - 337
Appendix-K_SDEIS Public Hearing
1-19-07 Public Hearing Transcript_Marked
Appendix-L_SDEIS Written Comments
Cohocton SDEIS Comments 1-53
Appendix-M_Height Comparison Figure
STRUCTURE HEIGHTS
Appendix-N_Public Attitude Study
App B - Warren Et al -05-Public Perceptions of Wind in Scot
Appendix-O_SDEIS Response Figures
Cohocton SDEIS Response Figures
(Click for all the links to this FEIS report)
RG&E and NYSEG being bought by IBERDROLA wind company
Energy East is the parent ownership for RG&E and NYSEG utilities. They also own Central Maine Power Company and several gas utilities in Connecticut and Massachusetts. IBERDROLA is a Spanish company that recently purchased Scottish Power and has created one of the largest electricity groups in Europe. Iberdrola is the world´s leading wind energy company.
If the acquisition of Energy East is approved by federal regulators what will be the impact on your electric utility bill? The cost of electric from wind generation is much higher over alternative methods. The efficiency of industrial wind turbines are at most 30 % of rating and in our region it should be expected to be as low as 6% to 12% during much of the year when the prevailing winds are minimal.
The sale of RG&E and NYSEG is a true security risk to residents of Western New York. This is not an imagery threat, but is a real risk. The dire destructive consequences of globalization will come home to roost in every check you pay to this foreign company who will be able to control one of our most important infrastructure facilities.
Inefficient and government subsidized wind turbines will dot all of New York State as every special interest faction drains off their financial pay off for selling out another American industry. This Energy East acquisition should be opposed by every customer of electric utilities and righteous outrage needs to be focused upon your federal and state regulators and elected officials before approval is granted.
Cohocton Wind Watch has warned against the siting of ill-conceived industrial wind turbine projects in our area. Now you see the evidence that foreign companies want to control our electric supply, which will place us at their mercy. Pricing for the consumer is already at record levels. Iberdrola will use the government tax credits and incentives from wind subsidies to eliminate their legitimate U.S. tax obligations. The added expense of inconsistent wind generation will add to the electric costs across the board.
How can NYS consumers benefit from foreign utility ownership of a wind developer? The prospects are explicitly clear that the “sweet heart deals” that line the pockets of corporate insiders will drain the check books of every electric consumer. Note this one example: “Wesley W. von Schack, in addition to continuing as a chief executive of Energy East following its acquisition by Iberdrola, will receive a lump-sum payment of $21.8 million from the Spanish company”.
From a recent press release: “IBERDROLA expects to support Energy East's efforts by exploring opportunities to expand its wind generation portfolio, which includes the upstate New York-based Maple Ridge wind generating facility -- the largest such facility on the East Coast”.
UPC, the developer of Cohocton and Prattsburgh projects has close ties with Iberdrola. Other foreign companies active in U.S. wind energy development include Ireland's Airtricity, Spain's Gamesa and Naturener, Australia's Babcock & Brown, Electricité de France (via Enxco), Nedpower of The Netherlands, Shell, BP, and the various UPC Wind companies funded by European investors through Italian parent UPC Group - Italian Vento Power Corporation.
These foreign wind developers work together to control electric generation capacity under the constant threat of eminent domain. Naturener joined Gamesa, and has interests in the wind developer Navitas Energy, and Iberdrola, a world leader in wind farm ownership that recently snapped up Scottish Power. The latter owns PPM Energy, with a significant portfolio in wind energy that adds up to the assets Iberdrola already had in the US.
Senator Chuck Schumer raised a loud voice against the Dubai Ports sell out. That was a graphic betrayal that every citizen understood in their gut. Now is the time to wake up and demand of Schumer and every other public servant that they combat the systemic dismantling of vital domestic companies. Opposing Iberdrola and defeating its take over of Energy East is a national security issue.
Get active and express your indignation to foreign control and ownership of our utilities and organize to stop Iberdrola now. Keep our utilities among domestic control and ownership. A European wind developer will not operate RG&E and NYSEG in the best interests of Americans. The Public Service Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Security and Exchange Commission and every other NYS and US agencies that have regulatory authority over such transactions needs to reject this acquisition.
Every media outlet needs to investigate and expose the unsavory links and shady business practices of foreign wind and utility companies. Support the Anti-trust complaint against the wind industry and expand the investigation into the ties to foreign utility interests. Electric costs affect every consumer of energy. Everyone deserves homeland security protection of our utilities. The Iberdrola take over of Energy East is a national issue and genuine danger to our economic future.
James Hall – Cohocton Wind Watch
If the acquisition of Energy East is approved by federal regulators what will be the impact on your electric utility bill? The cost of electric from wind generation is much higher over alternative methods. The efficiency of industrial wind turbines are at most 30 % of rating and in our region it should be expected to be as low as 6% to 12% during much of the year when the prevailing winds are minimal.
The sale of RG&E and NYSEG is a true security risk to residents of Western New York. This is not an imagery threat, but is a real risk. The dire destructive consequences of globalization will come home to roost in every check you pay to this foreign company who will be able to control one of our most important infrastructure facilities.
Inefficient and government subsidized wind turbines will dot all of New York State as every special interest faction drains off their financial pay off for selling out another American industry. This Energy East acquisition should be opposed by every customer of electric utilities and righteous outrage needs to be focused upon your federal and state regulators and elected officials before approval is granted.
Cohocton Wind Watch has warned against the siting of ill-conceived industrial wind turbine projects in our area. Now you see the evidence that foreign companies want to control our electric supply, which will place us at their mercy. Pricing for the consumer is already at record levels. Iberdrola will use the government tax credits and incentives from wind subsidies to eliminate their legitimate U.S. tax obligations. The added expense of inconsistent wind generation will add to the electric costs across the board.
How can NYS consumers benefit from foreign utility ownership of a wind developer? The prospects are explicitly clear that the “sweet heart deals” that line the pockets of corporate insiders will drain the check books of every electric consumer. Note this one example: “Wesley W. von Schack, in addition to continuing as a chief executive of Energy East following its acquisition by Iberdrola, will receive a lump-sum payment of $21.8 million from the Spanish company”.
From a recent press release: “IBERDROLA expects to support Energy East's efforts by exploring opportunities to expand its wind generation portfolio, which includes the upstate New York-based Maple Ridge wind generating facility -- the largest such facility on the East Coast”.
UPC, the developer of Cohocton and Prattsburgh projects has close ties with Iberdrola. Other foreign companies active in U.S. wind energy development include Ireland's Airtricity, Spain's Gamesa and Naturener, Australia's Babcock & Brown, Electricité de France (via Enxco), Nedpower of The Netherlands, Shell, BP, and the various UPC Wind companies funded by European investors through Italian parent UPC Group - Italian Vento Power Corporation.
These foreign wind developers work together to control electric generation capacity under the constant threat of eminent domain. Naturener joined Gamesa, and has interests in the wind developer Navitas Energy, and Iberdrola, a world leader in wind farm ownership that recently snapped up Scottish Power. The latter owns PPM Energy, with a significant portfolio in wind energy that adds up to the assets Iberdrola already had in the US.
Senator Chuck Schumer raised a loud voice against the Dubai Ports sell out. That was a graphic betrayal that every citizen understood in their gut. Now is the time to wake up and demand of Schumer and every other public servant that they combat the systemic dismantling of vital domestic companies. Opposing Iberdrola and defeating its take over of Energy East is a national security issue.
Get active and express your indignation to foreign control and ownership of our utilities and organize to stop Iberdrola now. Keep our utilities among domestic control and ownership. A European wind developer will not operate RG&E and NYSEG in the best interests of Americans. The Public Service Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Security and Exchange Commission and every other NYS and US agencies that have regulatory authority over such transactions needs to reject this acquisition.
Every media outlet needs to investigate and expose the unsavory links and shady business practices of foreign wind and utility companies. Support the Anti-trust complaint against the wind industry and expand the investigation into the ties to foreign utility interests. Electric costs affect every consumer of energy. Everyone deserves homeland security protection of our utilities. The Iberdrola take over of Energy East is a national issue and genuine danger to our economic future.
James Hall – Cohocton Wind Watch
IBERDROLA Reaches an Agreement to Acquire Energy East for $4.5 Billion
BILBAO, Spain and PORTLAND, Maine, June 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boards of IBERDROLA S.A. and Energy East Corporation (NYSE: EAS) , meeting today in Madrid and New York, respectively, have approved a merger agreement under which IBERDROLA will acquire 100% of Energy East, which will become part of the IBERDROLA group.
According to the terms of the merger agreement, the shareholders of Energy East would receive $28.50 in cash per share at closing, representing a premium of 20.2% over Energy East's average closing stock price for the 30 day period ending June 22, 2007 (27.4% over Energy East's closing stock price on June 22, 2007).
The transaction values Energy East at approximately 6,400 million euros ($8.6 billion) in terms of enterprise value (market equity value plus net debt).
IBERDROLA will analyze different financing alternatives for the transaction and will select the one which best meets its requirements from the point of view of maintaining its financial solidity and ratings.
The transaction is subject to approval by the shareholders of Energy East, Federal and State authorizations, and other customary closing conditions and is expected to close in 2008.
IBERDROLA Chairman and CEO, Ignacio Galan said, "The combination with Energy East fits with the philosophy of our Strategic Plan, will serve to enhance the international expansion we initiated several years ago in markets with stable growth, and consolidates our position as one of the world's leading electricity companies."
Galan said "the acquisition of Energy East will allow IBERDROLA to strengthen its commitment to shareholders, improving Group results, dividends and profitability. It will also enhance our commitment to customers, through improved quality of supply, and to society, contributing to sustainable development thanks to our world leadership in renewable energy and to increased investments devoted to reducing emissions.
"This new step in the United States will allow IBERDROLA to continue working with national and State governments to make investments in infrastructure that advance clean energy policies; we welcome Energy East's employees and look forward to leveraging our experience to help address some of the most challenging energy and environmental issues in the Northeastern US," concluded Galan.
"This transaction is a unique opportunity to deliver enhanced value to Energy East's shareholders and to build a stronger future for our company, employees and the states we serve," said Wes von Schack, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Energy East.
"The energy industry is at a major inflection point," continued von Schack. "Policymakers now recognize the need for our industry to make significant investments in our energy infrastructure. Our objective is to team with the States in which we do business to help meet the goals they have established to increase renewable sources of energy, improve energy efficiency, and invest in a secure and reliable energy infrastructure. We believe our combination with IBERDROLA will not only accelerate our progress but will transform the way we do business."
"Furthermore, while IBERDROLA is a global energy company, its operations are managed locally. I'm therefore delighted to assure Energy East's three million customers that they can continue to rely on the same local people whom they've come to know and trust to provide exceptional customer service," concluded von Schack.
IBERDROLA's expertise and track record in all aspects of delivering sustainable, clean energy make it a strong partner to help support and advance Energy East's efforts. In particular, IBERDROLA has made almost $4 billion in transmission and distribution investments over the past three(2) years and has been successful in initiatives that have reduced customer demand and peak consumption. Its significant engineering and construction resources place it at the leading edge of environmental technologies.
IBERDROLA expects to support Energy East's efforts by exploring opportunities to expand its wind generation portfolio, which includes the upstate New York-based Maple Ridge wind generating facility -- the largest such facility on the East Coast. As a leading developer of natural gas combined cycle generation, IBERDROLA will also bring construction expertise to Energy East's plans to repower the Russell generating station.
A New Step in IBERDROLA's Internationalization Strategy
Energy East is a US-based utility company listed on the NYSE, with a strong presence in electricity (1.8 million customers) and natural gas (0.9 million customers) regulated businesses.
The company focuses the majority of its activities in four states on the East Coast of the US, and is nationally recognized for its excellent customer satisfaction, reliability and environmental stewardship.
This transaction allows IBERDROLA to increase its presence in the US and accelerates the achievement of the internationalization objective set in IBERDROLA's Strategic Plan approved last October.
Energy East represents the right platform for IBERDROLA's future growth in the US.
A Global Company with a Commitment to Local Operations
Following the close of the transaction, Energy East's utility subsidiaries will continue to operate under their current names (The Berkshire Gas Company, Central Maine Power Company, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, and The Southern Connecticut Gas Company).
The Enhancement of a Leading Global Utility
The integration of IBERDROLA and ScottishPower, in April 2007, represented a milestone for the one hundred year-old IBERDROLA, creating a leading global utility and a world leader in renewable energies.
With the Energy East transaction, the enterprise value of IBERDROLA will surpass 83,000 million euros, ($112 billion) at today's values consolidating the company as one of the world's largest electricity operators.
The acquisition reinforces the presence of IBERDROLA, which, upon completion of the transaction, will have 24 million electricity points of supply, 3.0 million gas points of supply, and an installed capacity of nearly 42,000 megawatts (MW).
IBERDROLA continues its strategic support for renewable energies, where it is the world leader. Globally, IBERDROLA has 16,500 MW of installed renewable energy capacity (including large-scale hydro), and the company expects to exceed 20,000 MW in the coming years. The transaction also allows IBERDROLA to optimize its current presence in the renewable energy business in the US, the second largest market globally.
In addition, IBERDROLA has 2.7 bcm of gas storage capacity in the UK and the US, having significant opportunities to expand this business.
Currently, IBERDROLA has operations in Spain, the UK, the US, Mexico, Brazil, Greece, Portugal, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Guatemala, Bolivia and Chile, and has a significant portfolio of projects that will allow the group to continue growing in the future.
Energy East Advisors
JP Morgan and Greenhill & Co served as financial advisors to Energy East, and LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae served as legal counsel.
NOTE: IBERDROLA and Energy East also issued a joint press release in Spain this morning.
In connection with the proposed transaction, IBERDROLA may be required to file relevant documents with the SEC. Such documents, however, are not currently available. INVESTORS ARE URGED TO READ ANY DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL TRANSACTION IF AND WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Investors will be able to obtain a free copy of such documents without charge, at the SEC's website (http://www.sec.gov/) once such documents are filed with the SEC.
In connection with the proposed transaction, Energy East will file a proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Before making any voting or investment decision, investors and security holders of Energy East are urged to carefully read the entire proxy statement, when it becomes available, and any other relevant documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as any amendments or supplements to those documents, because they will contain important information about the proposed transaction. A definitive proxy statement will be sent to the shareholders of Energy East in connection with the proposed transaction. Investors and security holders may obtain a free copy of the proxy statement (when available) and other documents filed by Energy East at the Securities and Exchange Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/. The proxy statement and such other documents may also be obtained for free from Energy East by directing such request to Energy East, 52 Farm View Drive, New Gloucester, ME 04260, Attention Marc Siwak.
Energy East, its directors, executive officers and other members of its management, employees, and certain other persons may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from Energy East shareholders in connection with the proposed transaction. Information about the interests of Energy East's participants in the solicitation is set forth in Energy East's proxy statements and Annual Reports on Form 10-K, previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in the proxy statement relating to the transaction when it becomes available
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
This communication contains forward-looking information and statements about Energy East and Iberdrola, S.A. and their combined businesses after completion of the proposed transaction. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. These statements include financial projections and estimates and their underlying assumptions, statements regarding plans, objectives and expectations with respect to future operations, products and services, and statements regarding future performance. Forward-looking statements are generally identified by the words "expects," "anticipates," "believes," "intends," "estimates" and similar expressions. Although the managements of Energy East Corporation and Iberdrola, S.A. believe that the expectations reflected in such forward- looking statements are reasonable, investors and holders of Energy East Corporation and Iberdrola, S.A. shares are cautioned that forward-looking information and statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and generally beyond the control of Energy East Corporation and Iberdrola, S.A., that could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied or projected by, the forward-looking information and statements. These risks and uncertainties include those discussed or identified in the public documents sent by Energy East and Iberdrola, S.A. to their regulators and under "Risk Factors" in their annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC. Except as required by applicable law, neither Energy East nor Iberdrola, S.A. undertakes any obligation to update any forward-looking information or statements.
In addition to the risks and uncertainties set out in SEC reports or periodic reports, the proposed transaction described in this release could be affected by, among other things, the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could give rise to the termination of the merger agreement; the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against Energy East Corporation and others related to the merger agreement; failure to obtain shareholder approval or any other failure to satisfy other conditions required to complete the merger, including required regulatory approvals; risks that the proposed transaction disrupts current plans and operations and the potential difficulties in employee retention as a result of the merger; and the amount of the costs, fees, expenses and charges related to the merger.
About Iberdrola: Iberdrola is a global utility with activities in the full value chain of the electricity business from generation to distribution. The main markets where the company operates are Spain, the UK, the US, Mexico and Brazil. Globally the company has approximately 24 million electricity points of supply and almost 40,000 MW of generation capacity of which over 16,500 M.W. are from renewable energies, showing the strong commitment of the company to the environment.
About Energy East: Energy East Corporation is a respected super-regional energy services and delivery company serving about 3 million customers in the US throughout upstate New York and New England. By providing outstanding customer service and meeting customers' energy requirements in an environmentally-responsible manner, Energy East will continue to be a valuable asset to the communities it serves.
(1) Iberdrola figures include gas customers (0.2 million in Spain and 1.9
million in the UK).
(2) 2005 to 2007.
According to the terms of the merger agreement, the shareholders of Energy East would receive $28.50 in cash per share at closing, representing a premium of 20.2% over Energy East's average closing stock price for the 30 day period ending June 22, 2007 (27.4% over Energy East's closing stock price on June 22, 2007).
The transaction values Energy East at approximately 6,400 million euros ($8.6 billion) in terms of enterprise value (market equity value plus net debt).
IBERDROLA will analyze different financing alternatives for the transaction and will select the one which best meets its requirements from the point of view of maintaining its financial solidity and ratings.
The transaction is subject to approval by the shareholders of Energy East, Federal and State authorizations, and other customary closing conditions and is expected to close in 2008.
IBERDROLA Chairman and CEO, Ignacio Galan said, "The combination with Energy East fits with the philosophy of our Strategic Plan, will serve to enhance the international expansion we initiated several years ago in markets with stable growth, and consolidates our position as one of the world's leading electricity companies."
Galan said "the acquisition of Energy East will allow IBERDROLA to strengthen its commitment to shareholders, improving Group results, dividends and profitability. It will also enhance our commitment to customers, through improved quality of supply, and to society, contributing to sustainable development thanks to our world leadership in renewable energy and to increased investments devoted to reducing emissions.
"This new step in the United States will allow IBERDROLA to continue working with national and State governments to make investments in infrastructure that advance clean energy policies; we welcome Energy East's employees and look forward to leveraging our experience to help address some of the most challenging energy and environmental issues in the Northeastern US," concluded Galan.
"This transaction is a unique opportunity to deliver enhanced value to Energy East's shareholders and to build a stronger future for our company, employees and the states we serve," said Wes von Schack, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Energy East.
"The energy industry is at a major inflection point," continued von Schack. "Policymakers now recognize the need for our industry to make significant investments in our energy infrastructure. Our objective is to team with the States in which we do business to help meet the goals they have established to increase renewable sources of energy, improve energy efficiency, and invest in a secure and reliable energy infrastructure. We believe our combination with IBERDROLA will not only accelerate our progress but will transform the way we do business."
"Furthermore, while IBERDROLA is a global energy company, its operations are managed locally. I'm therefore delighted to assure Energy East's three million customers that they can continue to rely on the same local people whom they've come to know and trust to provide exceptional customer service," concluded von Schack.
IBERDROLA's expertise and track record in all aspects of delivering sustainable, clean energy make it a strong partner to help support and advance Energy East's efforts. In particular, IBERDROLA has made almost $4 billion in transmission and distribution investments over the past three(2) years and has been successful in initiatives that have reduced customer demand and peak consumption. Its significant engineering and construction resources place it at the leading edge of environmental technologies.
IBERDROLA expects to support Energy East's efforts by exploring opportunities to expand its wind generation portfolio, which includes the upstate New York-based Maple Ridge wind generating facility -- the largest such facility on the East Coast. As a leading developer of natural gas combined cycle generation, IBERDROLA will also bring construction expertise to Energy East's plans to repower the Russell generating station.
A New Step in IBERDROLA's Internationalization Strategy
Energy East is a US-based utility company listed on the NYSE, with a strong presence in electricity (1.8 million customers) and natural gas (0.9 million customers) regulated businesses.
The company focuses the majority of its activities in four states on the East Coast of the US, and is nationally recognized for its excellent customer satisfaction, reliability and environmental stewardship.
This transaction allows IBERDROLA to increase its presence in the US and accelerates the achievement of the internationalization objective set in IBERDROLA's Strategic Plan approved last October.
Energy East represents the right platform for IBERDROLA's future growth in the US.
A Global Company with a Commitment to Local Operations
Following the close of the transaction, Energy East's utility subsidiaries will continue to operate under their current names (The Berkshire Gas Company, Central Maine Power Company, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, and The Southern Connecticut Gas Company).
The Enhancement of a Leading Global Utility
The integration of IBERDROLA and ScottishPower, in April 2007, represented a milestone for the one hundred year-old IBERDROLA, creating a leading global utility and a world leader in renewable energies.
With the Energy East transaction, the enterprise value of IBERDROLA will surpass 83,000 million euros, ($112 billion) at today's values consolidating the company as one of the world's largest electricity operators.
The acquisition reinforces the presence of IBERDROLA, which, upon completion of the transaction, will have 24 million electricity points of supply, 3.0 million gas points of supply, and an installed capacity of nearly 42,000 megawatts (MW).
IBERDROLA continues its strategic support for renewable energies, where it is the world leader. Globally, IBERDROLA has 16,500 MW of installed renewable energy capacity (including large-scale hydro), and the company expects to exceed 20,000 MW in the coming years. The transaction also allows IBERDROLA to optimize its current presence in the renewable energy business in the US, the second largest market globally.
In addition, IBERDROLA has 2.7 bcm of gas storage capacity in the UK and the US, having significant opportunities to expand this business.
Currently, IBERDROLA has operations in Spain, the UK, the US, Mexico, Brazil, Greece, Portugal, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Guatemala, Bolivia and Chile, and has a significant portfolio of projects that will allow the group to continue growing in the future.
Energy East Advisors
JP Morgan and Greenhill & Co served as financial advisors to Energy East, and LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae served as legal counsel.
NOTE: IBERDROLA and Energy East also issued a joint press release in Spain this morning.
In connection with the proposed transaction, IBERDROLA may be required to file relevant documents with the SEC. Such documents, however, are not currently available. INVESTORS ARE URGED TO READ ANY DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL TRANSACTION IF AND WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Investors will be able to obtain a free copy of such documents without charge, at the SEC's website (http://www.sec.gov/) once such documents are filed with the SEC.
In connection with the proposed transaction, Energy East will file a proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Before making any voting or investment decision, investors and security holders of Energy East are urged to carefully read the entire proxy statement, when it becomes available, and any other relevant documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as any amendments or supplements to those documents, because they will contain important information about the proposed transaction. A definitive proxy statement will be sent to the shareholders of Energy East in connection with the proposed transaction. Investors and security holders may obtain a free copy of the proxy statement (when available) and other documents filed by Energy East at the Securities and Exchange Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/. The proxy statement and such other documents may also be obtained for free from Energy East by directing such request to Energy East, 52 Farm View Drive, New Gloucester, ME 04260, Attention Marc Siwak.
Energy East, its directors, executive officers and other members of its management, employees, and certain other persons may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from Energy East shareholders in connection with the proposed transaction. Information about the interests of Energy East's participants in the solicitation is set forth in Energy East's proxy statements and Annual Reports on Form 10-K, previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in the proxy statement relating to the transaction when it becomes available
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
This communication contains forward-looking information and statements about Energy East and Iberdrola, S.A. and their combined businesses after completion of the proposed transaction. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. These statements include financial projections and estimates and their underlying assumptions, statements regarding plans, objectives and expectations with respect to future operations, products and services, and statements regarding future performance. Forward-looking statements are generally identified by the words "expects," "anticipates," "believes," "intends," "estimates" and similar expressions. Although the managements of Energy East Corporation and Iberdrola, S.A. believe that the expectations reflected in such forward- looking statements are reasonable, investors and holders of Energy East Corporation and Iberdrola, S.A. shares are cautioned that forward-looking information and statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and generally beyond the control of Energy East Corporation and Iberdrola, S.A., that could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied or projected by, the forward-looking information and statements. These risks and uncertainties include those discussed or identified in the public documents sent by Energy East and Iberdrola, S.A. to their regulators and under "Risk Factors" in their annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC. Except as required by applicable law, neither Energy East nor Iberdrola, S.A. undertakes any obligation to update any forward-looking information or statements.
In addition to the risks and uncertainties set out in SEC reports or periodic reports, the proposed transaction described in this release could be affected by, among other things, the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could give rise to the termination of the merger agreement; the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against Energy East Corporation and others related to the merger agreement; failure to obtain shareholder approval or any other failure to satisfy other conditions required to complete the merger, including required regulatory approvals; risks that the proposed transaction disrupts current plans and operations and the potential difficulties in employee retention as a result of the merger; and the amount of the costs, fees, expenses and charges related to the merger.
About Iberdrola: Iberdrola is a global utility with activities in the full value chain of the electricity business from generation to distribution. The main markets where the company operates are Spain, the UK, the US, Mexico and Brazil. Globally the company has approximately 24 million electricity points of supply and almost 40,000 MW of generation capacity of which over 16,500 M.W. are from renewable energies, showing the strong commitment of the company to the environment.
About Energy East: Energy East Corporation is a respected super-regional energy services and delivery company serving about 3 million customers in the US throughout upstate New York and New England. By providing outstanding customer service and meeting customers' energy requirements in an environmentally-responsible manner, Energy East will continue to be a valuable asset to the communities it serves.
(1) Iberdrola figures include gas customers (0.2 million in Spain and 1.9
million in the UK).
(2) 2005 to 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)