Dear Ms. Raymo:
Thank you for your story in today's Press-Republican, "Wind farms could have large economic impact."
I respectfully suggest that you get a copy of the detailed analysis presented to county legislators in Malone by the president and chief economist for the Center of Governmental Research and check the validity of the analysis and conclusions. It appears to be seriously in error on several points.
Please be aware that the favorable economic impact of "wind farms" is often overestimated. For example, I'm attaching a recent evaluation of the of the Energy Plan for New York State announced on April 19, 2007, by Governor Spitzer, NYSERDA and NYS PSC. As this evaluation points out, the claims of economic benefit made for that plan are grossly overestimated because of fundamental errors in the economic analysis (e.g., assumptions about the economic benefit of the capital cost of the "wind farms" selected for additional subsidies from NYSERDA). (See pages 10-12 in attached "Evaluation" paper.)
I also suggest that you investigate the claim that the "wind farm" developer "would make about an 8-percent return on its investment each year of operation." That number is almost certainly a gross underestimation. In this connection, you may want to look at the detailed tables in the attached paper which shows the amount that "wind farm" owners would receive in tax breaks and subsidies that would flow to the developer.
It's unclear from your story how the "8-percent...on its investment" was calculated. However, recent news stories have indicated that a large share of the capital cost of Noble "wind farms" in New York would be financed by borrowing from GE, which means that Noble's equity investment would be only a minor part of the capital cost. You should be aware that, under very generous federal (and NY) tax laws, "wind farm" owners can recover the entire capital cost of a "wind farm" (whether financed by equity or debt) in the first tax year. In fact, 52% of the total can be recovered in the first 2 years. Because of these generous accelerated depreciation allowances (called 5-yr, 200% declining balance - MACRS), it is highly likely that Noble would be able to recover all of its equity investment in the first year or two of operation. Thereafter, the company would, in effect, have no outstanding equity and it's return on equity would be infinite!
This rapid recovery of equity does not take into account the additional generous tax shelter that would be available to the company in the form of the federal Production Tax Credit of $0.02 per kilowatt-hour for each kWh of electricity produced by the "wind farm" during the first 10 years of operation.
You should also be aware that claims about local job impact of "wind farms" are generally overstated. An overwhelming share of the jobs during the relatively short construction period are generally filled by people with specialized expertise (e.g., assembling towers, turbines, blades, electronics) who are brought into the area for temporary work. (In the case of one wind farm in Iowa, only 20 of 200 construction jobs were filled by local workers. Also, the workers brought in temporarily may pay income taxes in other states rather than in NY) Jobs filled by local workers are likely to be among the lower-paid ones. The estimate of 38 jobs during "regular operations" also appears unusually high.
Another area of common error when estimating favorable economic impact occurs when considering local purchases. Often, analysts will incorrectly count the entire cost of a local purchase rather than local (or state) value added. (See page 11 in attached "Evaluation" paper.)
Please recognize that overestimation of favorable local and state economic impact of "wind farms" is a common problem. In fact, a second paper that is attached explains that an economic model developed for the National Renewable Energy "Laboratory" (NREL) contains serious errors that result in overestimating favorable economic and job impacts.
I recognize that the above may seem complicated but, the attached paper should be helpful to you in gaining an understanding of the issues quite quickly.
Clearly, the claims made by Noble and the center of Governmental Research need to be investigated in more detail so that local government officials and your readers can have a more complete story on true economic impact of "wind farms" proposed for your area.
Respectfully,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Advocates Supports Article 78 Petition Opposing Wind Project
ADVOCATES FOR SPRINGFIELD
P. O. Box 25
Springfield Center, New York 13468
Update #39
July 19, 2007
Advocates Supports Article 78 Petition Opposing Wind Project Jordanville Wind Project Approved Advocates for Springfield will be supporting the Article 78 petition filed today on behalf of individual citizens of the Towns of Stark and Warren.
The Warren Town Board has issued its Findings under SEQRA and determined that the negative impacts of the Jordanville Wind project have been properly and adequately addressed. The Warren Board and the Stark Board both approved issuance of Special Use Permits under their local wind ordinances, giving further approval for the project to proceed.
We have two main complaints about these actions:
1) The environmental review was not well done. Many issues were never addressed. And others were addressed only by offering to conduct tests and evaluations after the project is completed. The Lead Agency failed to take the required "hard look" at the project. As only one example, under SEQRA, the Lead Agency must look at alternatives such as other locations, downsizing, phasing development, or use of smaller turbines. In the Jordanville analysis, the applicant has stated that none of these options is economically viable. But the Lead Agency never asked for evidence about the project economics. Further, the original plan was for 75 turbines and that plan was described as the minimum size needed for economic viability. Since then, the project has been reduced to 68 turbines with the same claim as to economic viability. The Findings recommend a further reduction of 2 turbines with once again the same result that this is now the minimum for economic viability. So the assertion about minimum size was not true and yet the Lead Agency still has not requested financial information.
2) There were many procedural errors committed in the approval process. These errors are important because of the taint of conflicts of interest (one town board member is getting a turbine on his land and he participated in the board's deliberations), the failure to properly notify the public of meetings, and (most importantly) the conducting in closed sessions of the entire review of the Special Use Permits.
Our only recourse is to support the filing of an Article 78 petition to force the two towns and the developer to go back to square one and conduct a reasonable SEQRA review without the process errors that taint the current review.
Otsego 2000 has voted to endorse this petition as has Advocates for Stark. There are about 10 private landowners who will be the actual petitioners with standing (that is, they will be personally damaged by the approval). Our participation is important to demonstrate that the proposed project impacts extend to the surrounding communities.
We expect the petition to be filed by the time you receive this Update.
Home Rule and Regional Impacts
New York is a home rule state, meaning that local governance is a valued concept. We support this concept and have been active proponents of local decisions for local issues.
In the case of the Jordanville Wind project, we are crossing the line into two neighboring towns to ask that they consider the impact of this project on us. And since, at least in our opinion, they have failed to adequately consider these impacts, we are asking the court to insist that our view point be taken into consideration. We are not attempting to undermine the concept of home rule; we remain strong supporters of that concept. But when an action in one town has a clear and dramatic impact on the lives of people living in another town, it is incumbent upon the first town to consider the effect on the second town.
It is interesting to note that New York State is now debating whether to take wind turbine project siting decisions away from local decision-makers. The legislature is discussing revisions to Article 10 (concerning the siting of utility plants) so that local voices would have no say in where such plants are located. We disagree with this direction and hope that our legislators will see the wisdom of keeping home rule decision-making for such projects.
Financial Support Required
Many of you have generously contributed funds to help defray the costs that we have and will incur. We are grateful for your support.
Voluntary contributions in any amount will help us protect our area against a very large project that will create damage or potential damage along many lines. We had hoped to resolve our most critical issues through negotiations and compromises while the project review was taking place, but now must rely upon the judicial system. This is an expensive undertaking. Please continue to send your donations to Advocates for Springfield at the address at the top of this Update.
If you are receiving a copy of this Update in the mail, please remember to send us your current e-mail address so we can save postage and handling costs. Send your e-mail address and/or comments to barry.levine@patmedia.net.
P. O. Box 25
Springfield Center, New York 13468
Update #39
July 19, 2007
Advocates Supports Article 78 Petition Opposing Wind Project Jordanville Wind Project Approved Advocates for Springfield will be supporting the Article 78 petition filed today on behalf of individual citizens of the Towns of Stark and Warren.
The Warren Town Board has issued its Findings under SEQRA and determined that the negative impacts of the Jordanville Wind project have been properly and adequately addressed. The Warren Board and the Stark Board both approved issuance of Special Use Permits under their local wind ordinances, giving further approval for the project to proceed.
We have two main complaints about these actions:
1) The environmental review was not well done. Many issues were never addressed. And others were addressed only by offering to conduct tests and evaluations after the project is completed. The Lead Agency failed to take the required "hard look" at the project. As only one example, under SEQRA, the Lead Agency must look at alternatives such as other locations, downsizing, phasing development, or use of smaller turbines. In the Jordanville analysis, the applicant has stated that none of these options is economically viable. But the Lead Agency never asked for evidence about the project economics. Further, the original plan was for 75 turbines and that plan was described as the minimum size needed for economic viability. Since then, the project has been reduced to 68 turbines with the same claim as to economic viability. The Findings recommend a further reduction of 2 turbines with once again the same result that this is now the minimum for economic viability. So the assertion about minimum size was not true and yet the Lead Agency still has not requested financial information.
2) There were many procedural errors committed in the approval process. These errors are important because of the taint of conflicts of interest (one town board member is getting a turbine on his land and he participated in the board's deliberations), the failure to properly notify the public of meetings, and (most importantly) the conducting in closed sessions of the entire review of the Special Use Permits.
Our only recourse is to support the filing of an Article 78 petition to force the two towns and the developer to go back to square one and conduct a reasonable SEQRA review without the process errors that taint the current review.
Otsego 2000 has voted to endorse this petition as has Advocates for Stark. There are about 10 private landowners who will be the actual petitioners with standing (that is, they will be personally damaged by the approval). Our participation is important to demonstrate that the proposed project impacts extend to the surrounding communities.
We expect the petition to be filed by the time you receive this Update.
Home Rule and Regional Impacts
New York is a home rule state, meaning that local governance is a valued concept. We support this concept and have been active proponents of local decisions for local issues.
In the case of the Jordanville Wind project, we are crossing the line into two neighboring towns to ask that they consider the impact of this project on us. And since, at least in our opinion, they have failed to adequately consider these impacts, we are asking the court to insist that our view point be taken into consideration. We are not attempting to undermine the concept of home rule; we remain strong supporters of that concept. But when an action in one town has a clear and dramatic impact on the lives of people living in another town, it is incumbent upon the first town to consider the effect on the second town.
It is interesting to note that New York State is now debating whether to take wind turbine project siting decisions away from local decision-makers. The legislature is discussing revisions to Article 10 (concerning the siting of utility plants) so that local voices would have no say in where such plants are located. We disagree with this direction and hope that our legislators will see the wisdom of keeping home rule decision-making for such projects.
Financial Support Required
Many of you have generously contributed funds to help defray the costs that we have and will incur. We are grateful for your support.
Voluntary contributions in any amount will help us protect our area against a very large project that will create damage or potential damage along many lines. We had hoped to resolve our most critical issues through negotiations and compromises while the project review was taking place, but now must rely upon the judicial system. This is an expensive undertaking. Please continue to send your donations to Advocates for Springfield at the address at the top of this Update.
If you are receiving a copy of this Update in the mail, please remember to send us your current e-mail address so we can save postage and handling costs. Send your e-mail address and/or comments to barry.levine@patmedia.net.
Monk Challenges Turbines Otsego 2000 Also Set To Sue Over Jordanville Project
With Otsego 2000 poised to take legal action against the 68-turbine Jordanville Wind Farm, the director of Holy Trinity Monastery’s seminary jumped in first. Wednesday night, July 18, Father George Schaefer reported he was at his desk filling out the necessary application to file an Article 78 petition seeking to block the forest of 400-foot-tall windmills Community Energy hopes to erect between Van Hornesville and Jordanville.
He called the Article 78 “our last hope” to stop the project, then amended that to say, “our last earthly resort.” Already, Father Schaefer said the monks can hear rumbles from a nearby quarry that will be the source of the gravel and cement needed for the prospective 18-month construction job.
Earlier in the day, Holy Trinity Monastery had released the full text of an archbishop’s letter to Gov. Eliot Spitzer and 11 other top state officials calling the project “monstrous” and “appalling.”
“Please, I pray, intercede now,” wrote Hilarion Kapral, Russian Orthodox bishop of Australia and New Zealand, former abbott at Holy Trinity. The Otsego 2000 offices were a bee hive of activity in the past few days, as the board of directors met Monday, July 16, for a final strategy session, and staff focused on preparing the necessary background documents.
Until Otsego 2000’s lawyer Drayton Grant actually filed that Article 78, she was reluctant to say much, other than she was facing a “brisk” deadline. (Some were expecting the papers to be filed by the time you read this, although it had not been when this edition went to press, while Father Schaefer was completing his paperwork.)
An Article 78 challenge, the vehicle included in the state Environmental Quality Review Act process, would have to be filed within 30 days of the towns of Warren and Stark’s acceptance of the final Environmental Impact Statement. Warren acted on June 20; Stark on June 21.
In recent days, the town supervisors, Richard Jack of Warren and Richard Bronner of Stark, released a statement denying the public was improperly excluded from deliberations and repeating the belief that
the Jordanville undertaking is “the most heavily scrutinized wind turbine project in upstate New York, by far.” (See Page 4)
In Albany, Anne Dalton, spokeswoman for the state Public Service Commission, confirmed that Community Energy, a subsidiary of Madrid-based multi-national Iberdrola, has filed for a PSC certificate of necessity, the next step toward construction. If, after investigation and a public hearing, the PSC approves that certificate, the towns could issue building permits and work could begin.
In his letter, Archbishop Hilarion traced the history of Holy Trinity as his church’s spiritual center abroad and noted that now, “the serenity that the monks and pilgrims have long sought will be gone, literally gone with the wind! ... How can such an appalling situation exist.”
In addition to Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, a Republican, and Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the letter went to key cabinet members and legislators.
He called the Article 78 “our last hope” to stop the project, then amended that to say, “our last earthly resort.” Already, Father Schaefer said the monks can hear rumbles from a nearby quarry that will be the source of the gravel and cement needed for the prospective 18-month construction job.
Earlier in the day, Holy Trinity Monastery had released the full text of an archbishop’s letter to Gov. Eliot Spitzer and 11 other top state officials calling the project “monstrous” and “appalling.”
“Please, I pray, intercede now,” wrote Hilarion Kapral, Russian Orthodox bishop of Australia and New Zealand, former abbott at Holy Trinity. The Otsego 2000 offices were a bee hive of activity in the past few days, as the board of directors met Monday, July 16, for a final strategy session, and staff focused on preparing the necessary background documents.
Until Otsego 2000’s lawyer Drayton Grant actually filed that Article 78, she was reluctant to say much, other than she was facing a “brisk” deadline. (Some were expecting the papers to be filed by the time you read this, although it had not been when this edition went to press, while Father Schaefer was completing his paperwork.)
An Article 78 challenge, the vehicle included in the state Environmental Quality Review Act process, would have to be filed within 30 days of the towns of Warren and Stark’s acceptance of the final Environmental Impact Statement. Warren acted on June 20; Stark on June 21.
In recent days, the town supervisors, Richard Jack of Warren and Richard Bronner of Stark, released a statement denying the public was improperly excluded from deliberations and repeating the belief that
the Jordanville undertaking is “the most heavily scrutinized wind turbine project in upstate New York, by far.” (See Page 4)
In Albany, Anne Dalton, spokeswoman for the state Public Service Commission, confirmed that Community Energy, a subsidiary of Madrid-based multi-national Iberdrola, has filed for a PSC certificate of necessity, the next step toward construction. If, after investigation and a public hearing, the PSC approves that certificate, the towns could issue building permits and work could begin.
In his letter, Archbishop Hilarion traced the history of Holy Trinity as his church’s spiritual center abroad and noted that now, “the serenity that the monks and pilgrims have long sought will be gone, literally gone with the wind! ... How can such an appalling situation exist.”
In addition to Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, a Republican, and Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the letter went to key cabinet members and legislators.
PSC Finds Studies Deficient by Kelly Vadney
CAPE VINCENT — If the St. Lawrence Wind Farm wants to satisfy the state Public Service Commission, it should rewind six months and start its environmental review over.
For the wind farm to build its 96 proposed turbines, it needs approval from the PSC in the form of a certificate of necessity, spokeswoman Anne P. Dalton said.
The commission's comments on the review say the town Planning Board accepted a draft environmental impact statement that is incomplete and "does not address any topic in sufficient detail."
An impact statement is a collection of studies that must be done before a project can be approved. Its purpose is to identify any adverse effects a project may have. A project can be turned down if its effects cannot be mitigated.
"The 'DEIS' document is, in effect, the functional equivalent of a draft scoping statement indicating many studies to be performed at a later date," the PSC said. "The 'DEIS' should be reissued with a significant amount of additional supplemental information for public consideration and comment."
The commission recommends that the Planning Board restart the environmental review process and begin with a scoping document. In January, St. Lawrence Wind chose to forgo the optional scoping stage, which identifies what studies need to be done. Planning Board Chairman Richard I. Edsall did not return a call for comment.
PSC is not the only entry to have expressed concern that studies for the St. Lawerence Wind Farm's environmental review are incomplete. The state Depertment of Environmental Conservation has suggested more studies since March. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also has made extensive comments on the project.
The PSC identified several concerns with the review, including:
A 75-foot "setback from adjacent property lines," which the PSC said would be the smallest setback in the state.
Failure to assess the impact on Route 12E as a Seaway Trail Scenic Byway.
The proximity of proposed turbines to historical buildings.
The unidentified location of a 9-mile overhead transmission line.
Lack of cumulative study concerning the wind projects in the area.
Incomplete migratory bird and wedand studies.
Urban C. Hirschey, chairman of the Wind Power Ethics Group, which opposes much of the wind farm plan, declined to comment on the PSC's statement.
St. Lawrence Wind Farm project manager Todd R. Hopper was not discouraged by the commission's response. Taking the advice of experts, he said, is part of the environmental review process.
Mr. Hopper said he doesn't believe the environmental review process for the project has been rushed.
"We always said we are going to do these studies," he said. "How are we rushing?"
Mr. Hopper said there are several studies, including wetland studies, that simply could not be done in the late fall when the company filed its application.
He said several of the PSC's concerns have been addressed in the list of requirements the Planning Board gave the company.
Mr. Hopper said the company voluntarily will abide by setbacks requested by the Planning Board, which require turbines to be 1,000 feet from nonpartici-pating property lines.
The Planning Board also requested visual impact studies from the St. Lawrence River, which Mr. Hopper said he believes would address issues with the byway. The commission recommends studying several different views along the byway of the project area itself. Mr. Hopper said the company plans to do an analysis of how turbines will affect the view from these areas.
He said the company has started but not completed its study on how turbines would affect historic properties.
The Planning Board also instructed the company to work with Cape Vincent Wind Farm, which is proposed to cross Cape Vincent and Lyme town lines, on mapping a single transmission line.
Mr. Hopper said the PSC's request for a study into the cumulative impacts of surrounding wind farms is "standard."
"The issue with that is we cannot do that without a final project layout," Mr. Hopper said. "How would it be fair to include a project that doesn't exist?"
Plans for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm have not been released. Mr. Hopper said he has not seen a final layout for the Wolfe Island Wind project, which would be built on the Canadian island in Lake Ontario just off Cape Vincent.
He acknowledged that several studies in the company's environmental review are incomplete, but said he does not regret submitting me review ahead of time.
"People were saying they wanted this information filed," he said. "Everyone was asking us about 'doing this behind our backs.' What if we were sitting in this office with no maps and doing all these studies? What would people think we were doing?"
For the wind farm to build its 96 proposed turbines, it needs approval from the PSC in the form of a certificate of necessity, spokeswoman Anne P. Dalton said.
The commission's comments on the review say the town Planning Board accepted a draft environmental impact statement that is incomplete and "does not address any topic in sufficient detail."
An impact statement is a collection of studies that must be done before a project can be approved. Its purpose is to identify any adverse effects a project may have. A project can be turned down if its effects cannot be mitigated.
"The 'DEIS' document is, in effect, the functional equivalent of a draft scoping statement indicating many studies to be performed at a later date," the PSC said. "The 'DEIS' should be reissued with a significant amount of additional supplemental information for public consideration and comment."
The commission recommends that the Planning Board restart the environmental review process and begin with a scoping document. In January, St. Lawrence Wind chose to forgo the optional scoping stage, which identifies what studies need to be done. Planning Board Chairman Richard I. Edsall did not return a call for comment.
PSC is not the only entry to have expressed concern that studies for the St. Lawerence Wind Farm's environmental review are incomplete. The state Depertment of Environmental Conservation has suggested more studies since March. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also has made extensive comments on the project.
The PSC identified several concerns with the review, including:
A 75-foot "setback from adjacent property lines," which the PSC said would be the smallest setback in the state.
Failure to assess the impact on Route 12E as a Seaway Trail Scenic Byway.
The proximity of proposed turbines to historical buildings.
The unidentified location of a 9-mile overhead transmission line.
Lack of cumulative study concerning the wind projects in the area.
Incomplete migratory bird and wedand studies.
Urban C. Hirschey, chairman of the Wind Power Ethics Group, which opposes much of the wind farm plan, declined to comment on the PSC's statement.
St. Lawrence Wind Farm project manager Todd R. Hopper was not discouraged by the commission's response. Taking the advice of experts, he said, is part of the environmental review process.
Mr. Hopper said he doesn't believe the environmental review process for the project has been rushed.
"We always said we are going to do these studies," he said. "How are we rushing?"
Mr. Hopper said there are several studies, including wetland studies, that simply could not be done in the late fall when the company filed its application.
He said several of the PSC's concerns have been addressed in the list of requirements the Planning Board gave the company.
Mr. Hopper said the company voluntarily will abide by setbacks requested by the Planning Board, which require turbines to be 1,000 feet from nonpartici-pating property lines.
The Planning Board also requested visual impact studies from the St. Lawrence River, which Mr. Hopper said he believes would address issues with the byway. The commission recommends studying several different views along the byway of the project area itself. Mr. Hopper said the company plans to do an analysis of how turbines will affect the view from these areas.
He said the company has started but not completed its study on how turbines would affect historic properties.
The Planning Board also instructed the company to work with Cape Vincent Wind Farm, which is proposed to cross Cape Vincent and Lyme town lines, on mapping a single transmission line.
Mr. Hopper said the PSC's request for a study into the cumulative impacts of surrounding wind farms is "standard."
"The issue with that is we cannot do that without a final project layout," Mr. Hopper said. "How would it be fair to include a project that doesn't exist?"
Plans for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm have not been released. Mr. Hopper said he has not seen a final layout for the Wolfe Island Wind project, which would be built on the Canadian island in Lake Ontario just off Cape Vincent.
He acknowledged that several studies in the company's environmental review are incomplete, but said he does not regret submitting me review ahead of time.
"People were saying they wanted this information filed," he said. "Everyone was asking us about 'doing this behind our backs.' What if we were sitting in this office with no maps and doing all these studies? What would people think we were doing?"
Friday, July 20, 2007
Cohocton Planning Board ready to approve "Special Use Permits"
THE COHOCTON TOWN PLANNING BOARD WILL BE HOLDING A SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 30, 2007 @ 7:00 P.M. AT THE HATCH HOSE FIRE HALL IN ATLANTA. THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND SPECIAL USE PERMITS APPROVAL FOR THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY CANANDAIGUA POWER PARTNERS 1, LLC, AND CANDANDIGUA POWER PARTNERS 11, LLC FOR THE DUTCH HILL AND COHOCTON WIND PROJECT.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
CWW email letter to Congressman Kuhl
http://kuhl.house.gov/Contact/
Congressman Kuhl,
It is the position of Cohocton Wind Watch that H.R. 969
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is a flawed bill and needs to be OPPOSED.
Any legislation that is bias towards more costly electric generation at the expense of individual property rights is un-American.
Also the proposed purchase of Energy East by the foreign company Iberdrola and the recent acquisition of Horizon by another foreign corporation Energias de Portugal (EDP) are tragic betrayals of American independence.
The US government must stop the sell out of our domestic energy infrastructure.
Cordially,
James Hall for Cohocton Wind Watch
Congressman Kuhl,
It is the position of Cohocton Wind Watch that H.R. 969
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is a flawed bill and needs to be OPPOSED.
Any legislation that is bias towards more costly electric generation at the expense of individual property rights is un-American.
Also the proposed purchase of Energy East by the foreign company Iberdrola and the recent acquisition of Horizon by another foreign corporation Energias de Portugal (EDP) are tragic betrayals of American independence.
The US government must stop the sell out of our domestic energy infrastructure.
Cordially,
James Hall for Cohocton Wind Watch
Monday, July 16, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Conrad Fink Letter to the Editor on Article X
To The Editor (for publication):
From kindergarten, Americans are taught to get involved in local government, to exercise local control over local affairs.
Now, politicians in faraway Albany say never mind, we will run your local affairs for you.
This treacherous thinking is embodied in the New York State Assembly's 103-39 approval of so-called Article X, which would give the state the right to site electric-generating facilities over local protest.
Now the Senate must vote --and this requires anyone who believes in local rule, in democracy itself, to object immediately.
Article X is aimed , of course, at authorizing the Public Service Commission to approve wind turbines anywhere it pleases, even overruling the many town and village boards across New York State which have passed local laws restricting them.
Much more than wind turbines is at stake here. We are confronted by an all-out assault against a basic democratic principle: that local people, not distant politicians, know what is best for themselves.
Something else is at stake: the feeling widespread in Albany that we upstaters have as our sole function paying taxes and otherwise existing to keep New York City's subways running and its residents supplied with drinking water and, now, electricity.
Contact senators immediately. Tell them we upstaters have lives and interests of our own . The state Senate--and governor--must halt this insanity.
Conrad Fink, Cherry Valley NY
From kindergarten, Americans are taught to get involved in local government, to exercise local control over local affairs.
Now, politicians in faraway Albany say never mind, we will run your local affairs for you.
This treacherous thinking is embodied in the New York State Assembly's 103-39 approval of so-called Article X, which would give the state the right to site electric-generating facilities over local protest.
Now the Senate must vote --and this requires anyone who believes in local rule, in democracy itself, to object immediately.
Article X is aimed , of course, at authorizing the Public Service Commission to approve wind turbines anywhere it pleases, even overruling the many town and village boards across New York State which have passed local laws restricting them.
Much more than wind turbines is at stake here. We are confronted by an all-out assault against a basic democratic principle: that local people, not distant politicians, know what is best for themselves.
Something else is at stake: the feeling widespread in Albany that we upstaters have as our sole function paying taxes and otherwise existing to keep New York City's subways running and its residents supplied with drinking water and, now, electricity.
Contact senators immediately. Tell them we upstaters have lives and interests of our own . The state Senate--and governor--must halt this insanity.
Conrad Fink, Cherry Valley NY
Lisa Linowes on UPC and SCIDA
I understand that UPC et.al. have been able to push their wares in many areas of NY due to the lack of land-use protections. In Lyman, our zoning is very simple -- no structures over 35-feet in height and no industrial uses. Twice UPC tried to get a variance on the height but the entire town came out in opposition to granting it. UPC couldn't prove the hardship. Both times UPC withdrew its applications when it became apparent the zoning board would vote NO.
The key to our success was, in part, meeting each and every effort by UPC with a counter effort, and (most important) getting to the public and the press before UPC could -- particularly the local farmers. It was a scary time, but the law was on our side and the zoning board understood that they would lose in court if we appealed.
But I understand NY is a very different place. There are over 4000MW of wind proposed for your State and your governors Pataki and now Spitzer are using the RPS as a hammer wielded on every agency and IDA. The DEC, assuming it's manned by honorable people, is overwhelmed and hesitant to come out against the governor. Folks are hiding behind the SEQR process and claim it's a comprehensive review of the impacts of these projects, but the town boards and IDAs (if the lead agencies) lack the sophistication to question what they're reading. The ridiculous claims that wind will bring economic development to poor communities are being accepted at face value. Nearly 2 years ago I spoke to James Sharron of the SCIDA. He's the last person I would want looking out for my interests -- to him it's all about the dollar signs. For NY, the wind push is a rural version of the 1960s Urban Renewal. I cringe to think what the state will look like 5-years out but for all of your efforts in opposing the turbines.
There is one issue that I would strongly encourage for NY. NYSERDA is due to reevaluate the RPS rules in 2008/09. If you were to contact the other renewable generators in the state, particularly the biomass sector, it would behoove all of you to get the rules changed so that rec pricing is not a one-size fits all (~$27 a kwh), but is adjusted to reward those renewables capable of producing generation during peak periods. We know, and NYSERDA knows, wind energy is only capable of producing energy on the grid with very limited capacity. Not the case for biomass, methane gas, hydro. If the change were implemented, NYSERDA would be forced to come up with a viable market value for recs on energy produced on peak/on-season and another for off-peak/off-season. So biomass might be paid $45 per kwh and wind gets $15 per kwh. There is NO justification for rewarding generation that does not decrease our use of fossil fuel, does not negate the need to build other power plants, and cannot reliably be expect to deliver when we need it (how summer afternoons) but that's exactly what the NY RPS does.
--Lisa Linowes
The key to our success was, in part, meeting each and every effort by UPC with a counter effort, and (most important) getting to the public and the press before UPC could -- particularly the local farmers. It was a scary time, but the law was on our side and the zoning board understood that they would lose in court if we appealed.
But I understand NY is a very different place. There are over 4000MW of wind proposed for your State and your governors Pataki and now Spitzer are using the RPS as a hammer wielded on every agency and IDA. The DEC, assuming it's manned by honorable people, is overwhelmed and hesitant to come out against the governor. Folks are hiding behind the SEQR process and claim it's a comprehensive review of the impacts of these projects, but the town boards and IDAs (if the lead agencies) lack the sophistication to question what they're reading. The ridiculous claims that wind will bring economic development to poor communities are being accepted at face value. Nearly 2 years ago I spoke to James Sharron of the SCIDA. He's the last person I would want looking out for my interests -- to him it's all about the dollar signs. For NY, the wind push is a rural version of the 1960s Urban Renewal. I cringe to think what the state will look like 5-years out but for all of your efforts in opposing the turbines.
There is one issue that I would strongly encourage for NY. NYSERDA is due to reevaluate the RPS rules in 2008/09. If you were to contact the other renewable generators in the state, particularly the biomass sector, it would behoove all of you to get the rules changed so that rec pricing is not a one-size fits all (~$27 a kwh), but is adjusted to reward those renewables capable of producing generation during peak periods. We know, and NYSERDA knows, wind energy is only capable of producing energy on the grid with very limited capacity. Not the case for biomass, methane gas, hydro. If the change were implemented, NYSERDA would be forced to come up with a viable market value for recs on energy produced on peak/on-season and another for off-peak/off-season. So biomass might be paid $45 per kwh and wind gets $15 per kwh. There is NO justification for rewarding generation that does not decrease our use of fossil fuel, does not negate the need to build other power plants, and cannot reliably be expect to deliver when we need it (how summer afternoons) but that's exactly what the NY RPS does.
--Lisa Linowes
Town Of Cohocton Planning Board State Environmental Quality Review Finding Statement
http://cohoctonwind.com/PDFs/071207%20Cohocton%20Findings%20Final.pdf
Please click here for Cohocton Wind's final Findings Statement accepted July 2007.
Please click here for Cohocton Wind's final Findings Statement accepted July 2007.
Background of setback for industrial wind turbines from California
There is no documented substantiation for the setback distances when calculated as (X) x (turbine_height).
Scott Larwood of CA Wind Energy Collaborative and I had several conversations on this topic leading up to the release in Nov'06 of his white paper entitled PERMITTING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR WIND TURBINES IN CALIFORNIA prepared for the CA Energy Commission.
(see: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-184/CEC-500-2005-184.PDF) (This is an updated paper from his original work from 2004)
In the report, he examines the history of setbacks in CA, the probabilities of rotor and blade failures, etc. He states "The purpose of this report is to summarize wind turbine setbacks in California and to describe any connection between rotor failure and windplant setback requirements."
He makes several statements in the Executive Summary including:
1) From this data the authors developed a picture of how the turbine setbacks were established. The majority of the ordinances were developed by ad hoc groups of local interests and the fledgling wind energy industry.
2) There is no evidence that setbacks were based on formal analysis of the rotor fragment hazard.
3) The authors recommend that a comprehensive model of the rotor fragment hazard be developed based on the results of the literature review. This tool would then be used with a variety of turbine sizes with the objective to develop risk‐based setback standards.
It's a safe bet to assume the setbacks being pushed today evolved from California ordinances. But a word of warning: the intent of Scott's report was to a) determine the reasons behind existing setback values, b) evaluate the extent to which these setbacks are barriers to building taller turbines, and c) determine if the setbacks can be REDUCED.
--Lisa
Executive Director
Industrial Wind Action Group
www.windaction.org
Scott Larwood of CA Wind Energy Collaborative and I had several conversations on this topic leading up to the release in Nov'06 of his white paper entitled PERMITTING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR WIND TURBINES IN CALIFORNIA prepared for the CA Energy Commission.
(see: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-184/CEC-500-2005-184.PDF) (This is an updated paper from his original work from 2004)
In the report, he examines the history of setbacks in CA, the probabilities of rotor and blade failures, etc. He states "The purpose of this report is to summarize wind turbine setbacks in California and to describe any connection between rotor failure and windplant setback requirements."
He makes several statements in the Executive Summary including:
1) From this data the authors developed a picture of how the turbine setbacks were established. The majority of the ordinances were developed by ad hoc groups of local interests and the fledgling wind energy industry.
2) There is no evidence that setbacks were based on formal analysis of the rotor fragment hazard.
3) The authors recommend that a comprehensive model of the rotor fragment hazard be developed based on the results of the literature review. This tool would then be used with a variety of turbine sizes with the objective to develop risk‐based setback standards.
It's a safe bet to assume the setbacks being pushed today evolved from California ordinances. But a word of warning: the intent of Scott's report was to a) determine the reasons behind existing setback values, b) evaluate the extent to which these setbacks are barriers to building taller turbines, and c) determine if the setbacks can be REDUCED.
--Lisa
Executive Director
Industrial Wind Action Group
www.windaction.org
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Bethany latest town to ban wind turbines by Scott DeSmit
BETHANY- Bethany became the third town in Genesee County to ban commercial wind energy systems as board members earlier this week approved an amendment to the zoning laws.
The amendment is similar to the ones approved in the towns of Oakfield and Stafford earlier this year and would allow single, non-commercial wind mills up to 170 feet.
The law, however, would ban commercial towers in any area of the town.
UPC Wind more than three years ago began testing sites in Bethany for wind turbines up to 450 feet high.
The company eventually proposed 40 turbines, sparking numerous town meetings and the formation of a citizens' committee to study the issue.
Oakfield was the first town to ban commercial wind systems, approving a law in January.
Stafford board members unanimously approved a similar law in June.
The amendment is similar to the ones approved in the towns of Oakfield and Stafford earlier this year and would allow single, non-commercial wind mills up to 170 feet.
The law, however, would ban commercial towers in any area of the town.
UPC Wind more than three years ago began testing sites in Bethany for wind turbines up to 450 feet high.
The company eventually proposed 40 turbines, sparking numerous town meetings and the formation of a citizens' committee to study the issue.
Oakfield was the first town to ban commercial wind systems, approving a law in January.
Stafford board members unanimously approved a similar law in June.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Dan Wing response to Lisa Linowes regarding the WSJ article
Lisa:
Your analysis is extremely astute.
IMO, Acciona/Iberdrola's strategy (and the overseas windpower companies' survival strategy -- to maintain and increase handouts from U.S. and State governments) is LOCAL Control.
One element of that strategy is to promise to build turbine production factories on the U.S. HOME FRONT in Iowa, etc. That creates LOCAL factory JOBS for the LOCALS that politicians like to endorse and pursue with handouts. Build the LOCAL factory, then start asking (at repetitive intervals) to EXPAND said LOCAL factories to meet Iberdola's (etc.) "need" to EXPAND regional windfarms because more (and bigger) LOCAL factories increase the "availability of turbines". Further exapnd LOCAL Production JOBS by expanding LOCAL factories -- the promises of further increased LOCAL Production JOBS warranting the politicians and government to hand out more FREEBIE INCENTIVES to Acciona/Iberdola (etc.). Control LOCAL politicians by DONATING money to them and by LOBBYING as a LOCAL entity.
In New York State, its a bit different form of LOCAL strategy. Purchase LOCAL energy end user companies which LOCALLY control the type and quantity of electricity they offer and provide their LOCAL communities. Market themselves as if they are LOCAL community companies (by running their foreign-owned LOCAL Companies under friendly regional or community sounding names such a NEW YORK STATE Electric & Gas and ROCHESTER Gas & Electric and Energy EAST. Answer to LOCAL power regulations of those same foreign-owned LOCAL power companies. Have those foreign-owned LOCAL power companies devise and represent the LOCAL power requirements and needs, requesting more incentives'-based EXPANSION of windpower sources and requesting similar freebies as [foreign-owned] LOCAL end users (NYSEG; RG&E, etc.) of substantially increased amounts of windpower that they Procure for the LOCAL. As the LOCAL power utility, constantly cry out for more Windpower GENERATION tubine farms in their LOCAL region. And always repetively hammer on the theme, if only there are more, then the LOCAL economy will benefit.
Dan Wing
Your analysis is extremely astute.
IMO, Acciona/Iberdrola's strategy (and the overseas windpower companies' survival strategy -- to maintain and increase handouts from U.S. and State governments) is LOCAL Control.
One element of that strategy is to promise to build turbine production factories on the U.S. HOME FRONT in Iowa, etc. That creates LOCAL factory JOBS for the LOCALS that politicians like to endorse and pursue with handouts. Build the LOCAL factory, then start asking (at repetitive intervals) to EXPAND said LOCAL factories to meet Iberdola's (etc.) "need" to EXPAND regional windfarms because more (and bigger) LOCAL factories increase the "availability of turbines". Further exapnd LOCAL Production JOBS by expanding LOCAL factories -- the promises of further increased LOCAL Production JOBS warranting the politicians and government to hand out more FREEBIE INCENTIVES to Acciona/Iberdola (etc.). Control LOCAL politicians by DONATING money to them and by LOBBYING as a LOCAL entity.
In New York State, its a bit different form of LOCAL strategy. Purchase LOCAL energy end user companies which LOCALLY control the type and quantity of electricity they offer and provide their LOCAL communities. Market themselves as if they are LOCAL community companies (by running their foreign-owned LOCAL Companies under friendly regional or community sounding names such a NEW YORK STATE Electric & Gas and ROCHESTER Gas & Electric and Energy EAST. Answer to LOCAL power regulations of those same foreign-owned LOCAL power companies. Have those foreign-owned LOCAL power companies devise and represent the LOCAL power requirements and needs, requesting more incentives'-based EXPANSION of windpower sources and requesting similar freebies as [foreign-owned] LOCAL end users (NYSEG; RG&E, etc.) of substantially increased amounts of windpower that they Procure for the LOCAL. As the LOCAL power utility, constantly cry out for more Windpower GENERATION tubine farms in their LOCAL region. And always repetively hammer on the theme, if only there are more, then the LOCAL economy will benefit.
Dan Wing
TOWN OF COHOCTON PLANNING BOARD - Agenda
TOWN OF COHOCTON PLANNING BOARD
JULY 11,2007 HATCH HOSE FIREBALL 7:30 p.m.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. Old Business
a. Sequr 3 Met Towers.
b. Special Use Permits 3 Met Towers.
c. Sequr Finding Statement for wind projects.
5. Adjournment
JULY 11,2007 HATCH HOSE FIREBALL 7:30 p.m.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. Old Business
a. Sequr 3 Met Towers.
b. Special Use Permits 3 Met Towers.
c. Sequr Finding Statement for wind projects.
5. Adjournment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)