WESTFIELD — Are the winds changing again in the town of Westfield?
“Babcock & Brown are applying for a couple of permits to put up a couple of Met Towers,” said Peter Gross of Babcock & Brown during the Westfield Town Board meeting Wednesday. “A little bit about Babcock & Brown: we’re one of the top wind power developers, contractors, managers owners in the country. We’ve got about 22 projects so far, most of those are in operation.”
The company became interested in Western New York through information gathered by their meteorologists. The desirable areas were then narrowed down to Westfield.
According to Gross, the company has done a lot of research on the area and its past and began negotiating with land owners.
“The area that we’re looking at lies south of the ridge and south of the transition line,” said Gross.
Babcock & Brown have also installed a radar on the corner of Parker and Pigeon roads, which will be there as long as the development continues. The radar monitors birds in a 2.5 mile radius, both horizontal and vertical. The data collected will be used to determine the environmental impact of these towers.
Concerned residents filled the board room, although they were not allowed to ask Gross questions. A public hearing will be scheduled in November for this purpose.
During the public comment portion, many residents voiced their concerns from the previous wind power project and invited each other to band together against allowing another project to begin in Westfield.
“We have a very internationally well-known speaker coming to our next meeting. We not only invite members of the board, we strongly urge you to come. We feel you have not had a balanced input,” said resident Janet Nass, a member of an organization dedicated to informing the public on the issue of wind power.
According to Nass, members of the Chautauqua County Citizens for Responsible Wind Power have attended the meetings on wind power they are invited to by the board but the board has not responded favorably to invitations to CCCRW’s presentations.
The Chautauqua County Citizens for Responsible Wind Power will meet on Oct. 17 at 7 p.m. in the Westfield Academy and Central School auditorium. All residents are invited to attend.
There will also be a STW Regional Wind Energy Conference on Oct. 25 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The next board meeting will be on Nov. 7 and will include hearings for the two Babcock & Brown Met Towers SUP’s, beginning at 7:15 p.m.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Wind turbine burns near Garner
A wind turbine south of Garner burned Wednesday morning causing two of the blades to fall off.
GARNER - A wind turbine south of Garner burned Wednesday morning causing two of the blades to fall off. The incident was reported shortly after 8 a.m., a Hancock County Sheriff's dispatcher said.
A third blade was left hanging straight down. The fire occurred in the turbine's motor housing. The motor housing was still smoking at 10:30 a.m.
The sheriff's office and Garner Fire Department were at the scene.
No injuries were reported.
The turbine was in a field with several other turbines.
The turbines, part of an extensive wind farm in Hancock County, are owned by FPL Energy LLC of Juno Beach, Fla. They went into operation in 2002.
Feds move to compel power lines in N.Y., nine other states by Devlin Barrett
(October 3, 2007) — WASHINGTON — After sweating through another summer without a major blackout, the Bush administration moved Tuesday to ensure nonstop electricity by designating large swaths of the Southwest and mid-Atlantic regions as critical to the nation's energy grid.
The Energy Department announced two "national interest electric transmission corridors," which encompass all or part of 10 states where officials say high-voltage lines can't handle growing demand for electricity.
It is the first use of a new federal power to approve construction of electric lines in places where state officials have blocked them. Opponents argue that the corridors wrongly expand the use of federal power to seize land.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement that the corridors should prompt regional authorities to "identify solutions and take prompt action" to keep energy flowing.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said the plan would turn three-quarters of the counties in his state "into a superhighway of power lines and transmission towers."
The mid-Atlantic power corridor runs from Virginia and Washington, D.C., north to include most of Maryland, all of New Jersey and Delaware and large parts of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The Rochester area is included.
The Southwest corridor includes seven counties in southern California and three in Arizona. The agency had wanted to include Las Vegas but said Tuesday that it had decided the needs there aren't as pressing.
The corridors were designed to be wide enough to accommodate several possible paths for power lines. One proposed line running south from Utica toward New York City would be about 100 feet tall with a footprint about a quarter-mile wide, though dimensions would vary with the terrain.
Under a 2005 law, the federal government can approve transmission lines in the corridors if states and regional groups don't. The law was passed partly in response to the 2003 blackout that rippled from Ohio to Canada and New York City.
The corridor designations may increase pressure on state regulators to give private industry permission for new lines. Utilities have complained that state authorities are reluctant to approve new lines, often because of local opposition.
If state authorities do not approve any construction after a year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may approve a new line if it is deemed necessary to meet national needs. Approvals could include the use of eminent domain to force private owners to sell their property.
The FERC has had such authority for years in considering applications for gas lines, but this is the first time it will also be available for electricity transmission. The new law does not give the FERC power to take state or federal lands.
In New York, community activists, preservationists and environmentalists are fighting a proposal to run a power line nearly 200 miles from the center of the state toward populous New York City suburbs. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from Hurley, Ulster County, opposes that line and called Tuesday's decision "just ridiculous."
"We're going to fight them both in Congress and in the courts." he said.
Gov. Eliot Spitzer expressed disappointment and is reviewing the state's legal options.
The Energy Department announced two "national interest electric transmission corridors," which encompass all or part of 10 states where officials say high-voltage lines can't handle growing demand for electricity.
It is the first use of a new federal power to approve construction of electric lines in places where state officials have blocked them. Opponents argue that the corridors wrongly expand the use of federal power to seize land.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement that the corridors should prompt regional authorities to "identify solutions and take prompt action" to keep energy flowing.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said the plan would turn three-quarters of the counties in his state "into a superhighway of power lines and transmission towers."
The mid-Atlantic power corridor runs from Virginia and Washington, D.C., north to include most of Maryland, all of New Jersey and Delaware and large parts of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The Rochester area is included.
The Southwest corridor includes seven counties in southern California and three in Arizona. The agency had wanted to include Las Vegas but said Tuesday that it had decided the needs there aren't as pressing.
The corridors were designed to be wide enough to accommodate several possible paths for power lines. One proposed line running south from Utica toward New York City would be about 100 feet tall with a footprint about a quarter-mile wide, though dimensions would vary with the terrain.
Under a 2005 law, the federal government can approve transmission lines in the corridors if states and regional groups don't. The law was passed partly in response to the 2003 blackout that rippled from Ohio to Canada and New York City.
The corridor designations may increase pressure on state regulators to give private industry permission for new lines. Utilities have complained that state authorities are reluctant to approve new lines, often because of local opposition.
If state authorities do not approve any construction after a year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may approve a new line if it is deemed necessary to meet national needs. Approvals could include the use of eminent domain to force private owners to sell their property.
The FERC has had such authority for years in considering applications for gas lines, but this is the first time it will also be available for electricity transmission. The new law does not give the FERC power to take state or federal lands.
In New York, community activists, preservationists and environmentalists are fighting a proposal to run a power line nearly 200 miles from the center of the state toward populous New York City suburbs. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from Hurley, Ulster County, opposes that line and called Tuesday's decision "just ridiculous."
"We're going to fight them both in Congress and in the courts." he said.
Gov. Eliot Spitzer expressed disappointment and is reviewing the state's legal options.
Monday, October 01, 2007
UPC takes the wind out of the local economy!
Corporate Giant thumbs nose at local taxpayers.
UPC has hired an out of state general contractor M. A. Mortenson that does not pay area standard wages and has brought workers from Louisiana, Utah and Texas.
Why bring in out of State Contractors and workers when the local contractors and workers need the jobs?
Local Contractors and Workers spend their money locally.
Shame on UPC!
If you are a Local Worker/Taxpayer and are concerned about the local economy? Please let UPC know how you feel.
Contact Paul Gaynor
CEO and President
UPC Wind
85 Wells Ave.,
Suite 305 Newton, MA 02459
Tel: 617-964-3340 Fax : 617-964-3342
contact@upcwind.com
Brought to you by the Empire State Regional Council of Carpenters. We do not seek to induce any person(s) to cease work or deliveries. For informational purposes. Please do not litter!
UPC has hired an out of state general contractor M. A. Mortenson that does not pay area standard wages and has brought workers from Louisiana, Utah and Texas.
Why bring in out of State Contractors and workers when the local contractors and workers need the jobs?
Local Contractors and Workers spend their money locally.
Shame on UPC!
If you are a Local Worker/Taxpayer and are concerned about the local economy? Please let UPC know how you feel.
Contact Paul Gaynor
CEO and President
UPC Wind
85 Wells Ave.,
Suite 305 Newton, MA 02459
Tel: 617-964-3340 Fax : 617-964-3342
contact@upcwind.com
Brought to you by the Empire State Regional Council of Carpenters. We do not seek to induce any person(s) to cease work or deliveries. For informational purposes. Please do not litter!
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Group challenges wind farm zoning by MARY PERHAM
BATH | Sides will line up early this week for more legal action over wind farms in the town of Cohocton.
Arguments over stop orders filed by wind farm opponents, Cohocton Wind Watch, are scheduled to be heard at 10 a.m. Tuesday by State Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure. The group is seeking to halt construction of a 53-turbine wind development in the town by UPC/Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC.
On Sept. 24, Furfure denied an earlier challenge by opponents to the town's local Law No. 2, which set out regulations for setbacks, noise and other zoning issues. Opponents charged the town should have undertaken an environmental study on the impact of the 440-foot high wind turbines before the law was passed.
Furfure ruled industrial wind mills were not “the action under review” and noted the law called for a state environmental quality review for any wind farm developments. Reviews for changes in land use are different than reviews of a specific project, Furfure wrote in her decision.
She noted the local law was more stringent than a previous law. The first law was also upheld by the courts, and an appeal by Cohocton wind opponents was recently denied.
James Hall, spokesman for Cohocton Wind Watch, said the group is considering an appeal of Furfure's decision and looking forward to their next day in court Tuesday.
Hall said the rulings have ignored the merits of the cases.
“To this date, to my knowledge, not one court has ruled in favor of opposition to these projects,” Hall said. “The merits have not been ruled on, they've been ignored.”
Cohocton Wind Watch is still pursuing its anti-trust complaints and recently picked up the backing of congressional candidate Democrat Eric Massa, of Corning.
Hall said the group attended a forum by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in Rochester this week to urge the attorney general to get involved in their complaints.
“We wanted to inform him there is enough information to warrant a full investigation for the sake of public safety and public integrity. This is a scheme to defraud,” Hall said.
The wind project in Cohocton is the first of six potential wind projects in the county to reach near-construction stage.
UPC also plans to set up a wind farm in the Town of Prattsburgh, where rival developer EcoGen has also proposed a wind farm.
Other towns considering wind farms include the towns of Hartsville, Howard and Caton.
The projects generated considerable opposition from local residents, beginning in 2001, when UPC proposed the first project in Prattsburgh.
Opponents say the turbines are inefficient generators of electricity and pose serious threats to humans and the natural habitat.
Supporters argue the projects are a source of renewable energy and provide needed revenues for small towns.
UPC signed an agreement in August with the town of Cohocton to pay $1 million next year and an average of $500,000 annually for the next 20 years.
The European-based UPC has encountered some delays since the agreement was signed. In September, the Steuben County Public Works Department temporarily posted weight restrictions on county roads, preventing UPC from hauling heavy equipment until road studies were completed.
Thursday, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency delayed final approval of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the project. Board members, and local labor leaders, were concerned about allegations UPC was not hiring local workers.
Arguments over stop orders filed by wind farm opponents, Cohocton Wind Watch, are scheduled to be heard at 10 a.m. Tuesday by State Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure. The group is seeking to halt construction of a 53-turbine wind development in the town by UPC/Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC.
On Sept. 24, Furfure denied an earlier challenge by opponents to the town's local Law No. 2, which set out regulations for setbacks, noise and other zoning issues. Opponents charged the town should have undertaken an environmental study on the impact of the 440-foot high wind turbines before the law was passed.
Furfure ruled industrial wind mills were not “the action under review” and noted the law called for a state environmental quality review for any wind farm developments. Reviews for changes in land use are different than reviews of a specific project, Furfure wrote in her decision.
She noted the local law was more stringent than a previous law. The first law was also upheld by the courts, and an appeal by Cohocton wind opponents was recently denied.
James Hall, spokesman for Cohocton Wind Watch, said the group is considering an appeal of Furfure's decision and looking forward to their next day in court Tuesday.
Hall said the rulings have ignored the merits of the cases.
“To this date, to my knowledge, not one court has ruled in favor of opposition to these projects,” Hall said. “The merits have not been ruled on, they've been ignored.”
Cohocton Wind Watch is still pursuing its anti-trust complaints and recently picked up the backing of congressional candidate Democrat Eric Massa, of Corning.
Hall said the group attended a forum by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in Rochester this week to urge the attorney general to get involved in their complaints.
“We wanted to inform him there is enough information to warrant a full investigation for the sake of public safety and public integrity. This is a scheme to defraud,” Hall said.
The wind project in Cohocton is the first of six potential wind projects in the county to reach near-construction stage.
UPC also plans to set up a wind farm in the Town of Prattsburgh, where rival developer EcoGen has also proposed a wind farm.
Other towns considering wind farms include the towns of Hartsville, Howard and Caton.
The projects generated considerable opposition from local residents, beginning in 2001, when UPC proposed the first project in Prattsburgh.
Opponents say the turbines are inefficient generators of electricity and pose serious threats to humans and the natural habitat.
Supporters argue the projects are a source of renewable energy and provide needed revenues for small towns.
UPC signed an agreement in August with the town of Cohocton to pay $1 million next year and an average of $500,000 annually for the next 20 years.
The European-based UPC has encountered some delays since the agreement was signed. In September, the Steuben County Public Works Department temporarily posted weight restrictions on county roads, preventing UPC from hauling heavy equipment until road studies were completed.
Thursday, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency delayed final approval of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the project. Board members, and local labor leaders, were concerned about allegations UPC was not hiring local workers.
Wind power not so green by Stephen McCarthy
Presently the issue of wind power is affecting communities throughout New York state. The lines have been drawn between the wind companies and those who support industrial wind power against those who object to this enormous threat to their quality of life. In many towns, the fight has become ugly, objecting to this enormous threat to their quality of life, pitting neighbor against neighbor and family against family. This is exactly what the big corporations want: Keep the general public from really understanding the issues; if possible, keep them from even seeing what the issues are. By the time we realize what's hit us, the corporations will have made their bundle of money, and our beautiful countryside will be gone, altered beyond recognition.
I am sorry to say that most positions taken by the people -- and it doesn't matter if it is pro or con -- are made mainly through emotion and not with real facts. The issue should not be about "Yes to green energy." I am sure we all can agree that true green energy is good for all of us. The real question: is wind power the answer and do the facts back it up as our green energy savior?
Wind as a green energy source, once operating, is a good thing. What we do not know is how much damage is done to the environment from inception through manufacture to installation and operation. MIT is attempting to answer this question, calculating the energy used and CO2 emissions put into the atmosphere from conception to operation of a wind park. I believe we may all be shocked by the results of this study!
Common sense should tell us that we need another approach. Wind is not a miracle cure. It is like putting a Band-Aid on an amputation. It may have its place, but that place isn't Meredith, or anyplace else in the Catskills. The way it is being done will only enrich the pockets of the wind companies, and of the small handful of people who have made business arrangements with the companies. Their gain is our loss.
If this is to be stopped, it has to start with us. We do not need corporations making billions of dollars because we will not change our lifestyles. We need to reduce our consumption, and we need to do it now. Anyone who thinks wind is a magical cure or even a practical solution, is in for a rude awakening. We need to drive fuel-efficient vehicles, turn off the lights, use energy-efficient appliances, turn down the heat and turn off the air conditioners. Those who can, need to generate their own electricity using solar and small wind.
This change needs to start from the ground up. Do your part, force your elected officials to do their part and make them accountable for their actions. And most of all, say "YES to green energy" and "NO to corporate greed."
McCarthy of Meredith is a member of the Meredith Defense Fund, www.MeredithDefenseFund.org.
I am sorry to say that most positions taken by the people -- and it doesn't matter if it is pro or con -- are made mainly through emotion and not with real facts. The issue should not be about "Yes to green energy." I am sure we all can agree that true green energy is good for all of us. The real question: is wind power the answer and do the facts back it up as our green energy savior?
Wind as a green energy source, once operating, is a good thing. What we do not know is how much damage is done to the environment from inception through manufacture to installation and operation. MIT is attempting to answer this question, calculating the energy used and CO2 emissions put into the atmosphere from conception to operation of a wind park. I believe we may all be shocked by the results of this study!
Common sense should tell us that we need another approach. Wind is not a miracle cure. It is like putting a Band-Aid on an amputation. It may have its place, but that place isn't Meredith, or anyplace else in the Catskills. The way it is being done will only enrich the pockets of the wind companies, and of the small handful of people who have made business arrangements with the companies. Their gain is our loss.
If this is to be stopped, it has to start with us. We do not need corporations making billions of dollars because we will not change our lifestyles. We need to reduce our consumption, and we need to do it now. Anyone who thinks wind is a magical cure or even a practical solution, is in for a rude awakening. We need to drive fuel-efficient vehicles, turn off the lights, use energy-efficient appliances, turn down the heat and turn off the air conditioners. Those who can, need to generate their own electricity using solar and small wind.
This change needs to start from the ground up. Do your part, force your elected officials to do their part and make them accountable for their actions. And most of all, say "YES to green energy" and "NO to corporate greed."
McCarthy of Meredith is a member of the Meredith Defense Fund, www.MeredithDefenseFund.org.
FORE Requests PSC Rescind Decesion - Andy Minnig
Attached is a request from FORE asking the PSC to rescind its elimination of 19 turbines from the Jordanville Project.
This front group for Community Energy has neither the funds nor wit to successfully mail a postcard on its own, let alone file such a brief. Although I detect some of Chairwoman Kay Sheldon Moyer's unprofessional peek in the filing.
Community Energy's Community liaison Kristen Sullivan does have the wit and the means. I believe she and Community Energy are the actual authors of the dovcument.
Ms. Sullivan is currently living in Fly Creek, although home is in Pennsylvania
For some additional local color, consider that following a School Board meeting in April 2007, a group of lease holders and town officials repaired to the local watering hole, The Bowling Alley. Kay Moyer was buying successive rounds of drinks at $5 a drink. Among those present were Les Miller (Warren Town Board), Tucky Miller (Stark Town Board), Rick Bronner (Stark Town Supervisor), Janice Whipple (Springfield resident), Ed & Shirley Mower (Stark turbine leases), Tony Grescheck (Stark Highway Supervisor) and the Moyers.
Kay Sheldon Moyer signed the letter in the recent Direct Mail allegedly from Friends of Renewable Energy (FORE) It was a slick four-color mailing, with tear-off return form and post paid return envelope addressed to Kay Moyer at a P.O. Box. It was even mail merged for tailored individual addresses, and tailored greeting line. No one in FORE has the skills to put together a mailing like this. Clearly, it was done by Community Energy.
FORE's website is registered in Pennsylvania to Kristen Sullivan of Community Energy.
In January the Stark Town Board appointed Kay Sheldon Moyer to the Planning Board, to fill out a term left by the resignation of Kent Hogeboom. It was a three-year appointment, to 2010. There were no official announcements, no legal notices, no process in this appointment. It was a total surprise. When the Town Board voted on it, the citizens present did not even know what they were voting on, until after the unanimous vote was taken. Only then did the Town Supervisor look at Kay and say, "Congratulations. You're on the Town Planning Board until 2010."
Recently, a member of Advocates for Stark suggested that Kay Moyer may be in the employ of Community Energy. She goes to every public meeting and speaks out in favor of the turbines. At first, her vernacular was a little rough, peppered with curse words. More recently, she has cleaned that up, perhaps with coaching. As "chairperson" of FORE, she has a post office box, and her name is being used to advance Community Energy's agenda. She is obviously the cheerleader who calls the turbine lease holders together for important meetings. The Moyers have never been wealthy, and neighbors doubt they can afford to buy multiple rounds of drinks for a dozen or more people. Someone is picking up that tab.
As one lifetime resident observed, "Kay Moyer does nothing for no one for free. Either she's been promised a job, or she's being paid." At the very least, it is likely her expenses are being covered. Since she is not a turbine leaseholder, there may be some other incentives, too.
Although I understand there is nothing strictly illegal in all of this, lack of transparency does raise some serious ethical questions.
Andy Minnig
FORE%20request%20of%20PSC%20rehearing.pdf
This front group for Community Energy has neither the funds nor wit to successfully mail a postcard on its own, let alone file such a brief. Although I detect some of Chairwoman Kay Sheldon Moyer's unprofessional peek in the filing.
Community Energy's Community liaison Kristen Sullivan does have the wit and the means. I believe she and Community Energy are the actual authors of the dovcument.
Ms. Sullivan is currently living in Fly Creek, although home is in Pennsylvania
For some additional local color, consider that following a School Board meeting in April 2007, a group of lease holders and town officials repaired to the local watering hole, The Bowling Alley. Kay Moyer was buying successive rounds of drinks at $5 a drink. Among those present were Les Miller (Warren Town Board), Tucky Miller (Stark Town Board), Rick Bronner (Stark Town Supervisor), Janice Whipple (Springfield resident), Ed & Shirley Mower (Stark turbine leases), Tony Grescheck (Stark Highway Supervisor) and the Moyers.
Kay Sheldon Moyer signed the letter in the recent Direct Mail allegedly from Friends of Renewable Energy (FORE) It was a slick four-color mailing, with tear-off return form and post paid return envelope addressed to Kay Moyer at a P.O. Box. It was even mail merged for tailored individual addresses, and tailored greeting line. No one in FORE has the skills to put together a mailing like this. Clearly, it was done by Community Energy.
FORE's website is registered in Pennsylvania to Kristen Sullivan of Community Energy.
In January the Stark Town Board appointed Kay Sheldon Moyer to the Planning Board, to fill out a term left by the resignation of Kent Hogeboom. It was a three-year appointment, to 2010. There were no official announcements, no legal notices, no process in this appointment. It was a total surprise. When the Town Board voted on it, the citizens present did not even know what they were voting on, until after the unanimous vote was taken. Only then did the Town Supervisor look at Kay and say, "Congratulations. You're on the Town Planning Board until 2010."
Recently, a member of Advocates for Stark suggested that Kay Moyer may be in the employ of Community Energy. She goes to every public meeting and speaks out in favor of the turbines. At first, her vernacular was a little rough, peppered with curse words. More recently, she has cleaned that up, perhaps with coaching. As "chairperson" of FORE, she has a post office box, and her name is being used to advance Community Energy's agenda. She is obviously the cheerleader who calls the turbine lease holders together for important meetings. The Moyers have never been wealthy, and neighbors doubt they can afford to buy multiple rounds of drinks for a dozen or more people. Someone is picking up that tab.
As one lifetime resident observed, "Kay Moyer does nothing for no one for free. Either she's been promised a job, or she's being paid." At the very least, it is likely her expenses are being covered. Since she is not a turbine leaseholder, there may be some other incentives, too.
Although I understand there is nothing strictly illegal in all of this, lack of transparency does raise some serious ethical questions.
Andy Minnig
FORE%20request%20of%20PSC%20rehearing.pdf
Report: NYRI isn't needed by Tom Grace
New York Independent System Operator has issued a report concluding power from the proposed NYRI transmission line will probably not be needed through 2016.
The nonprofit organization that operates the state's bulk electricity grid and administers wholesale markets also classified the project below at least a dozen others.
The New York Regional Interconnection proposal calls for building a 1,200-megawatt transmission line from Marcy in Oneida County through parts of Chenango and Delaware counties to New Windsor in Orange County.
Proponents have said it is needed to meet the rising demand for electricity in the state.
However, the NYISO board of directors approved a report this week that indicates that other, less-expensive proposals appear likely to satisfy the state's demand through 2016, according to spokesman Ken Klapp.
``We have identified eight market-based proposals that appear viable,'' he said Friday.
A market-based proposal is one where the project's costs is assumed by the developer and not used to increase the price of electricity charged to ratepayers.
``We prefer market-based proposals to those that increase the rate base,'' Klapp said.
In addition, NYISO evaluated four proposals from utility companies to increase the flow of electricity in the state, he said.
If the market-based proposals fall short of meeting demand, the options from traditional utilities, which would raise the cost of power, could be implemented.
NYRI is classified in a third category, as a project that would raise the price of power from a firm that is not a utility.
Klapp said Friday that the NYISO board of directors had reached the same conclusion _ that NYRI appears not to be needed _ last year.
``But we always re-evaluating the system,'' he said. ``I like to compare it to the weather. A meteorologist may say on Wednesday that it will be sunny on Saturday, but he doesn't stop looking at what is developing as the week goes on.''
An opponent to NYRI's $1.6 billion proposed line cheered the NYISO's report.
In an e-mail sent to The Daily Star, Chris Rossi, co-chairwoman of Stop NYRI Inc., said, ``The NYISO report confirms what we already understood: The NYRI project was not created to meet the electrical needs of NYS consumers and businesses.
``Its chief purpose was to generate profits for Canadian shareholders," she continued. "The NYISO report is one more solid reason for New York State to say no to NYRI.''
David Kalson, NYRI's spokesman, could not be reached for comment Friday.
NYRI's application to the state's Public Service Commission remains incomplete. The firm also has been working to have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission supercede the authority of state regulators and permit the project to be built.
The nonprofit organization that operates the state's bulk electricity grid and administers wholesale markets also classified the project below at least a dozen others.
The New York Regional Interconnection proposal calls for building a 1,200-megawatt transmission line from Marcy in Oneida County through parts of Chenango and Delaware counties to New Windsor in Orange County.
Proponents have said it is needed to meet the rising demand for electricity in the state.
However, the NYISO board of directors approved a report this week that indicates that other, less-expensive proposals appear likely to satisfy the state's demand through 2016, according to spokesman Ken Klapp.
``We have identified eight market-based proposals that appear viable,'' he said Friday.
A market-based proposal is one where the project's costs is assumed by the developer and not used to increase the price of electricity charged to ratepayers.
``We prefer market-based proposals to those that increase the rate base,'' Klapp said.
In addition, NYISO evaluated four proposals from utility companies to increase the flow of electricity in the state, he said.
If the market-based proposals fall short of meeting demand, the options from traditional utilities, which would raise the cost of power, could be implemented.
NYRI is classified in a third category, as a project that would raise the price of power from a firm that is not a utility.
Klapp said Friday that the NYISO board of directors had reached the same conclusion _ that NYRI appears not to be needed _ last year.
``But we always re-evaluating the system,'' he said. ``I like to compare it to the weather. A meteorologist may say on Wednesday that it will be sunny on Saturday, but he doesn't stop looking at what is developing as the week goes on.''
An opponent to NYRI's $1.6 billion proposed line cheered the NYISO's report.
In an e-mail sent to The Daily Star, Chris Rossi, co-chairwoman of Stop NYRI Inc., said, ``The NYISO report confirms what we already understood: The NYRI project was not created to meet the electrical needs of NYS consumers and businesses.
``Its chief purpose was to generate profits for Canadian shareholders," she continued. "The NYISO report is one more solid reason for New York State to say no to NYRI.''
David Kalson, NYRI's spokesman, could not be reached for comment Friday.
NYRI's application to the state's Public Service Commission remains incomplete. The firm also has been working to have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission supercede the authority of state regulators and permit the project to be built.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Energias de Portugal to monetize more wind tax credits; plans IPO
New York (Platts)--28Sep2007 Energias de Portugal plans to monetize about 650 MW of tax equity credits by the end of 2007 that it gained through its acquisition of Horizon Wind Energy from Goldman Sachs in July, Antonio Mexia, EDP CEO, told Platts Friday.
On the eve of its $3-billion acquisition of Horizon Wind, EDP monetized the 722 MW of Horizon's operational wind farms by selling them for $700 million in deal facilitated by a Citigroup-led group of banks.
Under federal law, wind farms generate tax credits, known as production tax credits, but since EDP is not headquartered in the US it has little use for the credits, except to sell them.
'Unlike other companies, we are not here for the tax credits,' said Mexia. Instead EDP has chosen to monetize the credits and use the proceeds reduce the debt associated with the Horizon acquisition.
The second monetization would strip out credits from Horizon wind farms that were under construction at the time of the acquisition and are expected to be online by year end.
Mexia declined to name the bank that would handle the monetization, but said it would be a different bank for this transaction, although it would still be an American bank.
The Horizon acquisition doubled the size of EDP's worldwide wind power portfolio by adding Horizon's 1,700 MW of US wind farms -- 722 MW in operation and nearly 1,000 MW under construction -- to its portfolio.
Mexia said EDP is also studying an initial public offering for its worldwide wind assets in 2008. There is strong demand for green energy and wind power is a proven technology, said Mexia.
The result, he said, is that investors are valuing wind assets at higher price/earnings multiples than those assets would fetch than in portfolios that included conventional thermal generation. 'We have already been approached by top investors who want to be involved,' he said.
Overall, Mexia said that by 2010 EDP would have 3,400 MW of wind power in operation in the US and 4,200 MW online in Europe. --Peter Maloney, peter_maloney@platts.com For more news, request a free trial to Platts Renewable
Energy Report at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?products_id=131
On the eve of its $3-billion acquisition of Horizon Wind, EDP monetized the 722 MW of Horizon's operational wind farms by selling them for $700 million in deal facilitated by a Citigroup-led group of banks.
Under federal law, wind farms generate tax credits, known as production tax credits, but since EDP is not headquartered in the US it has little use for the credits, except to sell them.
'Unlike other companies, we are not here for the tax credits,' said Mexia. Instead EDP has chosen to monetize the credits and use the proceeds reduce the debt associated with the Horizon acquisition.
The second monetization would strip out credits from Horizon wind farms that were under construction at the time of the acquisition and are expected to be online by year end.
Mexia declined to name the bank that would handle the monetization, but said it would be a different bank for this transaction, although it would still be an American bank.
The Horizon acquisition doubled the size of EDP's worldwide wind power portfolio by adding Horizon's 1,700 MW of US wind farms -- 722 MW in operation and nearly 1,000 MW under construction -- to its portfolio.
Mexia said EDP is also studying an initial public offering for its worldwide wind assets in 2008. There is strong demand for green energy and wind power is a proven technology, said Mexia.
The result, he said, is that investors are valuing wind assets at higher price/earnings multiples than those assets would fetch than in portfolios that included conventional thermal generation. 'We have already been approached by top investors who want to be involved,' he said.
Overall, Mexia said that by 2010 EDP would have 3,400 MW of wind power in operation in the US and 4,200 MW online in Europe. --Peter Maloney, peter_maloney@platts.com For more news, request a free trial to Platts Renewable
Energy Report at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?products_id=131
Thursday, September 27, 2007
SCIDA Sept 27, 2007 Anti-trust Notice Letter by James Hall
September 27, 2007
Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
Po Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393
Messrs Sherron - Executive Director, Michael Doyle - Chairman, Philip Roche - Vice Chairman, George Connors - Secretary, Richard Weakland - Member, Michael Nisbet - Member, Douglas Malone - Member and John Sirianni – Member:
This letter serves as official notice that SCIDA and the above individuals are being named to the expanded Anti-trust complaint and investigation. It is alleged that criminal conduct, collusion, bribery and an organized effort to fix market allocation has been going on in the industrial wind industry in Steuben County, other NYS counties and regional states.
SCIDA is urged, in the strongest terms, to withdraw and withhold any PILOT approval with the Town of Cohocton, the Cohocton-Wayland School District and the County of Steuben. Construction has started in Cohocton before a PILOT agreement has been approved. Full industrial tax rates must be assessed on the value of the UPC Project and also applied to the tax accounts of every property owner who has an industrial structure on their property.
UPC has already stated in writing to SCIDA a minimum of $2.9 million for the Cohocton project and $1.5 million for the Dutch Hill project per year. Why are we not holding them to anything even close to that amount?
IDA’s have a mandate to create local jobs. From the righteous outrage of Union rank and file at this meeting, it is obvious that for SCIDA to ignore the need of NYS job creation malfeasance of your duty will be committed. The general contractor Mortenson and UPC has broken their pledge to develop this project using NYS union labor.
Therefore, it is not only prudent but legally necessary to reject any PILOT approval for the UPC Cohocton/Dutch Hill project. UPC has violated the law by starting the project without required building permits and payment of permit fees.
Approval of a PILOT De Facto is unconstitutional and would be challenged in court. SCIDA is at grave risk and bears the responsibility and liability of enacting a fraudulent scheme to defraud the tax payers of the Town of Cohocton and the State of New York.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
Po Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393
Messrs Sherron - Executive Director, Michael Doyle - Chairman, Philip Roche - Vice Chairman, George Connors - Secretary, Richard Weakland - Member, Michael Nisbet - Member, Douglas Malone - Member and John Sirianni – Member:
This letter serves as official notice that SCIDA and the above individuals are being named to the expanded Anti-trust complaint and investigation. It is alleged that criminal conduct, collusion, bribery and an organized effort to fix market allocation has been going on in the industrial wind industry in Steuben County, other NYS counties and regional states.
SCIDA is urged, in the strongest terms, to withdraw and withhold any PILOT approval with the Town of Cohocton, the Cohocton-Wayland School District and the County of Steuben. Construction has started in Cohocton before a PILOT agreement has been approved. Full industrial tax rates must be assessed on the value of the UPC Project and also applied to the tax accounts of every property owner who has an industrial structure on their property.
UPC has already stated in writing to SCIDA a minimum of $2.9 million for the Cohocton project and $1.5 million for the Dutch Hill project per year. Why are we not holding them to anything even close to that amount?
IDA’s have a mandate to create local jobs. From the righteous outrage of Union rank and file at this meeting, it is obvious that for SCIDA to ignore the need of NYS job creation malfeasance of your duty will be committed. The general contractor Mortenson and UPC has broken their pledge to develop this project using NYS union labor.
Therefore, it is not only prudent but legally necessary to reject any PILOT approval for the UPC Cohocton/Dutch Hill project. UPC has violated the law by starting the project without required building permits and payment of permit fees.
Approval of a PILOT De Facto is unconstitutional and would be challenged in court. SCIDA is at grave risk and bears the responsibility and liability of enacting a fraudulent scheme to defraud the tax payers of the Town of Cohocton and the State of New York.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Union to protest UPC Wind in Bath
BATH – Members of several area labor unions plan a protest today against UPC Wind, a wind farm company developing projects in the Cohocton area.
Tom Stephens, business development specialist for the International Union of Operating Engineers in Rochester, said the protest concerns what he called “UPC Wind’s plan to use non-union, out-of-state labor” to construct the wind farms.
The protest will take place at noon at the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency office at 7234 Route 54 in Bath.
The agency is considering an agreement allowing UPC Wind to make payments in lieu of taxes on its Steuben County projects.
UPC spokesman Lawrence Mott denied that the company is using only non-union, out-of-state labor.
“We are hiring local employees,” Mott said. “We are finding some good skilled local people. We have (local) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (members) on the job. The statement that we are not hiring union workers is a lie.”
Mott said he could not immediately estimate what percentage of UPC Wind workers on the Cohocton jobs are union members.
Tom Stephens, business development specialist for the International Union of Operating Engineers in Rochester, said the protest concerns what he called “UPC Wind’s plan to use non-union, out-of-state labor” to construct the wind farms.
The protest will take place at noon at the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency office at 7234 Route 54 in Bath.
The agency is considering an agreement allowing UPC Wind to make payments in lieu of taxes on its Steuben County projects.
UPC spokesman Lawrence Mott denied that the company is using only non-union, out-of-state labor.
“We are hiring local employees,” Mott said. “We are finding some good skilled local people. We have (local) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (members) on the job. The statement that we are not hiring union workers is a lie.”
Mott said he could not immediately estimate what percentage of UPC Wind workers on the Cohocton jobs are union members.
Attorney General Cuomo Sept 26, 2007 Letter by James Hall
September 26, 2007
STATE OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ANDREW M. CUOMO DIVISION OF REGIONAL OFFICES
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICE
The Honorable Attorney General Andrew Cuomo,
Cohocton Wind Watch membership and several of our members individually support the Anti-trust and RICO complaint against the Industrial Wind Turbine industry. It is our request that your office investigate the systemic pattern of corruption and collusion that is currently repeated throughout New York State.
Criminal conduct and violations of New York State and Federal laws are common occurrences. Market allocation and the absence of any competition from developers are manifested in virtually every town that has been targeted for a wind project. Town Boards have been bribed, Planning Boards have been bought and Government Agencies ignore their own regulations in favor of expedited developer approvals.
The NYS Attorney General's office needs to be apprised of specific examples of coordinated illegal business practices among scores of shell LLC companies, controlled and directed by a small cabal of ex Enron executives and foreign companies.
The recent example of a federal grand jury indictment of a Twin Cities, MN wind energy developer, Gregory Jaunich, for mail fraud and money laundering is only the tip of an iceberg that will melt down and flow back to New York State jurisdiction. http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/2007/09/wind-energy-exec-indicted-by-jennifer.html
CWW seeks a meeting, with your senior staff to provide evidence and documentation of criminal conduct. Local District Attorneys are not equipped nor have the needed resources to investigate a public fraud on the scale of the Industrial Wind Industry.
We implore that the NYS Attorney General directs a wide range investigation and intercede with the U.S. Attorney General DoJ office for Anti-trust enforcement. Our executive committee is available to meet with you or your staff and offer access to our research files. Please consider the urgency, since several projects are causing irreparable harm.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
STATE OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ANDREW M. CUOMO DIVISION OF REGIONAL OFFICES
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICE
The Honorable Attorney General Andrew Cuomo,
Cohocton Wind Watch membership and several of our members individually support the Anti-trust and RICO complaint against the Industrial Wind Turbine industry. It is our request that your office investigate the systemic pattern of corruption and collusion that is currently repeated throughout New York State.
Criminal conduct and violations of New York State and Federal laws are common occurrences. Market allocation and the absence of any competition from developers are manifested in virtually every town that has been targeted for a wind project. Town Boards have been bribed, Planning Boards have been bought and Government Agencies ignore their own regulations in favor of expedited developer approvals.
The NYS Attorney General's office needs to be apprised of specific examples of coordinated illegal business practices among scores of shell LLC companies, controlled and directed by a small cabal of ex Enron executives and foreign companies.
The recent example of a federal grand jury indictment of a Twin Cities, MN wind energy developer, Gregory Jaunich, for mail fraud and money laundering is only the tip of an iceberg that will melt down and flow back to New York State jurisdiction. http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/2007/09/wind-energy-exec-indicted-by-jennifer.html
CWW seeks a meeting, with your senior staff to provide evidence and documentation of criminal conduct. Local District Attorneys are not equipped nor have the needed resources to investigate a public fraud on the scale of the Industrial Wind Industry.
We implore that the NYS Attorney General directs a wide range investigation and intercede with the U.S. Attorney General DoJ office for Anti-trust enforcement. Our executive committee is available to meet with you or your staff and offer access to our research files. Please consider the urgency, since several projects are causing irreparable harm.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)