ADVOCATES FOR SPRINGFIELD
P. O. Box 25
Springfield Center, New York 13468
Update #40
October 17, 2007
Public Service Commission Reduces Size of Turbine Project PSC Approves Wind Project with Conditions
At its meeting August 20, 2007, the NYS Public Service Commission approved the Jordanville wind project but set three significant conditions based upon a very thorough review of the application.
First, the PSC required that 19 of the proposed 68 turbines be removed.
These are the turbines with the greatest visual impact on Otsego Lake and the Glimmerglass Historic District. Second, the PSC required the applicant to consult with the Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor Commission regarding further mitigations to offset negative historic and cultural impacts. And third, the sponsor was required to come up with a plan to mitigate local historic impacts including a fund to carry out the recommendations. Included in this last item is a requirement that a conservation easement fund be established to protect lands from further development.
The PSC order was very well written with the staff doing an especially thorough job. Although many of our criticisms of the plan were dismissed or not addressed, the three key conditions were similar to suggestions that we had submitted to PSC. ("We" refers to Otsego 2000, Advocates for Stark, and Advocates for Springfield.)
Neither the applicant nor the town boards of Stark and Warren are particularly happy with the order. A local advocacy group, Friends of Renewable Energy (FORE), both towns, and the developer have all formally requested a re-hearing. The bases of that request include:
• The order to remove 19 turbines was "directly contrary" to the "carefully conducted" SEQRA hearing and findings of the lead agency (Town of Warren).
• The order was "appalling" in that it favored distant populations over local farmers.
• The PSC allowed testimony from project opponents despite the failure of these opponents to register their concerns in a timely manner.
• The order requires a program of conservation easements which is a violation of landowner rights.
It is our position that the Lead Agency (Town of Warren) failed to take the required "hard look" during its SEQRA review. During that review, the lead agency did not adequately consider the project’s impacts on neighboring communities (as required by SEQRA). The PSC order is simply a reflection of these shortcomings of the local approval process.
Article 78 Petition Continues
In separate action, our joint Article 78 complaint against the local approvals granted in July to Jordanville Wind was heard in oral argument in early October before Judge Greenwood of the State Supreme Court, Onandaga County. The petition asserts several failures: the lead agency failed to take the required "hard look" at the project impacts; the lead agency failed to request public input when it "scoped" the project; both towns conducted numerous illegal executive sessions for review and evaluation of the project; and one participating town board member failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the project.
The judge listened to both sides while demonstrating a good understanding of the issues. He will issue his ruling in 2-6 weeks.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Wendy Todd resident of Mars Hill Maine, Sept 26, 2007 Letter
Wendy%20Todd%209-26-07.pdf
Chairman Giffin and Task Force Members: 09/26/2007
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak.
My name is Wendy Todd. I am a resident of Mars Hill and a lifelong citizen of the state of Maine. I live approximately 2600 feet from multiple turbines located at the Mars Hill Wind Facility. To date, I have attended two of the task force meetings and have tried to keep up with most of the reading material. Today I am here representing a number of families who are my neighbors and friends. They are experiencing the same things that my family and I are experiencing, with respect to the wind turbines.
My husband Perrin and my three children moved back to Aroostook County after living is Southern Maine for approx 14 years. We moved back because we wanted to raise our children in a known, safe, nurturing environment. You see, Mars Hill is my hometown. It is a small town, with a reasonably good sense of community. It has a great school system – but most of all it is where my family lives. My parents own a farm on the Canadian border that lies on the Northeast side of Mars Hill Mountain. My grandfather purchased the farm in 1914 and farmed potatoes for 46 years before my parents continued the tradition of farming in 1960. In my opinion it is some of the prettiest acreage in Aroostook and I was very happy to come home to it, in fact…it was my dream.
The turbines however, have changed most of that as the land that was once known for its remote nature, wildlife and solitude is now home to an industrial power plant. For anyone to say that a wind turbine facility has a low impact on the local environment… is irresponsible. Yet the industry and the media surrounding it seem insistent on making light of the problems that exist. The problems are real and they are hurting families emotionally, physically and economically.
1.) Many are worried about how the turbines have affected their property value and what they planned to leave to their children. Some families have given up their dreams of building homes because the turbines have changed the very nature of the land and how they planned to use it. The construction phase drove much of the wildlife from the area and it has been very slow to recover. We wonder if the wildlife population and characteristics will ever be the same.
2.) Noise and shadow flicker create anger and frustration as they invade our homes and land. The noise keeps many residents from a proper night sleep, resulting in more frustration, anger and stress. It has lead to time missed at work for some and sleep aids for others. Most of these families have resorted to sleeping with the house shut up tight, curtains drawn with fans running or other white noise sources at their bedsides. Sleep deprivation and stress has led to a number of other issues that are of concern. One resident has started on anti-depressants, three residents are experiencing increased migraines and another family has separated. These families attribute the blame of these issues on the surrounding turbines. Recent studies correlate the noise and vibrations associated with living too close to turbines to a number of health issues that range from ringing in the ears to vibro-acoustic disease. Other determined health issues include an increased risk of seizures for those who are prone to seizures, an increased frequency and intensity of migraines, stress headaches and inner ear problems.
Unfortunately for us, the very mountain that has provided the wind facility with a class 3-wind resource often acts like a fence protecting us from the upper level winds that push the turbines. There are many times when winds are high on the ridgeline but are near calm at our homes. The noise and vibrations from the turbines penetrate our homes. At times there is no escape from it. It doesn’t matter which room you go to, there is no escape from the noise. The noise ranges from the sound of a high range jet to a fleet of planes that are approaching but never arrive. When it’s really bad it takes on a repetitive, pulsating, thumping noise that can go on for hours or even days. It has been described as a freight train that never arrives, sneakers in a dryer, a washing machine agitating, a giant heartbeat, a submariner describes it as a large ship passing overhead.
If the wind turbines are spinning we hear them. Yes, there are days when the turbines are rotating and very little noise is emitted. There are days when we can’t hear them at all inside our homes. Those are generally days when the turbines are spinning less than 15 rotations per minute (rpm’s). A visiting engineer from GE said that the turbines do not start generating power until the turbines reach 17 to 18 RPM. The turbines need consistent wind speeds of 4 ½ meters per second - so… on most days when they are not making noise they are not making power either.
People think that we are crazy. They drive out around the mountain stop and listen and wonder why anyone would complain about noise emissions. But, believe me when we are having noise problems you can most assuredly hear the justification of our complaint. We have had people come into our yard get out of their vehicles and have watched their mouth drop. We have had company stop in mid conversation inside our home to ask, “What is that noise?” or say “I can’t believe you can hear those like that inside your house.”
Visiting a wind facility, or sitting at the end of someone’s driveway once or twice for 2, 3 or even 10 minutes to listen does not make that person an expert on turbine noise. To be an informed witness could take days or weeks for one to know and experience what we are living. Not until an individual has been in a home and has heard turbine noise emissions of 45 decibels or higher does that individual have any right to judge how turbine noise truly affects the lives of people. Even noise experts should be talking to residents who are living next to turbines to ensure they are collecting data that is relevant to the burdensome noise emissions heard by those who live closest to them. Let us tell the sound experts when we are having a noise issue.
Nick Archer, our Regional Director with the DEP thought we were all crazy, too. But he finally made it to our homes and heard what we were talking about. I don’t believe he has ever heard a 50+decibel day but he has heard close to that on more than one occasion and has made statements like these. “This is a problem.” “ We need to figure out what is going on with these things before we go putting anymore of them up.” “I thought you were crazy at first but you are not crazy.” “The quality of life behind the mountain is changed.” Did he say these things just to appease us? I don’t believe so.
Because of the complaints from residents around the mountain the DEP started an investigation into the noise levels being emitted from the Mars Hill wind facility. The wind company agreed to do a sound study and is working with the DEP to determine compliance. Maine state law allows projects to emit 45 dBa of noise at protected locations like ours, (quiet areas) up to 500 feet from sleeping quarters. For some reason, the Maine DEP granted the UPC/Evergreen project a 5-decibel variance, thus allowing the turbines a noise ceiling of 50 dBa at protected locations. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE) conducted the first round of sound tests in May of 2007. The May study revealed two locations on the North end of the mountain with readings over 50 decibels.
Presently, the DEP is reviewing that May study along with a series of questions posed by the Mountain Landowners Association of Mars Hill. The study has been in their possession since the end of June and again the residents whose lives are being affected by the noise are being asked to be patient. I want everyone here to understand, it has become extremely disheartening to be asked to live with noise that UPC/Evergreen stated would never exist. It is frustrating to know that the turbines are being allowed to continue operations with no restrictions even though the study shows that they are over the limit that the permit allows.
Nick Archer our Regional Director of the DEP stated at a meeting with our group that “anything over the permit level would be out of compliance, whether its out by 1dBa or more, out of compliance is out of compliance”. The study shows that the turbines are over the DEP’s limit yet it seems that things are no longer that clear cut. The World Health Organization says, “Where noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dBA indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided.” www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Commnoise4.htm
I understand the Governor’s desire for wanting wind to work in Maine, but surely it is not to the detriment of people who live and pay taxes here. Many were for the Mars Hill wind turbine project but we were misled as a community and as a state we are still being misled.
The wind company that came to Mars Hill misrepresented facts and spoke in half-truths. The town manager and town council of Mars Hill believed them and based their decisions on this information and the project moved forward. Most people truly believed that the benefits to the town, county, state, country and world were well worth any negative impact from the visual aspect of the turbines. Visual impact was the biggest negative impact that was ever talked about.
Maine Site Law & Regulations – Section 484 states that “the developer is responsible for fitting a development harmoniously into the existing natural environment and to demonstrate that the development will not unreasonably affect existing land uses.”
Now, of course, it is to late for the truth. The turbines are there and most likely will remain. But this task force can help other communities protect themselves. Information is power and the people of Maine and the nation have a right to all the facts.
What am I talking about…?
Statement:The wind company said it would create hundreds of local jobs that would be filled by local businesses whenever possible.
Reality:Most of the construction jobs went to contractors outside of Aroostook County.
Statement:
When asked how much electricity would be created and where it would go the answer was “At full capacity the plant will generate 50 megawatts, enough to power approximately 50,000 average Maine homes and at 40% capacity it would supply electricity for 24,000 – 25,000 homes. All the electricity from the Mars Hill “wind farm” will be used in the region, most likely by Aroostook County homes and businesses.
Reality:Now we know that any given wind facility has an efficiency rating somewhere between 25% and 35%. The electricity generated from the Mars Hill facility goes to Canada.
Statement:They said that the facility would likely help to stabilize electric prices. “Electricity cost from wind power is very competitive and sometimes lower than most other sources of fuel-based power. The more wind power that can be generated in Aroostook County and Maine the more you can count on the possibility of more stable or even lower electric bills in the future.”
Reality:
The truth is that our electric bills went up approximately 40% this year and are due to go up again.
They didn’t mention the blasting that shook our homes, rattled dishes, cracked walls and allegedly even dried up wetlands and damaged leach fields.
They didn’t mention shadow flicker and strobing effects.
They didn’t mention ice shear, or risk of tower collapse or blades breaking off.
They didn’t mention anything about increased risk of lightning strikes or fire.
They didn’t mention interference of TV, radio or radar waves.
They didn’t mention anything about possible devaluation of property to those who live a mile or less from the site.
Statement:The wind company told the town of Mars Hill that there would be no noise at all at the bottom of the mountain. They said that a person would have to be 500 feet or less from the project to hear anything at all. If the wind is blowing, the background noise of wind in the trees is all you will likely hear! It was said verbally, it was in handouts at the town meetings and it was on the Evergreen/UPC website.
Reality:You have heard my testimony on what the reality is for those that live the closest to the turbines.
Statement:They said that public access to the mountain would be unchanged.
Reality:The landowners still have the right to allow people on their property but many have been made to feel that the dangers of allowing access to an industrial power facility would be unwise.
They stated that there would be major environmental benefits because of the Mars Hill Wind Facility.
120,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide = to removing exhaust emissions from 17,000 automobiles
420 tons of Sulfur dioxide
288 tons of Nitric Oxide
Where are the carbon emitting plants that the Mars Hill wind facility shut down or reduced the output of? The fact is the fossil fuel burning plants are still on line. Even if they are on “standby mode” they are still emitting. They need to be ready to take on the load whenever the wind isn’t blowing. Show the public where the carbon emitting plants are that have been shut down or have reduced output due to wind turbines…or stop saying that they reduce carbon emissions.
What about the tax benefit to the town of Mars Hill? The town signed a TIF agreement with the wind company for $500,000 a year for the life of the project (20 years). Because of that $500,000 a year, the town of Mars Hill will be losing $249,000 in school funding. That brings the total benefit to the town down to $251,000.
During the last task force meeting I believe Kurt Adams with the PUC said that Maine makes all the power it needs. It doesn’t need to make more power to service Maine homes and business. Why should Maine taxpayers pay to upgrade the grids if they do not benefit from the power? I believe Mr. Adams also stated that Maine calls for the most electricity in the summer and yet the wind plant in Mars Hill is off for days at a time in the summer because there is no wind. Someone, please correct me if I am wrong.
I think by now most of us have heard about and done a little research on the government subsidies and green credits that are helping the wind industry to thrive. During a meeting on April 30, 2007 before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, Senator Sherman from Houlton asked the question “If it wasn’t for the subsides and green credits would these turbines be going up?” The answer was “No. It is not feasible or viable.” The subsidies and other programs are what make wind turbines lucrative. The green credits are being resold (at a premium) to the fossil burning plants, which in turn allow them to fall into federal compliance. That “premium” is paid to the turbine developers who benefit again.
So then, what is this all about?? Is it about a need for more electricity? Is it about a need for renewable energy in the hopes of saving the planet from carbon emissions? Is it a need for new industry? Is it to lessen our dependency on foreign oil? How do you make the answer important enough that it is OK to drive people from their homes, land and dreams?
Is it really practical to continue the rush to site and construct wind turbine facilities that we know are at best 35% efficient?? Where is the logic? If any of us were to establish a business that was only 35% efficient, invent a machine that was only 35% efficient, or heat a home with a unit that was only 35% efficient…would there be any investors?? Has Maine looked into what will balance that inefficiency? I have seen documents that show that the west coast states are seeing good results from the combination of hydro and wind because hydro can come on line when the wind isn’t blowing.
A recommendation might be to use the taxpayer’s money by instituting a state conservation program that mandates housing upgrades such as new windows, new insulation, etc. for every house in the state of Maine. All of which, if implemented would further reduce our electricity/oil consumption and decrease our dependency on foreign oil and decrease fossil fuel emissions. I realize that this wouldn’t be easy nor would it fix the whole problem, but it is directly related to the taxpayer in a positive way and would have real and meaningful numbers that include a decrease in cost for heating and air conditioning for each home.
We are not against people making money. We are not against wind turbines. Proper set backs take care of most of the issues with turbines. But, if you allow siting to continue as it is now and thereby negatively change people’s lives, then you also need to ask yourselves if you are all willing to live with those impacts.
Are you willing to live beside a neighbor who makes so much noise that it keeps you from sleep, drives you inside from enjoying your land or makes reading and other thought process difficult? Are you willing to alter the way you live in your home and use your property so that a neighbor can prosper? How about your children and grandchildren? Are you willing to have them live this close to turbines with the health risks that I spoke of earlier?
All of you are in positions of responsibility and are charged with having to make important decisions regarding wind turbine siting. The decisions that you make here on this task force are not only related to the people of Maine, but to people across the nation, and even the world. You have heard from the industry, the PUC, the residents who are both for and against these projects and many more. You now need to find a way to achieve a balanced direction and make recommendations that will protect everyone.
I have included some web site addresses within this document and hope to encourage you to read the informative contents of each. I would also like you to pretend for a couple of hours that you are about to have an industrial wind turbine facility constructed in your backyard. I want you to research these documents as if they were going to affect you and your loved ones. The Mars Hill wind facility has affected my family and my neighbors in ways that only a few can understand. I feel that it is my duty to inform you the best way I know how about our stories, so that what happened in Mars Hill doesn’t have to happen to anyone else.
I thank you for your time.
Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health
http://www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/Effects of the Wind Profile at Night on Wind Turbine Sound
By G. P. van den Berg
http://www.nowap.co.uk/docs/w
If you found “Effects of the Wind Profile at Night on Wind Turbine Sound” helpful this later study may be of interest as well. It is a little more technical but helps explain why turbine noise is so burdensome to residents who live too close. The sound of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise May 12, 2006 by G.P. van den Berg
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/science/2006/g.p.van.den.berg/
If you would like other studies, articles, pictures, videos, and perspectives pertaining to most wind turbine subject matter you could visit www.windaction.org - we have found it very helpful in saving time when researching an item. We start there and branch out. Their video and picture section may help some on the task force who have not visited a wind turbine site understand the visual impact.
Chairman Giffin and Task Force Members: 09/26/2007
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak.
My name is Wendy Todd. I am a resident of Mars Hill and a lifelong citizen of the state of Maine. I live approximately 2600 feet from multiple turbines located at the Mars Hill Wind Facility. To date, I have attended two of the task force meetings and have tried to keep up with most of the reading material. Today I am here representing a number of families who are my neighbors and friends. They are experiencing the same things that my family and I are experiencing, with respect to the wind turbines.
My husband Perrin and my three children moved back to Aroostook County after living is Southern Maine for approx 14 years. We moved back because we wanted to raise our children in a known, safe, nurturing environment. You see, Mars Hill is my hometown. It is a small town, with a reasonably good sense of community. It has a great school system – but most of all it is where my family lives. My parents own a farm on the Canadian border that lies on the Northeast side of Mars Hill Mountain. My grandfather purchased the farm in 1914 and farmed potatoes for 46 years before my parents continued the tradition of farming in 1960. In my opinion it is some of the prettiest acreage in Aroostook and I was very happy to come home to it, in fact…it was my dream.
The turbines however, have changed most of that as the land that was once known for its remote nature, wildlife and solitude is now home to an industrial power plant. For anyone to say that a wind turbine facility has a low impact on the local environment… is irresponsible. Yet the industry and the media surrounding it seem insistent on making light of the problems that exist. The problems are real and they are hurting families emotionally, physically and economically.
1.) Many are worried about how the turbines have affected their property value and what they planned to leave to their children. Some families have given up their dreams of building homes because the turbines have changed the very nature of the land and how they planned to use it. The construction phase drove much of the wildlife from the area and it has been very slow to recover. We wonder if the wildlife population and characteristics will ever be the same.
2.) Noise and shadow flicker create anger and frustration as they invade our homes and land. The noise keeps many residents from a proper night sleep, resulting in more frustration, anger and stress. It has lead to time missed at work for some and sleep aids for others. Most of these families have resorted to sleeping with the house shut up tight, curtains drawn with fans running or other white noise sources at their bedsides. Sleep deprivation and stress has led to a number of other issues that are of concern. One resident has started on anti-depressants, three residents are experiencing increased migraines and another family has separated. These families attribute the blame of these issues on the surrounding turbines. Recent studies correlate the noise and vibrations associated with living too close to turbines to a number of health issues that range from ringing in the ears to vibro-acoustic disease. Other determined health issues include an increased risk of seizures for those who are prone to seizures, an increased frequency and intensity of migraines, stress headaches and inner ear problems.
Unfortunately for us, the very mountain that has provided the wind facility with a class 3-wind resource often acts like a fence protecting us from the upper level winds that push the turbines. There are many times when winds are high on the ridgeline but are near calm at our homes. The noise and vibrations from the turbines penetrate our homes. At times there is no escape from it. It doesn’t matter which room you go to, there is no escape from the noise. The noise ranges from the sound of a high range jet to a fleet of planes that are approaching but never arrive. When it’s really bad it takes on a repetitive, pulsating, thumping noise that can go on for hours or even days. It has been described as a freight train that never arrives, sneakers in a dryer, a washing machine agitating, a giant heartbeat, a submariner describes it as a large ship passing overhead.
If the wind turbines are spinning we hear them. Yes, there are days when the turbines are rotating and very little noise is emitted. There are days when we can’t hear them at all inside our homes. Those are generally days when the turbines are spinning less than 15 rotations per minute (rpm’s). A visiting engineer from GE said that the turbines do not start generating power until the turbines reach 17 to 18 RPM. The turbines need consistent wind speeds of 4 ½ meters per second - so… on most days when they are not making noise they are not making power either.
People think that we are crazy. They drive out around the mountain stop and listen and wonder why anyone would complain about noise emissions. But, believe me when we are having noise problems you can most assuredly hear the justification of our complaint. We have had people come into our yard get out of their vehicles and have watched their mouth drop. We have had company stop in mid conversation inside our home to ask, “What is that noise?” or say “I can’t believe you can hear those like that inside your house.”
Visiting a wind facility, or sitting at the end of someone’s driveway once or twice for 2, 3 or even 10 minutes to listen does not make that person an expert on turbine noise. To be an informed witness could take days or weeks for one to know and experience what we are living. Not until an individual has been in a home and has heard turbine noise emissions of 45 decibels or higher does that individual have any right to judge how turbine noise truly affects the lives of people. Even noise experts should be talking to residents who are living next to turbines to ensure they are collecting data that is relevant to the burdensome noise emissions heard by those who live closest to them. Let us tell the sound experts when we are having a noise issue.
Nick Archer, our Regional Director with the DEP thought we were all crazy, too. But he finally made it to our homes and heard what we were talking about. I don’t believe he has ever heard a 50+decibel day but he has heard close to that on more than one occasion and has made statements like these. “This is a problem.” “ We need to figure out what is going on with these things before we go putting anymore of them up.” “I thought you were crazy at first but you are not crazy.” “The quality of life behind the mountain is changed.” Did he say these things just to appease us? I don’t believe so.
Because of the complaints from residents around the mountain the DEP started an investigation into the noise levels being emitted from the Mars Hill wind facility. The wind company agreed to do a sound study and is working with the DEP to determine compliance. Maine state law allows projects to emit 45 dBa of noise at protected locations like ours, (quiet areas) up to 500 feet from sleeping quarters. For some reason, the Maine DEP granted the UPC/Evergreen project a 5-decibel variance, thus allowing the turbines a noise ceiling of 50 dBa at protected locations. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE) conducted the first round of sound tests in May of 2007. The May study revealed two locations on the North end of the mountain with readings over 50 decibels.
Presently, the DEP is reviewing that May study along with a series of questions posed by the Mountain Landowners Association of Mars Hill. The study has been in their possession since the end of June and again the residents whose lives are being affected by the noise are being asked to be patient. I want everyone here to understand, it has become extremely disheartening to be asked to live with noise that UPC/Evergreen stated would never exist. It is frustrating to know that the turbines are being allowed to continue operations with no restrictions even though the study shows that they are over the limit that the permit allows.
Nick Archer our Regional Director of the DEP stated at a meeting with our group that “anything over the permit level would be out of compliance, whether its out by 1dBa or more, out of compliance is out of compliance”. The study shows that the turbines are over the DEP’s limit yet it seems that things are no longer that clear cut. The World Health Organization says, “Where noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dBA indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided.” www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Commnoise4.htm
I understand the Governor’s desire for wanting wind to work in Maine, but surely it is not to the detriment of people who live and pay taxes here. Many were for the Mars Hill wind turbine project but we were misled as a community and as a state we are still being misled.
The wind company that came to Mars Hill misrepresented facts and spoke in half-truths. The town manager and town council of Mars Hill believed them and based their decisions on this information and the project moved forward. Most people truly believed that the benefits to the town, county, state, country and world were well worth any negative impact from the visual aspect of the turbines. Visual impact was the biggest negative impact that was ever talked about.
Maine Site Law & Regulations – Section 484 states that “the developer is responsible for fitting a development harmoniously into the existing natural environment and to demonstrate that the development will not unreasonably affect existing land uses.”
Now, of course, it is to late for the truth. The turbines are there and most likely will remain. But this task force can help other communities protect themselves. Information is power and the people of Maine and the nation have a right to all the facts.
What am I talking about…?
Statement:The wind company said it would create hundreds of local jobs that would be filled by local businesses whenever possible.
Reality:Most of the construction jobs went to contractors outside of Aroostook County.
Statement:
When asked how much electricity would be created and where it would go the answer was “At full capacity the plant will generate 50 megawatts, enough to power approximately 50,000 average Maine homes and at 40% capacity it would supply electricity for 24,000 – 25,000 homes. All the electricity from the Mars Hill “wind farm” will be used in the region, most likely by Aroostook County homes and businesses.
Reality:Now we know that any given wind facility has an efficiency rating somewhere between 25% and 35%. The electricity generated from the Mars Hill facility goes to Canada.
Statement:They said that the facility would likely help to stabilize electric prices. “Electricity cost from wind power is very competitive and sometimes lower than most other sources of fuel-based power. The more wind power that can be generated in Aroostook County and Maine the more you can count on the possibility of more stable or even lower electric bills in the future.”
Reality:
The truth is that our electric bills went up approximately 40% this year and are due to go up again.
They didn’t mention the blasting that shook our homes, rattled dishes, cracked walls and allegedly even dried up wetlands and damaged leach fields.
They didn’t mention shadow flicker and strobing effects.
They didn’t mention ice shear, or risk of tower collapse or blades breaking off.
They didn’t mention anything about increased risk of lightning strikes or fire.
They didn’t mention interference of TV, radio or radar waves.
They didn’t mention anything about possible devaluation of property to those who live a mile or less from the site.
Statement:The wind company told the town of Mars Hill that there would be no noise at all at the bottom of the mountain. They said that a person would have to be 500 feet or less from the project to hear anything at all. If the wind is blowing, the background noise of wind in the trees is all you will likely hear! It was said verbally, it was in handouts at the town meetings and it was on the Evergreen/UPC website.
Reality:You have heard my testimony on what the reality is for those that live the closest to the turbines.
Statement:They said that public access to the mountain would be unchanged.
Reality:The landowners still have the right to allow people on their property but many have been made to feel that the dangers of allowing access to an industrial power facility would be unwise.
They stated that there would be major environmental benefits because of the Mars Hill Wind Facility.
120,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide = to removing exhaust emissions from 17,000 automobiles
420 tons of Sulfur dioxide
288 tons of Nitric Oxide
Where are the carbon emitting plants that the Mars Hill wind facility shut down or reduced the output of? The fact is the fossil fuel burning plants are still on line. Even if they are on “standby mode” they are still emitting. They need to be ready to take on the load whenever the wind isn’t blowing. Show the public where the carbon emitting plants are that have been shut down or have reduced output due to wind turbines…or stop saying that they reduce carbon emissions.
What about the tax benefit to the town of Mars Hill? The town signed a TIF agreement with the wind company for $500,000 a year for the life of the project (20 years). Because of that $500,000 a year, the town of Mars Hill will be losing $249,000 in school funding. That brings the total benefit to the town down to $251,000.
During the last task force meeting I believe Kurt Adams with the PUC said that Maine makes all the power it needs. It doesn’t need to make more power to service Maine homes and business. Why should Maine taxpayers pay to upgrade the grids if they do not benefit from the power? I believe Mr. Adams also stated that Maine calls for the most electricity in the summer and yet the wind plant in Mars Hill is off for days at a time in the summer because there is no wind. Someone, please correct me if I am wrong.
I think by now most of us have heard about and done a little research on the government subsidies and green credits that are helping the wind industry to thrive. During a meeting on April 30, 2007 before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, Senator Sherman from Houlton asked the question “If it wasn’t for the subsides and green credits would these turbines be going up?” The answer was “No. It is not feasible or viable.” The subsidies and other programs are what make wind turbines lucrative. The green credits are being resold (at a premium) to the fossil burning plants, which in turn allow them to fall into federal compliance. That “premium” is paid to the turbine developers who benefit again.
So then, what is this all about?? Is it about a need for more electricity? Is it about a need for renewable energy in the hopes of saving the planet from carbon emissions? Is it a need for new industry? Is it to lessen our dependency on foreign oil? How do you make the answer important enough that it is OK to drive people from their homes, land and dreams?
Is it really practical to continue the rush to site and construct wind turbine facilities that we know are at best 35% efficient?? Where is the logic? If any of us were to establish a business that was only 35% efficient, invent a machine that was only 35% efficient, or heat a home with a unit that was only 35% efficient…would there be any investors?? Has Maine looked into what will balance that inefficiency? I have seen documents that show that the west coast states are seeing good results from the combination of hydro and wind because hydro can come on line when the wind isn’t blowing.
A recommendation might be to use the taxpayer’s money by instituting a state conservation program that mandates housing upgrades such as new windows, new insulation, etc. for every house in the state of Maine. All of which, if implemented would further reduce our electricity/oil consumption and decrease our dependency on foreign oil and decrease fossil fuel emissions. I realize that this wouldn’t be easy nor would it fix the whole problem, but it is directly related to the taxpayer in a positive way and would have real and meaningful numbers that include a decrease in cost for heating and air conditioning for each home.
We are not against people making money. We are not against wind turbines. Proper set backs take care of most of the issues with turbines. But, if you allow siting to continue as it is now and thereby negatively change people’s lives, then you also need to ask yourselves if you are all willing to live with those impacts.
Are you willing to live beside a neighbor who makes so much noise that it keeps you from sleep, drives you inside from enjoying your land or makes reading and other thought process difficult? Are you willing to alter the way you live in your home and use your property so that a neighbor can prosper? How about your children and grandchildren? Are you willing to have them live this close to turbines with the health risks that I spoke of earlier?
All of you are in positions of responsibility and are charged with having to make important decisions regarding wind turbine siting. The decisions that you make here on this task force are not only related to the people of Maine, but to people across the nation, and even the world. You have heard from the industry, the PUC, the residents who are both for and against these projects and many more. You now need to find a way to achieve a balanced direction and make recommendations that will protect everyone.
I have included some web site addresses within this document and hope to encourage you to read the informative contents of each. I would also like you to pretend for a couple of hours that you are about to have an industrial wind turbine facility constructed in your backyard. I want you to research these documents as if they were going to affect you and your loved ones. The Mars Hill wind facility has affected my family and my neighbors in ways that only a few can understand. I feel that it is my duty to inform you the best way I know how about our stories, so that what happened in Mars Hill doesn’t have to happen to anyone else.
I thank you for your time.
Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health
http://www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/Effects of the Wind Profile at Night on Wind Turbine Sound
By G. P. van den Berg
http://www.nowap.co.uk/docs/w
If you found “Effects of the Wind Profile at Night on Wind Turbine Sound” helpful this later study may be of interest as well. It is a little more technical but helps explain why turbine noise is so burdensome to residents who live too close. The sound of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise May 12, 2006 by G.P. van den Berg
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/science/2006/g.p.van.den.berg/
If you would like other studies, articles, pictures, videos, and perspectives pertaining to most wind turbine subject matter you could visit www.windaction.org - we have found it very helpful in saving time when researching an item. We start there and branch out. Their video and picture section may help some on the task force who have not visited a wind turbine site understand the visual impact.
An Environmental Choice
For the sake of this discussion, let’s just assume that we are in agreement on this much: a) that there IS such a thing as global warming, b) that it IS mostly man-made, and c) that we need to do something meaningful about it, ASAP. OK, so what should we do?
Well, how about industrial wind power?
On the surface wind power seems to be a potentially good thing: a free, clean, renewable source of energy, etc. And wind power developers promote it by saying that it will reduce emissions from fossil fuel utility plants. Sounds good!
Well, the developers’ promise turns out to be inaccurate — but let’s just pretend that it is true. The question still remains: is wind power a good environmental (and financial) choice?
The fact is that we actually have several options available to us to deal with our energy consumption and global warming problems. To continue to keep it simple here, we will look at just two. Then you decide which is better for you, your community, and our planet.
CHOICE #1: Industrial Wind Facilities
The US government would like to have wind power supply about 5% of our current usage of electricity. This would require at least 100,000 1.5 MW wind turbines.
Here are just some of the consequences and costs of 100,000± industrial wind turbines — The environmental effects of: Æ building hundreds of miles of roads, etc.; Æ removing hundreds of thousands of trees, etc.; Æ excavating 350 million± cubic yards of earth (plus bedrock dynamiting), etc. (e.g. for tower bases); Æ the production & delivery of 250 billion± pounds of concrete (e.g. for tower bases); Æ the manufacture & delivery of 30 billion± lbs. of steel (for the towers); Æ the refinement & delivery of 200 million± gallons of oil (each turbine uses oil); Æ the gas used and exhausts emitted for all other transportation; Æ having to build hundreds of miles of new transmission lines, etc.
The cost to taxpayers between government subsidies and higher electric rates: $20± Billion The cost to citizens for the loss of natural views, wildlife, peace & quiet:PRICELESS!
CHOICE #2: Ban Most Incandescent Light Bulbs
Doing this would save MORE than the energy generated by the 100,000+ wind towers above!
[Surprisingly, most light bulb manufacturers favor this (e.g. NY Times: March 14, 2007 “A US Alliance to Update the Light Bulb”).]
Apply the subsidy money earmarked for wind power to genuinely benefit the environment (e.g. alternative energy research) and we could make some real progress here. [A variation of Choice #2 is that the government could put a $5 tax on every incandescent bulb sold.]
Which do you think is the simplest, least expensive, and best environmental choice? john droz, jr. [email: aaprjohn@northnet.org]
PS — I am a physicist who has a 20+ year track record of interest in our environment in a variety of areas [like water quality]. I live on an Adirondack lake. No wind farms are proposed for my community, so this is not a NIMBY issue to me. To research this for yourself, please consider the findings of independent, environmentally concerned scientists that are reported at such sites as:.
Well, how about industrial wind power?
On the surface wind power seems to be a potentially good thing: a free, clean, renewable source of energy, etc. And wind power developers promote it by saying that it will reduce emissions from fossil fuel utility plants. Sounds good!
Well, the developers’ promise turns out to be inaccurate — but let’s just pretend that it is true. The question still remains: is wind power a good environmental (and financial) choice?
The fact is that we actually have several options available to us to deal with our energy consumption and global warming problems. To continue to keep it simple here, we will look at just two. Then you decide which is better for you, your community, and our planet.
CHOICE #1: Industrial Wind Facilities
The US government would like to have wind power supply about 5% of our current usage of electricity. This would require at least 100,000 1.5 MW wind turbines.
Here are just some of the consequences and costs of 100,000± industrial wind turbines — The environmental effects of: Æ building hundreds of miles of roads, etc.; Æ removing hundreds of thousands of trees, etc.; Æ excavating 350 million± cubic yards of earth (plus bedrock dynamiting), etc. (e.g. for tower bases); Æ the production & delivery of 250 billion± pounds of concrete (e.g. for tower bases); Æ the manufacture & delivery of 30 billion± lbs. of steel (for the towers); Æ the refinement & delivery of 200 million± gallons of oil (each turbine uses oil); Æ the gas used and exhausts emitted for all other transportation; Æ having to build hundreds of miles of new transmission lines, etc.
The cost to taxpayers between government subsidies and higher electric rates: $20± Billion The cost to citizens for the loss of natural views, wildlife, peace & quiet:PRICELESS!
CHOICE #2: Ban Most Incandescent Light Bulbs
Doing this would save MORE than the energy generated by the 100,000+ wind towers above!
[Surprisingly, most light bulb manufacturers favor this (e.g. NY Times: March 14, 2007 “A US Alliance to Update the Light Bulb”).]
Apply the subsidy money earmarked for wind power to genuinely benefit the environment (e.g. alternative energy research) and we could make some real progress here. [A variation of Choice #2 is that the government could put a $5 tax on every incandescent bulb sold.]
Which do you think is the simplest, least expensive, and best environmental choice? john droz, jr. [email: aaprjohn@northnet.org]
PS — I am a physicist who has a 20+ year track record of interest in our environment in a variety of areas [like water quality]. I live on an Adirondack lake. No wind farms are proposed for my community, so this is not a NIMBY issue to me. To research this for yourself, please consider the findings of independent, environmentally concerned scientists that are reported at such sites as:
Wind Power: An Executive Summary
Upstate New York State may end up with some TWENTY THOUSAND wind towers...
If this concerns you, keep reading. (FYI, I am a physicist who has a 20+ year track record of interest in our environment in a variety of areas [like water quality]. I live on a lake in the Adirondack Mountains, as communing with nature is one of my highest priorities.)
At first glance, wind power seems to be a potentially good thing: a clean, renewable source of energy, etc. But scientists don’t make decisions based on first glance impressions.
To come to a meaningful understanding of complex matters like wind power, open-minded people need to do a thorough examination of all major components of the issue, plus do a review of accumulated evidence to date (e.g. from wind power experiences in Europe).
Such an analysis will lead to two fundamental conclusions:
1) there is no consequential environmental benefit to industrial wind power, and
2) it is being promoted because it is an extremely lucrative business opportunity.
Below is a brief overview as to why these are so.
There is no real environmental benefit as: a) wind is an unpredictable commodity. b) Energy generated from wind power can not be stored. c) Due to the complexity of nuclear and coalfired power plants, they can not simply be “turned down” when wind power is available. Hydro power (a clean and low cost energy source) is cut back instead. Since nuclear and coal-fired power plants must operate at full capacity 24/7 — no emissions are reduced!
This is a lucrative business opportunity as: a) take the cost to build and erect a typical wind tower, b) subtract the government provided financial incentives (your money). c) Then the government requires the local utility to buy ALL of the electricity generated (needed or not) and to pay a premium rate (your money). d) After taking all of these numbers into account, each turbine turns out to be a government guaranteed 25%± per year income generator.
How did this all happen? Basically: a) global warming has become a hot political item, b) so the US Congress decided that they had to do something to show that they were “addressing the problem”, and they set up a committee to determine what to do. c) Accurately sensing an opportunity to tap into some big money, the wind power special interest lobby heavily influenced the process (some say they wrote the entire legislation — not that unusual).
The bottom line is that what was legislated was not about helping the environment, and was not about benefiting taxpayers. It was principally designed to enrich large business concerns who wanted to feed at the government trough. Again, not that uncommon.
When a wind power developer targets a community, their objective is to put up as many 25% income generators as possible. To achieve this they employ three effective strategies: 1) they not only take advantage of the global warming concern that is prevalent, they make it into a patriotic matter, 2) they know that most people do not understand the complexities of the wind power issue, so they make unsupportable claims, and 3) they rely on the support they get from local people that they essentially buy off — with taxpayer money!
Since this problem was legislatively created, it must be legislatively fixed. That will only happen when citizens are informed, and when citizens subsequently speak up.
To research this to your own satisfaction, please consider the findings of independent, environmentally concerned scientists that are spelled out at such sites as www.windwatch.org/ and www.windaction.org/. Thank you for your interest in this issue.
john droz, jr. [email: aaprjohn@northnet.org]
If this concerns you, keep reading. (FYI, I am a physicist who has a 20+ year track record of interest in our environment in a variety of areas [like water quality]. I live on a lake in the Adirondack Mountains, as communing with nature is one of my highest priorities.)
At first glance, wind power seems to be a potentially good thing: a clean, renewable source of energy, etc. But scientists don’t make decisions based on first glance impressions.
To come to a meaningful understanding of complex matters like wind power, open-minded people need to do a thorough examination of all major components of the issue, plus do a review of accumulated evidence to date (e.g. from wind power experiences in Europe).
Such an analysis will lead to two fundamental conclusions:
1) there is no consequential environmental benefit to industrial wind power, and
2) it is being promoted because it is an extremely lucrative business opportunity.
Below is a brief overview as to why these are so.
There is no real environmental benefit as: a) wind is an unpredictable commodity. b) Energy generated from wind power can not be stored. c) Due to the complexity of nuclear and coalfired power plants, they can not simply be “turned down” when wind power is available. Hydro power (a clean and low cost energy source) is cut back instead. Since nuclear and coal-fired power plants must operate at full capacity 24/7 — no emissions are reduced!
This is a lucrative business opportunity as: a) take the cost to build and erect a typical wind tower, b) subtract the government provided financial incentives (your money). c) Then the government requires the local utility to buy ALL of the electricity generated (needed or not) and to pay a premium rate (your money). d) After taking all of these numbers into account, each turbine turns out to be a government guaranteed 25%± per year income generator.
How did this all happen? Basically: a) global warming has become a hot political item, b) so the US Congress decided that they had to do something to show that they were “addressing the problem”, and they set up a committee to determine what to do. c) Accurately sensing an opportunity to tap into some big money, the wind power special interest lobby heavily influenced the process (some say they wrote the entire legislation — not that unusual).
The bottom line is that what was legislated was not about helping the environment, and was not about benefiting taxpayers. It was principally designed to enrich large business concerns who wanted to feed at the government trough. Again, not that uncommon.
When a wind power developer targets a community, their objective is to put up as many 25% income generators as possible. To achieve this they employ three effective strategies: 1) they not only take advantage of the global warming concern that is prevalent, they make it into a patriotic matter, 2) they know that most people do not understand the complexities of the wind power issue, so they make unsupportable claims, and 3) they rely on the support they get from local people that they essentially buy off — with taxpayer money!
Since this problem was legislatively created, it must be legislatively fixed. That will only happen when citizens are informed, and when citizens subsequently speak up.
To research this to your own satisfaction, please consider the findings of independent, environmentally concerned scientists that are spelled out at such sites as www.windwatch.org/ and www.windaction.org/. Thank you for your interest in this issue.
john droz, jr. [email: aaprjohn@northnet.org]
Monday, October 15, 2007
NINA PIERPONT and Calvin Luther Martin - Gov. Spitzer Oct 15, 2007 Letter
NINA PIERPONT M.D. PH.D.
19 Clay Street,
Malone New York 12953
pierpont@westelcom.com
October 15, 2007
Governor Eliot Spitzer
Executive Chambers State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Dear Governor Spitzer,
Recently, you were sent a letter imploring you to take a careful look at the wind energy companies currently building wind farms throughout New York State. (We have reproduced the letter, below.)
We write merely to say that the issues identified in this letter are not, by any means, confined to the community of Cohocton and its environs. The North Country counties of Franklin and Clinton have been subjected to the same unethical and, we believe, in illegal activity.
We add our strong support to the letter reprinted below. Sincerely,
Nina Pierpont, M.D.
(Johns Hopkins School of Medicine '91), Ph.D. (Princeton '85)
Calvin Luther Martin, Ph.D. (University of California 74) Associate Professor of History (retired) Rutgers University
www.ninapierpont.com
Phone: (518) 483-6481 Fax: (518) 483-6481
19 Clay Street,
Malone New York 12953
pierpont@westelcom.com
October 15, 2007
Governor Eliot Spitzer
Executive Chambers State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Dear Governor Spitzer,
Recently, you were sent a letter imploring you to take a careful look at the wind energy companies currently building wind farms throughout New York State. (We have reproduced the letter, below.)
We write merely to say that the issues identified in this letter are not, by any means, confined to the community of Cohocton and its environs. The North Country counties of Franklin and Clinton have been subjected to the same unethical and, we believe, in illegal activity.
We add our strong support to the letter reprinted below. Sincerely,
Nina Pierpont, M.D.
(Johns Hopkins School of Medicine '91), Ph.D. (Princeton '85)
Calvin Luther Martin, Ph.D. (University of California 74) Associate Professor of History (retired) Rutgers University
www.ninapierpont.com
Phone: (518) 483-6481 Fax: (518) 483-6481
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Cohocton Assessor October 12, 2007 Steve Trude Letter
October 12, 2007
Cohocton Assessors
PO BOX 327
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Ms. Damboise, Mr. Densmore and Mr. Domm:
SCIDA has not approved a PILOT for the UPC/CPP/CPPII Projects. The developer has taken the risk of starting construction without building permits. As with any building construction that does not have "special exemption", the value of the entire project is subject to industrial tax assessment.
These UPC industrial machines, if built, reside on land of several Cohocton property owners, who supposedly have lease agreements with UPC. A host agreement between the Town of Cohocton and the UPC developer does not cover the independent tax jurisdiction of the Cohocton - Wayland School District and the County of Steuben.
Without a valid PILOT, it is legally required that such a project must be assessed at full value and applied to each of the individual property accounts where any portion of the project is erected.
Every tax payer in the Town of Cohocton has a financial interest in the consequences of the proper tax assessment that your board will assign to each of the leaseholders property. Your board has a fiduciary responsibility to compute a market cost value for assessment of this industrial project, publish your determination and adjust the tax rolls accordingly.
A PILOT exemption cannot be approved after the fact. It has been publically acknowledged by UPC that the entire project has a cost in excess of $150,000,000. There is no agricultural exemption for an electric utility, which UPC was granted by the Public Service Commission. NYSEG and Frontier are taxed in this manner, so must UPC.
Although it is recognized that the aforementioned circumstances are perhaps unusual as a normal course of business for your office, never-the less it falls well within the realm of your responsibility and mandate. How you knowingly and intentionally go forward at this point with required and necessary decisions is now the question and will be monitored closely in and for the public interest.
In the interest of full disclosure, the Cohocton Assessment Board should release their full tax value assessment for the UPC Project before the 11/06/07 election.
Regards,
Steve Trude - CWW President
Cohocton Assessors
PO BOX 327
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
Dear Ms. Damboise, Mr. Densmore and Mr. Domm:
SCIDA has not approved a PILOT for the UPC/CPP/CPPII Projects. The developer has taken the risk of starting construction without building permits. As with any building construction that does not have "special exemption", the value of the entire project is subject to industrial tax assessment.
These UPC industrial machines, if built, reside on land of several Cohocton property owners, who supposedly have lease agreements with UPC. A host agreement between the Town of Cohocton and the UPC developer does not cover the independent tax jurisdiction of the Cohocton - Wayland School District and the County of Steuben.
Without a valid PILOT, it is legally required that such a project must be assessed at full value and applied to each of the individual property accounts where any portion of the project is erected.
Every tax payer in the Town of Cohocton has a financial interest in the consequences of the proper tax assessment that your board will assign to each of the leaseholders property. Your board has a fiduciary responsibility to compute a market cost value for assessment of this industrial project, publish your determination and adjust the tax rolls accordingly.
A PILOT exemption cannot be approved after the fact. It has been publically acknowledged by UPC that the entire project has a cost in excess of $150,000,000. There is no agricultural exemption for an electric utility, which UPC was granted by the Public Service Commission. NYSEG and Frontier are taxed in this manner, so must UPC.
Although it is recognized that the aforementioned circumstances are perhaps unusual as a normal course of business for your office, never-the less it falls well within the realm of your responsibility and mandate. How you knowingly and intentionally go forward at this point with required and necessary decisions is now the question and will be monitored closely in and for the public interest.
In the interest of full disclosure, the Cohocton Assessment Board should release their full tax value assessment for the UPC Project before the 11/06/07 election.
Regards,
Steve Trude - CWW President
Governor Spitzer October 13, 2007 James Hall (and Brad Jones) Letter
October 13, 2007
Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Dear Governor Spitzer,
Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) seeks comprehensive New York State oversight of the Industrial Wind Industry. Our members do not oppose sensible and financially viable alternative energy projects. However, the pattern of questionable business practices demonstrated by numerous corporate wind developers has produced a record of consistent and substantial violations of local laws, NYS statutes, regulatory requirements and public health and safety mandates.
We understand your support for alternative energy projects and your delegation of review to Lieutenant Governor Paterson. But what is missing in the current rush to fast-track ill-conceived industrial wind development is accountability with well-established legal requirements. Your previous record, as NYS Attorney General of taking on fraudulent corporate businesses is well known. Yet, that same vigilance has been lacking in your current administration.
On 9/26/07 I hand delivered the enclosed letter to AG Andrew Cuomo. Then on 9/27/07 the second SCIDA letter was presented to each SCIDA Board member. Both documents indicate that significant and widespread Anti-trust violations have taken place. From our extensive research, we submit that RICO and other criminal conduct have occurred as well.
Consider the following:
Legal Issues
1. Sherman Antitrust Act: a Complaint alleging market allocation, price fixing, and bid rigging was filed with the Department Of Justice on April 25, 2007 by 94 citizens across the northeast. The market allocation is perfect and complete; no landowner or taxing authority has had the opportunity for competitive bids as the wind developers divided up the countryside long before any of the projects were made public. Hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue are being denied citizens of New York as a result of this illegal activity. In addition to the DOJ filing we now have two law firms researching class action civil lawsuits alleging antitrust and RICO felony violations.
We have been in discussion with the NYS Attorney General's office since our DOJ filing but they have taken no direct action to date. This is not a major concern for us as we believe that the civil actions will put enough of the developers in jail that the State can continue to watch from the sidelines, at least until the voters find out what has been taking place under the Spitzer/Cuomo watch.
2. False Claims Act: wind developers have consistently lied about the productivity of their projects in applications to state and federal authorities such as NYPA, NYSERDA, and FERC. As a result of this fraud they will receive millions of dollars in subsidies, grants, and tax credits. A series of lawsuits under the federal False Claims Act will put an end to these illegal practices.
3. Bribery: we have documentation and witnesses to the bribery of public officials by the wind energy developers. The monetary value of these bribes ranges from a few thousand dollars to several hundred thousand dollars. In addition there are number of real estate flips that appear to drive hundreds of thousands in additional profit to certain third parties.
4. State Environmental Quality Review Act: wind developers have carefully selected and then paid small Lead Agencies to accept Environmental Impact Statements that are entirely without merit. Throughout the review process hundreds of pages of expert testimony is simply ignored. There is no consideration of legitimate third party scientific analysis of the environmental impacts of these projects, and there is no attempt whatsoever at reasonable mitigation of hazards. In short, the citizens of New York have no environmental protection and are being forced to take matters into their own hands.
Economic Development Concerns
1. Tourism: the most significant economic development engine for the Central Finger Lakes is tourism. There is no other aspect of economic opportunity that is so consistent with our rural heritage and values. Unfortunately, studies from around the world have demonstrated that industrial wind projects are not compatible with tourism in the countryside. The developers have maintained that their projects will not damage the golden goose of our economy but they are once again completely wrong. The net annual impact from industrial wind developments will reduce our tourism revenue by tens of millions of dollars, and cost us thousands of good jobs.
2. Property Values: the developers paid for a "study" several years ago that concluded that wind developments had no negative impact on the value of sited or adjacent, or nearby properties. We now have valid and independent reports from developments in Mars Hill ME, Meyersdale PA, and Garrett County MD, which demonstrate that the impact of wind developments on property values is devastating. Not only have nearby properties lost most of their value, many impacted properties have lost all of their value. These properties are now considered "un-saleable". Retirees who have relocated to these scenic locales now find that their retirement nest eggs (their new retirement homes) are worth nothing although they continue to have six figure mortgage obligations. Fair and caring elected officials must take an interest in the plights of these fine people.
3. Decommissioning: at some point down the road every wind project will have outlived its usefulness and will need to be dismantled. Unfortunately the developers have refused to set side the monies for safe and complete decommissioning and remediation. It will be left to small rural towns to find the hundreds of millions dollars to cover this expense.
4. New Business Development: attracting new businesses to upstate New York, particularly to rural upstate, is a major challenge. The few opportunities for business growth rely on our natural assets: scenic beauty, rural character, and heritage values. The construction of thousands of industrial wind turbines will destroy our natural assets and create an economic development wasteland. Public policy must take into account the negative economic impact of wind turbines in rural upstate.
5. Upstate vs. Downstate Generation capacity: upstate New York has excess electricity generation capacity and is a net exporter of power. Downstate is a net importer of power and is the one region where power demand is growing substantially. The solution to electrical demand in New York is not to build wind projects in upstate but to build clean conventional capacity in the NYC region. We also recommend that NYSERDA should be instructed to get out of the wind energy business entirely and begin to devote their capabilities on the only sensible and safe long-term energy, commercial fusion.
CWW requests your direct involvement in a statewide investigation into an organized scheme to defraud the State of New York and burden the hard pressed tax payers to bear the financial consequences. The public health and safety risks of dangerous siting are of little concern to the developers. These same developers have provided State agencies with deceitful representations in their rush to erect projects far too large for the areas under development.
Governor Spitzer, groups of concerned citizens from across the state need your help. Please support an active investigation and coordinate with AG Cuomo in a comprehensive task force to look into the illegal practices of the wind industry, and to formulate sound energy policy based on economic considerations and scientific expertise.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Dear Governor Spitzer,
Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) seeks comprehensive New York State oversight of the Industrial Wind Industry. Our members do not oppose sensible and financially viable alternative energy projects. However, the pattern of questionable business practices demonstrated by numerous corporate wind developers has produced a record of consistent and substantial violations of local laws, NYS statutes, regulatory requirements and public health and safety mandates.
We understand your support for alternative energy projects and your delegation of review to Lieutenant Governor Paterson. But what is missing in the current rush to fast-track ill-conceived industrial wind development is accountability with well-established legal requirements. Your previous record, as NYS Attorney General of taking on fraudulent corporate businesses is well known. Yet, that same vigilance has been lacking in your current administration.
On 9/26/07 I hand delivered the enclosed letter to AG Andrew Cuomo. Then on 9/27/07 the second SCIDA letter was presented to each SCIDA Board member. Both documents indicate that significant and widespread Anti-trust violations have taken place. From our extensive research, we submit that RICO and other criminal conduct have occurred as well.
Consider the following:
Legal Issues
1. Sherman Antitrust Act: a Complaint alleging market allocation, price fixing, and bid rigging was filed with the Department Of Justice on April 25, 2007 by 94 citizens across the northeast. The market allocation is perfect and complete; no landowner or taxing authority has had the opportunity for competitive bids as the wind developers divided up the countryside long before any of the projects were made public. Hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue are being denied citizens of New York as a result of this illegal activity. In addition to the DOJ filing we now have two law firms researching class action civil lawsuits alleging antitrust and RICO felony violations.
We have been in discussion with the NYS Attorney General's office since our DOJ filing but they have taken no direct action to date. This is not a major concern for us as we believe that the civil actions will put enough of the developers in jail that the State can continue to watch from the sidelines, at least until the voters find out what has been taking place under the Spitzer/Cuomo watch.
2. False Claims Act: wind developers have consistently lied about the productivity of their projects in applications to state and federal authorities such as NYPA, NYSERDA, and FERC. As a result of this fraud they will receive millions of dollars in subsidies, grants, and tax credits. A series of lawsuits under the federal False Claims Act will put an end to these illegal practices.
3. Bribery: we have documentation and witnesses to the bribery of public officials by the wind energy developers. The monetary value of these bribes ranges from a few thousand dollars to several hundred thousand dollars. In addition there are number of real estate flips that appear to drive hundreds of thousands in additional profit to certain third parties.
4. State Environmental Quality Review Act: wind developers have carefully selected and then paid small Lead Agencies to accept Environmental Impact Statements that are entirely without merit. Throughout the review process hundreds of pages of expert testimony is simply ignored. There is no consideration of legitimate third party scientific analysis of the environmental impacts of these projects, and there is no attempt whatsoever at reasonable mitigation of hazards. In short, the citizens of New York have no environmental protection and are being forced to take matters into their own hands.
Economic Development Concerns
1. Tourism: the most significant economic development engine for the Central Finger Lakes is tourism. There is no other aspect of economic opportunity that is so consistent with our rural heritage and values. Unfortunately, studies from around the world have demonstrated that industrial wind projects are not compatible with tourism in the countryside. The developers have maintained that their projects will not damage the golden goose of our economy but they are once again completely wrong. The net annual impact from industrial wind developments will reduce our tourism revenue by tens of millions of dollars, and cost us thousands of good jobs.
2. Property Values: the developers paid for a "study" several years ago that concluded that wind developments had no negative impact on the value of sited or adjacent, or nearby properties. We now have valid and independent reports from developments in Mars Hill ME, Meyersdale PA, and Garrett County MD, which demonstrate that the impact of wind developments on property values is devastating. Not only have nearby properties lost most of their value, many impacted properties have lost all of their value. These properties are now considered "un-saleable". Retirees who have relocated to these scenic locales now find that their retirement nest eggs (their new retirement homes) are worth nothing although they continue to have six figure mortgage obligations. Fair and caring elected officials must take an interest in the plights of these fine people.
3. Decommissioning: at some point down the road every wind project will have outlived its usefulness and will need to be dismantled. Unfortunately the developers have refused to set side the monies for safe and complete decommissioning and remediation. It will be left to small rural towns to find the hundreds of millions dollars to cover this expense.
4. New Business Development: attracting new businesses to upstate New York, particularly to rural upstate, is a major challenge. The few opportunities for business growth rely on our natural assets: scenic beauty, rural character, and heritage values. The construction of thousands of industrial wind turbines will destroy our natural assets and create an economic development wasteland. Public policy must take into account the negative economic impact of wind turbines in rural upstate.
5. Upstate vs. Downstate Generation capacity: upstate New York has excess electricity generation capacity and is a net exporter of power. Downstate is a net importer of power and is the one region where power demand is growing substantially. The solution to electrical demand in New York is not to build wind projects in upstate but to build clean conventional capacity in the NYC region. We also recommend that NYSERDA should be instructed to get out of the wind energy business entirely and begin to devote their capabilities on the only sensible and safe long-term energy, commercial fusion.
CWW requests your direct involvement in a statewide investigation into an organized scheme to defraud the State of New York and burden the hard pressed tax payers to bear the financial consequences. The public health and safety risks of dangerous siting are of little concern to the developers. These same developers have provided State agencies with deceitful representations in their rush to erect projects far too large for the areas under development.
Governor Spitzer, groups of concerned citizens from across the state need your help. Please support an active investigation and coordinate with AG Cuomo in a comprehensive task force to look into the illegal practices of the wind industry, and to formulate sound energy policy based on economic considerations and scientific expertise.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Friday, October 12, 2007
Great Global Warming Swindle - Some obvious errors in Al Gore's "An inconvenient Truth" film.
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary's advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film. In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children. The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children. The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
North Country Advocates wind turbines and property value - real life experience
`My spouse and I have a home to sell in the village of Malone. One prospective buyer, pre-approved for a loan, had a list of items that were "deal breakers" for the bank. Among those terms and conditions of the property site were: 1.) It not be located on a landfill, 2.) It not be constructed near an oil spill or any identified DEC site and ... 3.) It not be near "windmills" as the term was said. So much for no loss of property value. Here we have a local bank who will not approve a loan if the property is near "windmills".
Have you seen the ones that are constructed just beyond Chateaugay?
Horrifying!!
Beth Mosher
North_Country_Advocates@yahoogroups.com
Have you seen the ones that are constructed just beyond Chateaugay?
Horrifying!!
Beth Mosher
North_Country_Advocates@yahoogroups.com
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Herkimer residents take wind farm battle to court by Tim Knauss
Fifteen residents of a scenic area of Herkimer County have gone to court in Syracuse to try to block construction of a large wind farm they said would ruin their community's character.
The plaintiffs farmers, landowners and a Russian Orthodox monastery claim officials in the rural towns of Warren and Stark failed to take a "hard look" at the environmental impacts before they approved the Jordanville Wind project.
The opponents, all neighbors of the project, are suing in state Supreme Court in Syracuse to nullify permits that were issued by the towns earlier this year.
(Click to read entire article)
The plaintiffs farmers, landowners and a Russian Orthodox monastery claim officials in the rural towns of Warren and Stark failed to take a "hard look" at the environmental impacts before they approved the Jordanville Wind project.
The opponents, all neighbors of the project, are suing in state Supreme Court in Syracuse to nullify permits that were issued by the towns earlier this year.
(Click to read entire article)
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Inergy unit sets open season on NY state gas storage
NEW YORK, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Inergy LP (NRGY.O: Quote, Profile, Research) said Wednesday its wholly owned Inergy Midstream LLC unit was conducting a nonbinding open season to gauge interest in firm natural gas storage services in central New York state.
The company said it was considering the development of both a depleted gas reservoir and conversion of certain salt dome caverns to natural gas storage in Steuben County and surrounding areas.
The services would interconnect to several natural gas pipelines, including Tennessee Gas Pipeline and Columbia Gas Transmission, with potential connections to Dominion Gas Transmission, Empire Pipeline and Millennium Pipeline.
The open season will run through Nov. 2, with an anticipated initial in-service date for the facilities in autumn 2009.
The company said it was considering the development of both a depleted gas reservoir and conversion of certain salt dome caverns to natural gas storage in Steuben County and surrounding areas.
The services would interconnect to several natural gas pipelines, including Tennessee Gas Pipeline and Columbia Gas Transmission, with potential connections to Dominion Gas Transmission, Empire Pipeline and Millennium Pipeline.
The open season will run through Nov. 2, with an anticipated initial in-service date for the facilities in autumn 2009.
Another response to Marlyn Bacon
Ma'am,
I'm not sure where you got your information concerning "us" windwatch people but you are so far off that it's pathetic. My husband and I own over 170 acres, as well as a lot of the other people in this group. It has nothing to do with acrage. Have you ever been to this town? Probably not. This town is one of the few places left that has the natural beauty of the fall foliage. People come from miles and miles every fall to enjoy this scenery. Once the windmills are put up this will dwindle to just about nothing. There are many people, outside of the windwatch that don't want to see them here either. They are afraid to speak up though as to the reprocussions that might happen. If it had been put to public vote I am sure that it would of never passed. People can speak their minds through voting. I think that the board and everyone else involved knew that they would never be here if the people, all of the people in this village and town could voice their opinions.
You seem to forget that this is farm country. If the electric goes out the majority of us have generators, so NO we don't call immediately when the lights go out.
You must not have done your homework on what an actual windmill produces. It's just about zilch. You, me or anyone else that has them do not benefit from them. I can send you a lot of actual fact literature so that you can get the facts straight before you decide to open your mouth about something that you don't seem to really know about.
Our biggest concern with this whole deal is the fact that no-one here will actually benefit from them. There is just a handful that actually get anything from it. If they want to be here, that's fine but let them pay like any other industry would have too. They want to make 1 payment in instead of paying industrial taxes. Why? So that they can pocket all of the money?! Eventually all of this will be put back onto the taxpayers. And everyone knows that New York State is the highest in tax rates of any other state. This community consists of more welfare than working people. We are taxed to death now to pay for those that are to lazy to work. Plus, when this company came here they said that they were going to hire all local people to do the work. Now that they have the go ahead on some of the projects they have hired no-one from here. They were all brought from out of state, from their own companies.
So ma'am, if you are interested in getting your facts straight e-mail me back. I will be glad to send you all the literature to prove to you that they are only around to make a certain few rich. And it surely isn't going to be me, you or our communities.
I'm not sure where you got your information concerning "us" windwatch people but you are so far off that it's pathetic. My husband and I own over 170 acres, as well as a lot of the other people in this group. It has nothing to do with acrage. Have you ever been to this town? Probably not. This town is one of the few places left that has the natural beauty of the fall foliage. People come from miles and miles every fall to enjoy this scenery. Once the windmills are put up this will dwindle to just about nothing. There are many people, outside of the windwatch that don't want to see them here either. They are afraid to speak up though as to the reprocussions that might happen. If it had been put to public vote I am sure that it would of never passed. People can speak their minds through voting. I think that the board and everyone else involved knew that they would never be here if the people, all of the people in this village and town could voice their opinions.
You seem to forget that this is farm country. If the electric goes out the majority of us have generators, so NO we don't call immediately when the lights go out.
You must not have done your homework on what an actual windmill produces. It's just about zilch. You, me or anyone else that has them do not benefit from them. I can send you a lot of actual fact literature so that you can get the facts straight before you decide to open your mouth about something that you don't seem to really know about.
Our biggest concern with this whole deal is the fact that no-one here will actually benefit from them. There is just a handful that actually get anything from it. If they want to be here, that's fine but let them pay like any other industry would have too. They want to make 1 payment in instead of paying industrial taxes. Why? So that they can pocket all of the money?! Eventually all of this will be put back onto the taxpayers. And everyone knows that New York State is the highest in tax rates of any other state. This community consists of more welfare than working people. We are taxed to death now to pay for those that are to lazy to work. Plus, when this company came here they said that they were going to hire all local people to do the work. Now that they have the go ahead on some of the projects they have hired no-one from here. They were all brought from out of state, from their own companies.
So ma'am, if you are interested in getting your facts straight e-mail me back. I will be glad to send you all the literature to prove to you that they are only around to make a certain few rich. And it surely isn't going to be me, you or our communities.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Monday, October 08, 2007
Glenn R. Schleede Response to Marlyn Bacon Pro-Wind Advocate
Dear Ms. Bacon:
I saw your email (quoted below) to one of the growing number of grassroots organizations that is working to protect its area and its people from a proposed "wind farm" and concluded that you need some help in understanding complex issues raised by "wind energy."
Please understand that you are not the only one who is not up to date on the facts about wind energy and, therefore, have opinions that are not well founded. There are a many federal, state and local officials who are in a similarly situation.
There are several points that you should consider:
1. You indicate that you are "all for Windmills to eliminate our dependence on oil or other fuels." In fact, very little electricity in the US is produced from oil. As explained in the attached paper, adding wind turbines will not reduce US oil dependence.
2. You suggest that NOT building "windmills" will lead to a situation where electricity is not available. This simply isn't true. Wind turbines are not a reliable source of electricity. Their output is intermittent, volatile and largely unpredictable. Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range (between about 8 and 56 mph). Many times they produce no electricity at all. Most of their electricity is produced at night and in cold months -- not on hot summer late afternoons when electricity demand reaches peak levels.
3. Like many state and local government officials, you apparently do not recognize that RELIABLE generating units (those that can be counted on to produce electricity whenever needed) will have to be built to satisfy growing electricity demand and to replace old generating units. Neither wind turbines nor solar photovoltaics can fulfill this need because their output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable.
4. Wind energy will never make any significant contribution in supplying US electricity needs. In fact, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects wind energy to supply only 89/100 of 1% of US electricity by 2030 (Reference: EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2007).
5. Your email makes an important point that has been totally overlooked by NY Governor Spitzer, NYSERDA, the NY PSC, County economic development agencies, and local government officials. You indicate that you live in PA but that you own land in NY where a wind project that you favor would be located. Therefore, you apparently are an "absentee landlord" who would receive rental payments if the project is approved. New York officials, when making claims about local economic benefits, have erred badly by assuming that landowners receiving rental payments live in the immediate area of a wind farm and that all those rental payment would be spent or invested in the immediate area. They have made a fundamental error and your situation confirms that error. They have grossly overestimated the potential favorable local or state economic and job impacts that might be expected from a "wind farm." (Similar mistakes are being made in PA.
6. You criticize opponents of wind projects because they don't want wind turbines "in your backyard." This is an interesting criticism since your would live many miles from the wind farm that you favor. Please consider what it would be like to have (a) a huge (40+ story) wind turbine (with a blades that cover an area slightly larger than the length and wing span of a 747 aircraft) in YOUR back yard, and/or (b) several of such turbines desecrating a mountain ridge or other scenic areas that you cherished.
7. Finally, you command that wind turbine opponents "Get with progress because you know this is the way we must go." You are mistaken. In fact, more and more people across the US and in other countries where "wind farms" have been proposed or built have learned that:
a. The wind industry and other wind energy advocates have greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy and greatly understated its adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts. They have misled the public, media and government officials.
b. The primary reason that "wind farms" are being built is for a few large corporations to take advantage of very generous tax benefits (i.e., tax shelters) and not for environmental reasons. Tax burden escaped by these corporations (some have avoided paying any federal corporate income tax) is shifted to ordinary taxpayer who do not have such tax shelters.
c. Electricity form wind energy is very expensive, particularly when all its true costs (including tax breaks and subsidies, backup power costs, transmission costs) are taken into account. This pushes up the cost of electricity for ordinary electric customers -- all for the benefit of a few large corporations, many of them foreign owned.
d. Yes, you and other landowners would receive additional income, however you would do so at the expense of neighbors -- who would be left to live with the noise and other adverse environmental impacts.
Since you apparently are interested in a proposed "wind farm" in NY, I'm attaching a second paper that you may find useful. It evaluates the "energy plan" announced on April 19, 2007, by NY officials.
I do hope you will reconsider your position on wind energy. Your email is shown below.
Respectfully,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
I saw your email (quoted below) to one of the growing number of grassroots organizations that is working to protect its area and its people from a proposed "wind farm" and concluded that you need some help in understanding complex issues raised by "wind energy."
Please understand that you are not the only one who is not up to date on the facts about wind energy and, therefore, have opinions that are not well founded. There are a many federal, state and local officials who are in a similarly situation.
There are several points that you should consider:
1. You indicate that you are "all for Windmills to eliminate our dependence on oil or other fuels." In fact, very little electricity in the US is produced from oil. As explained in the attached paper, adding wind turbines will not reduce US oil dependence.
2. You suggest that NOT building "windmills" will lead to a situation where electricity is not available. This simply isn't true. Wind turbines are not a reliable source of electricity. Their output is intermittent, volatile and largely unpredictable. Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range (between about 8 and 56 mph). Many times they produce no electricity at all. Most of their electricity is produced at night and in cold months -- not on hot summer late afternoons when electricity demand reaches peak levels.
3. Like many state and local government officials, you apparently do not recognize that RELIABLE generating units (those that can be counted on to produce electricity whenever needed) will have to be built to satisfy growing electricity demand and to replace old generating units. Neither wind turbines nor solar photovoltaics can fulfill this need because their output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable.
4. Wind energy will never make any significant contribution in supplying US electricity needs. In fact, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects wind energy to supply only 89/100 of 1% of US electricity by 2030 (Reference: EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2007).
5. Your email makes an important point that has been totally overlooked by NY Governor Spitzer, NYSERDA, the NY PSC, County economic development agencies, and local government officials. You indicate that you live in PA but that you own land in NY where a wind project that you favor would be located. Therefore, you apparently are an "absentee landlord" who would receive rental payments if the project is approved. New York officials, when making claims about local economic benefits, have erred badly by assuming that landowners receiving rental payments live in the immediate area of a wind farm and that all those rental payment would be spent or invested in the immediate area. They have made a fundamental error and your situation confirms that error. They have grossly overestimated the potential favorable local or state economic and job impacts that might be expected from a "wind farm." (Similar mistakes are being made in PA.
6. You criticize opponents of wind projects because they don't want wind turbines "in your backyard." This is an interesting criticism since your would live many miles from the wind farm that you favor. Please consider what it would be like to have (a) a huge (40+ story) wind turbine (with a blades that cover an area slightly larger than the length and wing span of a 747 aircraft) in YOUR back yard, and/or (b) several of such turbines desecrating a mountain ridge or other scenic areas that you cherished.
7. Finally, you command that wind turbine opponents "Get with progress because you know this is the way we must go." You are mistaken. In fact, more and more people across the US and in other countries where "wind farms" have been proposed or built have learned that:
a. The wind industry and other wind energy advocates have greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy and greatly understated its adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts. They have misled the public, media and government officials.
b. The primary reason that "wind farms" are being built is for a few large corporations to take advantage of very generous tax benefits (i.e., tax shelters) and not for environmental reasons. Tax burden escaped by these corporations (some have avoided paying any federal corporate income tax) is shifted to ordinary taxpayer who do not have such tax shelters.
c. Electricity form wind energy is very expensive, particularly when all its true costs (including tax breaks and subsidies, backup power costs, transmission costs) are taken into account. This pushes up the cost of electricity for ordinary electric customers -- all for the benefit of a few large corporations, many of them foreign owned.
d. Yes, you and other landowners would receive additional income, however you would do so at the expense of neighbors -- who would be left to live with the noise and other adverse environmental impacts.
Since you apparently are interested in a proposed "wind farm" in NY, I'm attaching a second paper that you may find useful. It evaluates the "energy plan" announced on April 19, 2007, by NY officials.
I do hope you will reconsider your position on wind energy. Your email is shown below.
Respectfully,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)