Methodology questioned by experts; UPC Wind project may be out of compliance with Maine State permit conditions
NEW HAMPSHIRE (January 11, 2008). Two independent experts question the methodology employed by UPC Wind's sound-level surveys at the Mars Hill wind farm in Maine, raising questions whether the project is in compliance with Maine State permit conditions.
Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group filed formal comments[1] with the Maine Department of Environment Protection (MEDEP) in regard to the Department's ongoing investigation into noise complaints at the wind energy facility in Mars Hill, ME.
Problems with intrusive sound levels were reported beginning in December 2006 when the turbines were first turned on. Eighteen families have now cited problems with noise despite repeated assurances by the developer, Evergreen/UPC Wind, and town officials that there would be no noise. Only after problems were reported was it revealed that the permit application included information of potential noise problems[2].
In response to noise complaints, UPC Wind conducted sound level readings at the site over the course of four days in May 2006 to verify whether the project was in compliance with MEDEP permit conditions. UPC Wind submitted its findings to the Department on June 21, 2006[3].
Mountain Landowners Association (MLA), an association of families living adjacent to the project site, submitted a report[4] that critiqued UPC Wind's pre-construction sound modeling and post-construction sound survey reports. MLA's report was prepared by Mr. Richard Bolton of Environmental Compliance Alliance. In addition, MEDEP engaged Warren L. Brown of EnRad Consulting to peer review the studies mentioned above[5].
"It's clear from a careful reading of the reports by UPC Wind and the two independent sound experts, including MEDEP's own consultant, that the methodologies employed by UPC Wind to predict sound levels and in surveying sound at the operating wind plant were flawed," said IWA Executive Director Lisa Linowes.
Problems with the sound studies include,
1) The pre-construction modeling software (CADNA/A) used to predict sound emissions from the operating plant is not suitable for above-ground noise sources. Wind turbine sound emanates from an area over 100-feet above ground level. Sound pressure levels higher than those predicted could well occur due to differences in surface and hub-height wind speeds as well as increased atmospheric refraction effects of the sound.
2) MEDEP granted UPC Wind a variance to survey sound levels at wind speeds above 12 mph without securing assurances that appropriate microphone shielding instrumentation would be employed. The Brown report stated "Ambient and operation sounds measured at high wind speeds (>12 mph) may produce non-noise artifact lessening the integrity of measured data. This confounding element can lead to false conclusions regarding ambient and operation sound levels."
IWA’s comments recognized UPC Wind’s interest in taking further measurements, but asserted that “such measurements would be inconclusive and of little value if corrective actions are not imposed on the developer by Maine DEP.” Linowes added that given the errors in methodology thus far, MEDEP needs to get serious about the problem including engaging its own third-party sound consultant to conduct an in-field survey. “This issue has festered for over a year. It’s time the State accepts responsibility for the problems and provides Mars Hill residents suffering from turbine noise with a resolution.”
About IWA: Industrial Wind Action Group seeks to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information and analysis on the subject is available through its website, www.windaction.org. To subscribe to the IWA weekly newsletter, visit http://www.windaction.org/subscribe.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wind Farm Noise Problem by Ben Manning
JUNIATA TOWNSHIP, BLAIR COUNTY
Some area residents are upset over the noise pollution from green energy.
The Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm stretches through two counties in our region.
Its turbines can be seen in Juniata Township, Blair County and Portage Township in Aambria County.
Those turbines to generate electricity, but some residents say they generate too much noise.
Residents that live in the area agree that the noise isn't a problem for everyone.
They say the shapes of the mountains and valleys funnel all the noise right into certain homes
The turbines were made by Gamesa, but back in June the wind farm was purchased by Babcock and Brown, an international investment group.
Officials there say tape on some of the blades have come loose, and that resistance causes a lot more noise.
They say they're working on the problem, and hope to have them all repaired by the end of the month. They say there's no danger, just extra noise.
But some residents say even before the extra noise the turbines are just too loud.
Babcock and Brown conducted a study that says that once the turbines are fixed the sound level is below the standards set by the township. But some residents think more could be done to quiet them.
Residents say they're not against the turbines they just want the companies to do something to cut down on the noise.
Juniata Township has commissioned there own independent study. Residents hope this new study will prove that the noise there is loud enough to be a nuisance.
We’ll keep following this story and bring you the results from that study as well.
(Click and watch the video)
Some area residents are upset over the noise pollution from green energy.
The Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm stretches through two counties in our region.
Its turbines can be seen in Juniata Township, Blair County and Portage Township in Aambria County.
Those turbines to generate electricity, but some residents say they generate too much noise.
Residents that live in the area agree that the noise isn't a problem for everyone.
They say the shapes of the mountains and valleys funnel all the noise right into certain homes
The turbines were made by Gamesa, but back in June the wind farm was purchased by Babcock and Brown, an international investment group.
Officials there say tape on some of the blades have come loose, and that resistance causes a lot more noise.
They say they're working on the problem, and hope to have them all repaired by the end of the month. They say there's no danger, just extra noise.
But some residents say even before the extra noise the turbines are just too loud.
Babcock and Brown conducted a study that says that once the turbines are fixed the sound level is below the standards set by the township. But some residents think more could be done to quiet them.
Residents say they're not against the turbines they just want the companies to do something to cut down on the noise.
Juniata Township has commissioned there own independent study. Residents hope this new study will prove that the noise there is loud enough to be a nuisance.
We’ll keep following this story and bring you the results from that study as well.
(Click and watch the video)
MEDIA/PRESS RELEASE - David P. Miller attorney for Cohocton Wind Watch
The Steuben County Supreme Court, by Decision dated January 9, 2008 has made a ruling in the Town of Cohocton wind turbine case.
In the matters of Cohocton Wind Watch and James Hall et al. against Canandaigua Power Partners et al, and two related cases, acting Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure has determined that with one exception in one case, the petitioners in each of the three pending lawsuits have standing to proceed with the actions. In addition, Judge Furfure denied the respondents' motion to dismiss the cases, finding that the petitioners did not violate the stature of limitations and that the petitioners did not fail to exhaust their administrative remedies by not appealing a decision of the Town's Code Enforcement Officer to the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals. Finally, Judge Furfure declared that all of the individual property owners whose lands are to be a part of the wind turbine projects are necessary parties to the actions.
Judge Furfure has given the petitioners additional time to serve some of the landowners with copies of the petition in the actions, and has given counsel for the respondents sixty days in which to serve their answers to the petitions upon counsel for the petitioners.
Dated: January 10, 2008
David P. Miller
111 N. Main St.
Naples, NY 14512
(585) 374-2130
In the matters of Cohocton Wind Watch and James Hall et al. against Canandaigua Power Partners et al, and two related cases, acting Supreme Court Justice Marianne Furfure has determined that with one exception in one case, the petitioners in each of the three pending lawsuits have standing to proceed with the actions. In addition, Judge Furfure denied the respondents' motion to dismiss the cases, finding that the petitioners did not violate the stature of limitations and that the petitioners did not fail to exhaust their administrative remedies by not appealing a decision of the Town's Code Enforcement Officer to the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals. Finally, Judge Furfure declared that all of the individual property owners whose lands are to be a part of the wind turbine projects are necessary parties to the actions.
Judge Furfure has given the petitioners additional time to serve some of the landowners with copies of the petition in the actions, and has given counsel for the respondents sixty days in which to serve their answers to the petitions upon counsel for the petitioners.
Dated: January 10, 2008
David P. Miller
111 N. Main St.
Naples, NY 14512
(585) 374-2130
In answer to questions raised regarding wind power forum at GCC
I am writing in response to Mark Williams letter on 12/18/07, "Do homework ..." concerning the debate on industrial wind power that was sponsored by Phi Theta Kappa at GCC on 11/19/07. As a concerned citizen, and former member of Phi Theta Kappa, I was also in attendance at the debate. Representing the anti-industrial wind side of the debate was Mr. Brad Jones, of Performance Plus Business Consultants (his business), who won DEC's Environmentalist of the Year Award last year for his organic tree farm at his Finger Lakes area home. Representing the pro-industrial wind side was Mark Mitskovski, Project Manager for the Steel Winds Project in Lackawanna. I am in complete agreement with Mr. Williams' assertion that it is of utmost importance for people to do their homework concerning industrial wind power.
Perhaps however, Mr.Williams should practice what he preaches, and do his homework before making denigrating remarks in his attempt to discredit Mr. Jones. Mr. Williams stated in his letter that "Mr. Jones provided grand claims without providing much credible data to support his views." It must be Mr. Williams wasn't paying attention, as Mr. Jones clearly stated that because he literally has "boxes and boxes of information", and he travels so much speaking on the issue, that it is just impractical to haul it all around. However, Mr. Jones freely gave out his contact information and urged all to feel free to contact him if they had any questions, or wanted specifics on the massive amounts of credible data he has accumulated.
Mr. Williams also referred to Mr. Jones' warning to "follow the money" if they want to know why wind corporations can't be trusted. Williams then insinuated that since Mr. Jones spends 40 - 50 hours a week speaking and consulting with others in the fight to expose the truths of corporate industrial wind, that "he clearly suffers from the same problem he claims wind developers have." Had Mr. Williams done his homework, he would have known that Mr. Jones does all of his work on the wind issue FREE of charge! Sorry, but the money trail does not lead to Mr. Jones' door! Since we know that most who write in support of wind are those who stand to gain, wondering if it isn't Mr. Williams who's at the trail's end?
Mr. Williams also falsely asserted in his letter, "The main problem people have with wind turbines is what they can see." Wrong! While industrializing our beautiful Western New York countrysides with thousands of 410+ foot tall industrial wind turbines is certainly a crime in and of itself, the main problem with industrial wind power is that it is a complete waste of our tax payer dollars because it simply does not work as they claim.
To date, I have not been able to find a single shred of evidence from anywhere in the world that supports industrial wind power's claims, which are the very basis for the industry's existence - that somehow wind power will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce CO2 emissions, and thereby reduce global warming.
In fact, the National Academies of Science National Research Council Report released on May 3, 2007, states that "building thousands of industrial wind turbines won't reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain."
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. Government's source of energy statistics, stated in their 2007 Annual Energy Outlook Report that wind had provided 4/10 0f 1% total nation-wide generation in 2005, and due to "considerable uncertainties", might provide 9/10 of 1% by 2030. That's 2/10 of 1% (a 20% decrease!) from what they had predicted in their 2006 Annual Energy Outlook Report estimate of 1.1% by 2030. Wow - in only one year it's gone from bad to worse!
So, why are we even doing it?!? Oh, yeah - "It's all about the money!" Government officials and wind reps alike, have openly admitted, "It is all about the money!" Check out the 1/14/07 archived story from the Watertown Daily Times at http://www.gslaw.com/news/archive.php?press&press_id=36 The article quotes wind power developer, Keith D. Pitman, President & CEO of Empire State Wind Energy, LLC, of Oneida, as saying, "It's all about the money - period. It's not how clean they can make the air, or how sorry they feel for you. It's the money they can make," he said of developers. He went on to say that if a company isn't willing to share any information at all, it could be a red flag.
Hmmmm. Could that be why Mr. Mitskovski, Project Manager of Lackawanna's Steel Winds Project, refused to answer when asked at the debate, what the actual output numbers of the project are? Instead, Mr. Mitskovski replied, "Would you go down to the local grocer and ask him how much he was making? NO - That's private information."
Mr. Mitskovski's statement is quite disturbing for obvious reasons. While privacy and non-disclosure may be a right of privately owned and funded businesses, it has been recorded that up to 80% of these projects are funded with public monies (OUR tax dollars) - making it public information! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they do not want to divulge this information! They don't work as claimed.
In the case of the Steel Winds project, the fact that they don't work is quite literally true! Just a few weeks after the GCC debate, all eight of the Steel Winds Project turbines are being disassembled and sent back to the factory because they aren't working. Ironically, the Steel Winds Project was awarded The 2007 Best Renewables Project of the Year at the POWER-GEN International 2007 Conference, the world's largest power generation conference & exhibition. (Looks like they didn't do their homework either!) Lackawanna officials have stated they're not worried about it, since they will still be receiving their monthly payments. Our tax dollars at work!
Finally, Mr. Williams condemns those who question what's going on because we dare question those we've elected to serve in government, and who are overseeing things. It is "We the people ...", who those in government were elected to serve, sir - not their own personal interests, or those who have the biggest pocketbooks! And, if you don't think that mega-corporations are controlling what is being handed down to all of us, then you have the blinders on!
For every one person we have elected to represent our interests, 61 lobbyists now walk the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in 1938, "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism."
Hopefully, Mr. Williams and his group, WIRE, will continue to do their homework, and can find some answers to the same unanswered questions we've been asking for years now.
1. What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world showing the fuels, and CO2 emissions, that wind energy actually displaces?
2. Can you show us actual output numbers that verify any of industrial wind's claims?
Please, Mr. Williams, do be honest and forthright, and share allinformation you and your group can find on industrial wind power with us. We are anxious to learn the truth!
Web link: http://www.batavianews.com/
Perhaps however, Mr.Williams should practice what he preaches, and do his homework before making denigrating remarks in his attempt to discredit Mr. Jones. Mr. Williams stated in his letter that "Mr. Jones provided grand claims without providing much credible data to support his views." It must be Mr. Williams wasn't paying attention, as Mr. Jones clearly stated that because he literally has "boxes and boxes of information", and he travels so much speaking on the issue, that it is just impractical to haul it all around. However, Mr. Jones freely gave out his contact information and urged all to feel free to contact him if they had any questions, or wanted specifics on the massive amounts of credible data he has accumulated.
Mr. Williams also referred to Mr. Jones' warning to "follow the money" if they want to know why wind corporations can't be trusted. Williams then insinuated that since Mr. Jones spends 40 - 50 hours a week speaking and consulting with others in the fight to expose the truths of corporate industrial wind, that "he clearly suffers from the same problem he claims wind developers have." Had Mr. Williams done his homework, he would have known that Mr. Jones does all of his work on the wind issue FREE of charge! Sorry, but the money trail does not lead to Mr. Jones' door! Since we know that most who write in support of wind are those who stand to gain, wondering if it isn't Mr. Williams who's at the trail's end?
Mr. Williams also falsely asserted in his letter, "The main problem people have with wind turbines is what they can see." Wrong! While industrializing our beautiful Western New York countrysides with thousands of 410+ foot tall industrial wind turbines is certainly a crime in and of itself, the main problem with industrial wind power is that it is a complete waste of our tax payer dollars because it simply does not work as they claim.
To date, I have not been able to find a single shred of evidence from anywhere in the world that supports industrial wind power's claims, which are the very basis for the industry's existence - that somehow wind power will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce CO2 emissions, and thereby reduce global warming.
In fact, the National Academies of Science National Research Council Report released on May 3, 2007, states that "building thousands of industrial wind turbines won't reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain."
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. Government's source of energy statistics, stated in their 2007 Annual Energy Outlook Report that wind had provided 4/10 0f 1% total nation-wide generation in 2005, and due to "considerable uncertainties", might provide 9/10 of 1% by 2030. That's 2/10 of 1% (a 20% decrease!) from what they had predicted in their 2006 Annual Energy Outlook Report estimate of 1.1% by 2030. Wow - in only one year it's gone from bad to worse!
So, why are we even doing it?!? Oh, yeah - "It's all about the money!" Government officials and wind reps alike, have openly admitted, "It is all about the money!" Check out the 1/14/07 archived story from the Watertown Daily Times at http://www.gslaw.com/news/archive.php?press&press_id=36 The article quotes wind power developer, Keith D. Pitman, President & CEO of Empire State Wind Energy, LLC, of Oneida, as saying, "It's all about the money - period. It's not how clean they can make the air, or how sorry they feel for you. It's the money they can make," he said of developers. He went on to say that if a company isn't willing to share any information at all, it could be a red flag.
Hmmmm. Could that be why Mr. Mitskovski, Project Manager of Lackawanna's Steel Winds Project, refused to answer when asked at the debate, what the actual output numbers of the project are? Instead, Mr. Mitskovski replied, "Would you go down to the local grocer and ask him how much he was making? NO - That's private information."
Mr. Mitskovski's statement is quite disturbing for obvious reasons. While privacy and non-disclosure may be a right of privately owned and funded businesses, it has been recorded that up to 80% of these projects are funded with public monies (OUR tax dollars) - making it public information! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they do not want to divulge this information! They don't work as claimed.
In the case of the Steel Winds project, the fact that they don't work is quite literally true! Just a few weeks after the GCC debate, all eight of the Steel Winds Project turbines are being disassembled and sent back to the factory because they aren't working. Ironically, the Steel Winds Project was awarded The 2007 Best Renewables Project of the Year at the POWER-GEN International 2007 Conference, the world's largest power generation conference & exhibition. (Looks like they didn't do their homework either!) Lackawanna officials have stated they're not worried about it, since they will still be receiving their monthly payments. Our tax dollars at work!
Finally, Mr. Williams condemns those who question what's going on because we dare question those we've elected to serve in government, and who are overseeing things. It is "We the people ...", who those in government were elected to serve, sir - not their own personal interests, or those who have the biggest pocketbooks! And, if you don't think that mega-corporations are controlling what is being handed down to all of us, then you have the blinders on!
For every one person we have elected to represent our interests, 61 lobbyists now walk the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in 1938, "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism."
Hopefully, Mr. Williams and his group, WIRE, will continue to do their homework, and can find some answers to the same unanswered questions we've been asking for years now.
1. What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world showing the fuels, and CO2 emissions, that wind energy actually displaces?
2. Can you show us actual output numbers that verify any of industrial wind's claims?
Please, Mr. Williams, do be honest and forthright, and share allinformation you and your group can find on industrial wind power with us. We are anxious to learn the truth!
Web link: http://www.batavianews.com/
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
State of the State Address Fact Sheet: Fast-Track Power Plant Siting (Article X)
http://www.ny.gov/governor/sos/pdfs/Article_X.pdf
Fast-Track Power Plant Siting (Article X)
“Keeping costs down also means keeping energy costs down...I will again send you a bill to fast-track the building of power plants. And again, I will apply a simple principle: We must get more supply into the grid, but if we are going to fast-track any kind of energy production, it must also help us confront the challenge of global warming.”
-Governor Eliot Spitzer (January 9, 2008)
To meet the State’s energy, environmental, and economic development goals, new, cleaner power generation is needed. This would have the effect of lowering energy prices and replacing or re-powering aging power plants in the State.
Energy prices aside, even to ensure reliability, especially Downstate, the New York Independent System Operator projects that the State will need new capacity as early as 2012. This means that power plants must begin working through the permitting process as soon as possible in order to be available to serve load by that time.
The State’s power plant siting law – Article X – expired on January 1, 2003. Article X provided a streamlined review process whereby power plant applications were reviewed by a single siting board that included relevant permitting agencies as well as representatives from affected communities. Article X also provided developers with an efficient, time-certain process for gaining approval or denial of applications and provided a forum and funding to facilitate citizen participation.
Without Article X, the review process for power plant proposals is burdensome – developers must seek permits from multiple agencies and jurisdictions – and the timeframes for review are uncertain, providing a disincentive to developers wishing to build new generation capacity.
Without Article X, host communities affected by power plant proposals do not get funding to pay for consultant and legal services, which are essential to assist regular citizens in reviewing highly technical power plant applications and effectively participating in the review and comment process.
Fast-Track Power Plant Siting (Article X)
“Keeping costs down also means keeping energy costs down...I will again send you a bill to fast-track the building of power plants. And again, I will apply a simple principle: We must get more supply into the grid, but if we are going to fast-track any kind of energy production, it must also help us confront the challenge of global warming.”
-Governor Eliot Spitzer (January 9, 2008)
To meet the State’s energy, environmental, and economic development goals, new, cleaner power generation is needed. This would have the effect of lowering energy prices and replacing or re-powering aging power plants in the State.
Energy prices aside, even to ensure reliability, especially Downstate, the New York Independent System Operator projects that the State will need new capacity as early as 2012. This means that power plants must begin working through the permitting process as soon as possible in order to be available to serve load by that time.
The State’s power plant siting law – Article X – expired on January 1, 2003. Article X provided a streamlined review process whereby power plant applications were reviewed by a single siting board that included relevant permitting agencies as well as representatives from affected communities. Article X also provided developers with an efficient, time-certain process for gaining approval or denial of applications and provided a forum and funding to facilitate citizen participation.
Without Article X, the review process for power plant proposals is burdensome – developers must seek permits from multiple agencies and jurisdictions – and the timeframes for review are uncertain, providing a disincentive to developers wishing to build new generation capacity.
Without Article X, host communities affected by power plant proposals do not get funding to pay for consultant and legal services, which are essential to assist regular citizens in reviewing highly technical power plant applications and effectively participating in the review and comment process.
NVBHA Letter on Upcoming SCIDA Public Hearing
To all members of the NVBHA mailing list:
This issue has no direct relationship to the RG&E power line proposal that got us started in this organization, but we thought you would be interested in it because it effects all the taxpayers in the Naples School District.
If you live in the Naples School District & Pay Property Taxes, we suggest that you read below ASAP. Time is of the essence. You may or may not have heard about the SCIDA PILOT Program - this is your opportunity to learn a little about it.
Eleven (11) of the wind turbines in the Cohocton and Prattsburgh wind farm projects are actually located in the Naples School district. The owners of the windmills and the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) failed to notify the Naples School Board of this until just before the holidays. They negotiated a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) with the windmill owners and other interested parties that would pay much lower taxes than would be charged if full dollar valuation assessments were applied. They expect Naples School district to accept these terms.
We were told that these 11 turbines will have a value of $2M to $3M each. Doing the math, that would be $22 million to $33 million worth of hardware in the Naples School District. If we accept their PILOT payment, the school district would receive appox $3700.00 a YEAR. Kind of a no brainer... It doesn't matter if you like the wind turbines or not, our school district should at least get the maximum dollars in tax revenues for our students.
Some of you may not be up to speed on the wind turbine scene to the south, but it is quite serious here now. If you have not driven to them or taken a drive down West Hollow Road, you need to do so asap. Some of the turbines have blades on them with many more turbines to be built. If you look to the east of the Valley, picture another 11 wind turbines there. These are the 11 turbines that will be in the Naples School District.
The Naples School Board needs to take a position on the PILOT Program & we as taxpayers need to also take a stand. We are asking for full taxation on the wind turbines that are built anywhere in our School District. If you're okay with the windmill owners taking advantage of a tax break, then do nothing.
If you believe that the wind turbine corporations should pay their fair share, as we do, then we urge you to continue reading this email. We ask that you to become active in this cause. We can make this very easy for you to take a stand. The SCIDA Board Members will meet again on Friday, January 18, 2008. We need to oppose them as a group - not with a petition, but with individual emails or faxes or letters. We were told my Mr. Sherron himself, that he would read all letters, emails & faxes but the deadline for receiving these documents is Thursday, JAN the 10th. That is tomorrow.
Below is a sample letter to Mr. Sherron, the Executive Director of SCIDA and his board. Please help us in squashing the PILOT program to be voted upon by SCIDA on the 18th of JAN...... Yes Friday, 1/18/08. For your convenience, below is a sample letter. Just copy and paste the letter below and print and fax to Mr. Sherron. Or, copy and paste and email to him from your email account. Make sure to include your name and address in the signature. Feel free to add your own comments to the letter below or just copy as it is.
PLEASE DO NOT PROCRASTINATE - THERE IS NO TIME FOR DELAY - WE URGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION!
Thank you in advance for your effort to help us throw a RED FLAG and try to STOP the SCIDA PILOT PROGRAM in our school district.
Sincerely,
NVBHA - Naples Valley Bristol Hills Association
This issue has no direct relationship to the RG&E power line proposal that got us started in this organization, but we thought you would be interested in it because it effects all the taxpayers in the Naples School District.
If you live in the Naples School District & Pay Property Taxes, we suggest that you read below ASAP. Time is of the essence. You may or may not have heard about the SCIDA PILOT Program - this is your opportunity to learn a little about it.
Eleven (11) of the wind turbines in the Cohocton and Prattsburgh wind farm projects are actually located in the Naples School district. The owners of the windmills and the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) failed to notify the Naples School Board of this until just before the holidays. They negotiated a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) with the windmill owners and other interested parties that would pay much lower taxes than would be charged if full dollar valuation assessments were applied. They expect Naples School district to accept these terms.
We were told that these 11 turbines will have a value of $2M to $3M each. Doing the math, that would be $22 million to $33 million worth of hardware in the Naples School District. If we accept their PILOT payment, the school district would receive appox $3700.00 a YEAR. Kind of a no brainer... It doesn't matter if you like the wind turbines or not, our school district should at least get the maximum dollars in tax revenues for our students.
Some of you may not be up to speed on the wind turbine scene to the south, but it is quite serious here now. If you have not driven to them or taken a drive down West Hollow Road, you need to do so asap. Some of the turbines have blades on them with many more turbines to be built. If you look to the east of the Valley, picture another 11 wind turbines there. These are the 11 turbines that will be in the Naples School District.
The Naples School Board needs to take a position on the PILOT Program & we as taxpayers need to also take a stand. We are asking for full taxation on the wind turbines that are built anywhere in our School District. If you're okay with the windmill owners taking advantage of a tax break, then do nothing.
If you believe that the wind turbine corporations should pay their fair share, as we do, then we urge you to continue reading this email. We ask that you to become active in this cause. We can make this very easy for you to take a stand. The SCIDA Board Members will meet again on Friday, January 18, 2008. We need to oppose them as a group - not with a petition, but with individual emails or faxes or letters. We were told my Mr. Sherron himself, that he would read all letters, emails & faxes but the deadline for receiving these documents is Thursday, JAN the 10th. That is tomorrow.
Below is a sample letter to Mr. Sherron, the Executive Director of SCIDA and his board. Please help us in squashing the PILOT program to be voted upon by SCIDA on the 18th of JAN...... Yes Friday, 1/18/08. For your convenience, below is a sample letter. Just copy and paste the letter below and print and fax to Mr. Sherron. Or, copy and paste and email to him from your email account. Make sure to include your name and address in the signature. Feel free to add your own comments to the letter below or just copy as it is.
PLEASE DO NOT PROCRASTINATE - THERE IS NO TIME FOR DELAY - WE URGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION!
Thank you in advance for your effort to help us throw a RED FLAG and try to STOP the SCIDA PILOT PROGRAM in our school district.
Sincerely,
NVBHA - Naples Valley Bristol Hills Association
Iberdrola discusses impact of Energy East deal by My-Ly Nguyen
Iberdrola, the Spain-based global utility company that plans to acquire New York State Electric & Gas parent Energy East, on Wednesday stressed the benefits of the $4.5 billion deal for various stakeholders, including consumers, workers and New York.
Cost-cutting to reap huge profits on the deal is not the focus of Iberdrola's plan, said Pedro Azagra, the company's director of corporate development, in a meeting with the Press & Sun-Bulletin.
Instead, Iberdrola's goal is to invest and expand in New York, using the acquisition as an entry into the U.S. market, as opposed to a "transforming transaction" for the company, he said.
"We have committed to not firing anyone because of the transaction," Azagra said. He noted that Iberdrola likes to keep local people running local operations.
Azagra added that the company also has raised equity to pay for the shares of Energy East, instead of incurring the debt that can be used to fund acquisitions and mergers.
In addition, Iberdrola's plans include launching renewable energy projects, including wind power, in the "areas of worst economic development" in New York. Azagra noted that as the state continues to lose population and businesses, and works to attract investment, the projects could serve as a valuable tool for New York's use in marketing the area for additional economic development. But it will be up to the state and communities to approve the projects.
Service quality will remain high and the company's best practices implemented, though some things, such as utility rates, remain largely out of the company's control, Azagra said.
"We bring enthusiasm. We like to invest," he said. "We are a very dynamic company that does many things."
The acquisition is expected to close in the first half of this year, pending receipt of remaining regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions.
Energy East shareholders overwhelmingly approved the deal in November. Energy East's utility subsidiaries would retain their names.
"We think we are paying a fair price" to gain a safe means of entry in the market that could lead to other expansion opportunities in the United States, Azagra said.
Energy East serves about 3 million customers in upstate New York and New England.
Cost-cutting to reap huge profits on the deal is not the focus of Iberdrola's plan, said Pedro Azagra, the company's director of corporate development, in a meeting with the Press & Sun-Bulletin.
Instead, Iberdrola's goal is to invest and expand in New York, using the acquisition as an entry into the U.S. market, as opposed to a "transforming transaction" for the company, he said.
"We have committed to not firing anyone because of the transaction," Azagra said. He noted that Iberdrola likes to keep local people running local operations.
Azagra added that the company also has raised equity to pay for the shares of Energy East, instead of incurring the debt that can be used to fund acquisitions and mergers.
In addition, Iberdrola's plans include launching renewable energy projects, including wind power, in the "areas of worst economic development" in New York. Azagra noted that as the state continues to lose population and businesses, and works to attract investment, the projects could serve as a valuable tool for New York's use in marketing the area for additional economic development. But it will be up to the state and communities to approve the projects.
Service quality will remain high and the company's best practices implemented, though some things, such as utility rates, remain largely out of the company's control, Azagra said.
"We bring enthusiasm. We like to invest," he said. "We are a very dynamic company that does many things."
The acquisition is expected to close in the first half of this year, pending receipt of remaining regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions.
Energy East shareholders overwhelmingly approved the deal in November. Energy East's utility subsidiaries would retain their names.
"We think we are paying a fair price" to gain a safe means of entry in the market that could lead to other expansion opportunities in the United States, Azagra said.
Energy East serves about 3 million customers in upstate New York and New England.
Supreme Court Argues Wind Turbine Case
Greenbrier County residents say developers of the Beech Ridge Energy wind turbine project have failed to successfully determine the impact to the community.
The group Mountain Communities For Responsible Energy argued their case before the state Supreme Court on Wednesday. Attorney Justin St. Clair wants the High Court to do away with the decision of the state Public Service Commission granting the site based on 25 contingencies. St. Clair told justices he's concerned the group won't be able to dispute that Beech Ridge has met all of the requirements.
St. Clair says Beech Ridge hasn't said what impact the 23 miles of ridge top turbines would have on very important things in Greenbrier County.
"We're talking about the cultural resources of the community, their churches, their schools, their recreation area and their historic landmarks," he said.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Spike Maynard reminded St. Clair that MeadWestVaco, which owns most of the land that the turbines will be built on, also has rights.
"Let's not forget their are property rights on both sides of this," Mayard said.
Greenbrier County resident Jeffrey Eisenbeiss also spoke to the court. He claims the state Public Service Commission doesn't have wind energy experts on staff and leaned heavily on experts hired by Beech Ridge to make its final decision.
"There's no justice in that," he said. "There has to be an unbiased search by the Public Service Commission to see both sides of the battle and there'se not. It's teh power of the purse against the power of the citizens."
Eisenbeiss asked the Supreme Court to write an opinion to serve the public.
Attorneys for the state Public Service Commission and labor groups argued in favor of the PSC process and the benefits of the project. Beech Ridge says the building of the turbines would create 200 part-time and 20 full-time jobs. The company has projected more than a half-million dollars in state and local taxes.
Chief Justice Maynard and Justice Robin Davis both said during Wednesday's arguments the Supreme Court's involvement in the case may be premature. The PSC says there would be a chance for opponents to challenge Beech Ridge's meeting of the 25 contingencies.
The Supreme Court will likely hand down its written before the current term ends in late June.
The group Mountain Communities For Responsible Energy argued their case before the state Supreme Court on Wednesday. Attorney Justin St. Clair wants the High Court to do away with the decision of the state Public Service Commission granting the site based on 25 contingencies. St. Clair told justices he's concerned the group won't be able to dispute that Beech Ridge has met all of the requirements.
St. Clair says Beech Ridge hasn't said what impact the 23 miles of ridge top turbines would have on very important things in Greenbrier County.
"We're talking about the cultural resources of the community, their churches, their schools, their recreation area and their historic landmarks," he said.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Spike Maynard reminded St. Clair that MeadWestVaco, which owns most of the land that the turbines will be built on, also has rights.
"Let's not forget their are property rights on both sides of this," Mayard said.
Greenbrier County resident Jeffrey Eisenbeiss also spoke to the court. He claims the state Public Service Commission doesn't have wind energy experts on staff and leaned heavily on experts hired by Beech Ridge to make its final decision.
"There's no justice in that," he said. "There has to be an unbiased search by the Public Service Commission to see both sides of the battle and there'se not. It's teh power of the purse against the power of the citizens."
Eisenbeiss asked the Supreme Court to write an opinion to serve the public.
Attorneys for the state Public Service Commission and labor groups argued in favor of the PSC process and the benefits of the project. Beech Ridge says the building of the turbines would create 200 part-time and 20 full-time jobs. The company has projected more than a half-million dollars in state and local taxes.
Chief Justice Maynard and Justice Robin Davis both said during Wednesday's arguments the Supreme Court's involvement in the case may be premature. The PSC says there would be a chance for opponents to challenge Beech Ridge's meeting of the 25 contingencies.
The Supreme Court will likely hand down its written before the current term ends in late June.
As good land stewards, farmers reap a windfall
Canandaigua, N.Y. -
The Hicks Farm has produced just about everything that can be grown in these parts over its 200-plus history: cherries, peaches, plums, oats, corn, wheat, walnuts — to name a few.
The Hicks family has also raised a slew of livestock on their 83-acre property, including pigs, sheep, goats, chicken, cattle, and horses. Currently, much of the farm’s acreage is pasture for a dozen beef cattle and fields for growing hay. The farm off Coye Road also boasts orchards and five acres of vineyard, with its concord and Riesling grapes going to wine and juice producers.
But while the operation has sustained the family for generations — it was founded by ancestors of Mary Hicks, whose mother was a Coye — it is also situated above Canandaigua Lake, a prime target area for developers. In fact, the controversial Ketmar luxury-home development is proposed for land just south of the Hicks Farm.
There is no danger of Irwin and Mary Hicks selling out, though. Their farm was picked to be one of 35 farms in the state to share in $35 million for farmland protection through Albany’s Agricultural and Farmland Protection Program. The funding is the largest dollar amount ever dedicated for farmland preservation and will go to protect 13,300 acres — the largest single amount of acreage in the program’s 11-year history, according to Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s office.
The Hicks Farm will receive $461,599 in exchange for the town holding a conservation easement on the property. As part of the process, two appraisals were made to determine the value of the conservation easement. One is the present market value of the property, the other a farmland valuation. The difference between the two is the value of the easement. The farmer is paid with grant money, and the town holds the easement.
The conservation easement “will mean there will be no buildings or development on the property, other than agriculture buildings,” said Irwin. He and Mary are retired, for the most part, and have passed the farm onto their children. Their son, Jim, heads up the operation and plans to expand the farm’s grape production, said Irwin.
“This is a win for everybody,” said Town Supervisor Lloyd Kinnear.
Town officials and the Hickses began talking about a conservation easement months ago. The application the town submitted in September outlined many reasons the Hicks Farm would be a good choice. Among them: It has partnered with the town and Ontario County Soil and Water Conservation District to ensure its activities don’t harm water quality. That effort included help paying for installation of a grassed waterway to control drainage. The Hickses also worked with the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance on a gully cleanup that involved collecting and disposing of refuse and seeding and putting down straw to prevent erosion.
The Hicks Farm will be the only one in Ontario County to share in the state money for farmland preservation.
Other farms in the Finger Lakes region sharing $7.4 million are in Seneca, Cayuga, Tompkins and Yates counties. In Yates, the grant will give $1 million to preserve Henderson Farms in Penn Yan. Under that arrangement, the county will partner with Finger Lakes Land Trust to protect the 457-acre cash crop, hay and vegetable operation.
According to the governor’s office, the state has 35,000 farms covering 7.6 million acres. Since 1996, the state has allocated more than $144.5 million from the Environmental Protection Fund for farmland protection projects to protect 63,700 acres on 276 farms.
Julie Sherwood can be reached at (585) 394-0770, Ext. 263, or at jsherwood@mpnewspapers.com.
The Hicks Farm has produced just about everything that can be grown in these parts over its 200-plus history: cherries, peaches, plums, oats, corn, wheat, walnuts — to name a few.
The Hicks family has also raised a slew of livestock on their 83-acre property, including pigs, sheep, goats, chicken, cattle, and horses. Currently, much of the farm’s acreage is pasture for a dozen beef cattle and fields for growing hay. The farm off Coye Road also boasts orchards and five acres of vineyard, with its concord and Riesling grapes going to wine and juice producers.
But while the operation has sustained the family for generations — it was founded by ancestors of Mary Hicks, whose mother was a Coye — it is also situated above Canandaigua Lake, a prime target area for developers. In fact, the controversial Ketmar luxury-home development is proposed for land just south of the Hicks Farm.
There is no danger of Irwin and Mary Hicks selling out, though. Their farm was picked to be one of 35 farms in the state to share in $35 million for farmland protection through Albany’s Agricultural and Farmland Protection Program. The funding is the largest dollar amount ever dedicated for farmland preservation and will go to protect 13,300 acres — the largest single amount of acreage in the program’s 11-year history, according to Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s office.
The Hicks Farm will receive $461,599 in exchange for the town holding a conservation easement on the property. As part of the process, two appraisals were made to determine the value of the conservation easement. One is the present market value of the property, the other a farmland valuation. The difference between the two is the value of the easement. The farmer is paid with grant money, and the town holds the easement.
The conservation easement “will mean there will be no buildings or development on the property, other than agriculture buildings,” said Irwin. He and Mary are retired, for the most part, and have passed the farm onto their children. Their son, Jim, heads up the operation and plans to expand the farm’s grape production, said Irwin.
“This is a win for everybody,” said Town Supervisor Lloyd Kinnear.
Town officials and the Hickses began talking about a conservation easement months ago. The application the town submitted in September outlined many reasons the Hicks Farm would be a good choice. Among them: It has partnered with the town and Ontario County Soil and Water Conservation District to ensure its activities don’t harm water quality. That effort included help paying for installation of a grassed waterway to control drainage. The Hickses also worked with the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance on a gully cleanup that involved collecting and disposing of refuse and seeding and putting down straw to prevent erosion.
The Hicks Farm will be the only one in Ontario County to share in the state money for farmland preservation.
Other farms in the Finger Lakes region sharing $7.4 million are in Seneca, Cayuga, Tompkins and Yates counties. In Yates, the grant will give $1 million to preserve Henderson Farms in Penn Yan. Under that arrangement, the county will partner with Finger Lakes Land Trust to protect the 457-acre cash crop, hay and vegetable operation.
According to the governor’s office, the state has 35,000 farms covering 7.6 million acres. Since 1996, the state has allocated more than $144.5 million from the Environmental Protection Fund for farmland protection projects to protect 63,700 acres on 276 farms.
Julie Sherwood can be reached at (585) 394-0770, Ext. 263, or at jsherwood@mpnewspapers.com.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
GAINES: Wind committee against turbines by Nicole Coleman
GAINES — The Wind Advisory Committee submitted their official recommendation against wind turbine development to the Gaines Town Board Thursday along with a list of suggestions to include in a local law.
The eight-member volunteer committee was charged by the Town Board to research the possible effects of the 400-foot towers and to report back with a recommendation. After months of deliberation, the committee decided commercial wind energy is not in the best interest of the town in a majority 6-2 vote at the end of November.
Airtricity, an international wind development company based out of Dublin, Ireland, has proposed constructing 55 to 80 wind turbines on land in the Towns of Gaines and Albion. Its North American operations were purchased for $1.4 billion Oct. 4 by E.O.N., a power and gas company based out of Dusseldorf.
Town Supervisor Richard DeCarlo said the ultimate decision about the wind towers will be up to the board. Exactly how that will happen has yet to be determined, considering two of the five town board members — James Kirby and David Kast — have had to recuse themselves because they signed leases with Airtricity. Four voting board members are legally required for a quorum.
In the meantime, the town has hired attorney Daniel Spitzer of Buffalo to draft regulations for the wind turbines. Spitzer is currently working with a number of municipalities in Orleans County, including the Town of Albion, to do the same.
Additionally, DeCarlo said the town will consider extending the wind energy moratorium an additional six months when it comes due in June. The move would give them an entire year to continue researching the issue.
“We have to have requirements in place whether it happens or not,” DeCarlo said, calling the advisory committee’s non-comprehensive list of recommendations “a good benchmark from which the town board can start from.”
Although they will not be able to vote on the issue, Kirby and Kast said they will still be able to speak as private citizens.
“I’ve been invested in this for two plus years,” Kast said.
The committee’s recommendations outline desired requirements for the towers as such: blade height must be 30 feet from the ground, construction will take no longer than one year, the towers shall not interfere with signals for radio, television, cell phone or other personal communication systems, fire training, insurance and water district cost shall be provided and paid for by Airtricity, and the power lines shall run underground to the nearest transmission station.
Any historical impacts should be taken into consideration and Airtricity shall be responsible for any reduction in property values within a 1.5 to 2 mile radius. The committee recommends private agricultural and residential wind towers be permitted for residential or single farm use, but regulated separately.
On the issue of shadow flicker, the committee recommends the towers be shut down during a specific time period until the sun no longer causes the turbine to cast a flicker. They also strongly recommend the towers be fully assessed and taxed despite the state’s efforts to allow wind energy companies tax exemption. To guard against the frequent transfer of ownership from wind company to wind company, the committee advises the town require approval in transfers of 51 percent or more.
In other areas, the committee was divided. Half suggested a maximum tower height of 200 feet while the other half suggested a maximum of 400 feet. Four members recommended 5,000-foot setbacks from property lines while the remaining recommended the distance be 1.5, 2.5 or 3 times the tower height, including the vertical blade.
The report also recommends holding a non-binding referendum vote or straw poll — after multiple attempts to educate the public — so that the town board can make their decision based on how the majority of the community feels about the issue.
Advisory committee secretary, Marilyn Miller, further advised the board to seek the opinion of another attorney besides Spitzer.
“Personally, I’m still adamantly opposed to them,” Miller said.
Contact reporter Nicole Colemanat 798-1400, ext. 2227.
The eight-member volunteer committee was charged by the Town Board to research the possible effects of the 400-foot towers and to report back with a recommendation. After months of deliberation, the committee decided commercial wind energy is not in the best interest of the town in a majority 6-2 vote at the end of November.
Airtricity, an international wind development company based out of Dublin, Ireland, has proposed constructing 55 to 80 wind turbines on land in the Towns of Gaines and Albion. Its North American operations were purchased for $1.4 billion Oct. 4 by E.O.N., a power and gas company based out of Dusseldorf.
Town Supervisor Richard DeCarlo said the ultimate decision about the wind towers will be up to the board. Exactly how that will happen has yet to be determined, considering two of the five town board members — James Kirby and David Kast — have had to recuse themselves because they signed leases with Airtricity. Four voting board members are legally required for a quorum.
In the meantime, the town has hired attorney Daniel Spitzer of Buffalo to draft regulations for the wind turbines. Spitzer is currently working with a number of municipalities in Orleans County, including the Town of Albion, to do the same.
Additionally, DeCarlo said the town will consider extending the wind energy moratorium an additional six months when it comes due in June. The move would give them an entire year to continue researching the issue.
“We have to have requirements in place whether it happens or not,” DeCarlo said, calling the advisory committee’s non-comprehensive list of recommendations “a good benchmark from which the town board can start from.”
Although they will not be able to vote on the issue, Kirby and Kast said they will still be able to speak as private citizens.
“I’ve been invested in this for two plus years,” Kast said.
The committee’s recommendations outline desired requirements for the towers as such: blade height must be 30 feet from the ground, construction will take no longer than one year, the towers shall not interfere with signals for radio, television, cell phone or other personal communication systems, fire training, insurance and water district cost shall be provided and paid for by Airtricity, and the power lines shall run underground to the nearest transmission station.
Any historical impacts should be taken into consideration and Airtricity shall be responsible for any reduction in property values within a 1.5 to 2 mile radius. The committee recommends private agricultural and residential wind towers be permitted for residential or single farm use, but regulated separately.
On the issue of shadow flicker, the committee recommends the towers be shut down during a specific time period until the sun no longer causes the turbine to cast a flicker. They also strongly recommend the towers be fully assessed and taxed despite the state’s efforts to allow wind energy companies tax exemption. To guard against the frequent transfer of ownership from wind company to wind company, the committee advises the town require approval in transfers of 51 percent or more.
In other areas, the committee was divided. Half suggested a maximum tower height of 200 feet while the other half suggested a maximum of 400 feet. Four members recommended 5,000-foot setbacks from property lines while the remaining recommended the distance be 1.5, 2.5 or 3 times the tower height, including the vertical blade.
The report also recommends holding a non-binding referendum vote or straw poll — after multiple attempts to educate the public — so that the town board can make their decision based on how the majority of the community feels about the issue.
Advisory committee secretary, Marilyn Miller, further advised the board to seek the opinion of another attorney besides Spitzer.
“Personally, I’m still adamantly opposed to them,” Miller said.
Contact reporter Nicole Colemanat 798-1400, ext. 2227.
Borough receives 1,195 signatures of those opposed to Gamesa's proposed wind farm on Ice Mountain by KRIS YANIELLO
Tyrone Borough resident and concerned citizen Bob Roseberry addressed borough council last evening during the public comment forum on the issue of Gamesa Energy USA's proposed 25 unit wind farm on Ice Mountain.
Roseberry, along with a handful of other residents, have been diligently petitioning Tyrone residents who oppose the 10-15 unit wind farm on the borough's watershed property. For those who might have noticed, he is the man that sits in front of the white van at the bottom of Clay Avenue and Hoover's Lane.
As of last night, Roseberry handed council 1,195 signatures from residents in the 16686 area code, which didn't include many signatures from people outside Tyrone who he said wanted to sign the petition.
"I'm here to represent the people of Tyrone area who are opposed to the leasing of the watershed property to Gamesa for the purpose of the wind farm," stated Roseberry to council.
Roseberry and others obtained the 1,195 signatures in three and a half weeks, and he said that they are going to keep on getting signatures until council decides to vote on Gamesa's proposal.
The signatures on the petition were given to council so the signatures can be reviewed, although council is not sure as of last night on how the signatures can be validated - and will have to take that issue into consideration.
"I'm pleased, but I'm a little edgy about it because I think council is going to turn down our petitions," said Roseberry. "They'll probably call them illegal because we didn't do it as a legal document. It might not be that way I hope."
Roseberry added that he does think the people have spoken and that the people of Tyrone are definitely speaking out; saying that "they did a good job for three and a half weeks with a handful of people's time."
Mayor James Kilmartin was excited the community has responded in the way they have, noting that some in the community have really taken action, and applauded them for that.
"I think it will weigh heavily on council's decision after seeing the petitions and hearing the voices that have been brought forth," said Kilmartin.
He added, "We want to hear what the borough residents say because they are the ones who elected us, but we also want to hear what the township and surrounding areas say because it's still the Tyrone community - we want to hear both sides."
Councilperson Jennifer Bryan says she is still looking at the monetary side of Gamesa's proposal, which she added is still in negotiation, and because of the Chesapeake Bay Tributary issue that could increase borough residents' monthly bills.
Gamesa’s proposal as it stands now would pay the borough $60,000-$90,000 annually under a 29 year, 11 month contract, or three percent of the gross annual electricity revenue.
"We need to find other ways to obtain revenue and this is why I'm really looking into it," said Bryan. "But are we completely sold on it? No. And I don't think anybody on council is."
Bryan added that she will take the petitions under advisement seriously and thinks the petitions were done in the accurate way.
"I'm also looking at it as I've been to Blue Knob and saw what Gamesa has done, and I think they're a reputable company," said Bryan. "Nothing has shown me that they're not yet, but I could be wrong on that."
Councilperson Bill Latchford was a little surprised on how many signatures were compiled, but noted that Roseberry and others are working really hard and they're passionate about their cause.
"Knowing that they said they worked in the 16686 area code makes it a little bit rough for us to figure out the validity of it, but I'm proud of them," said Latchford.
The validity of the signatures is a concern for Latchford, but he said if it was only 75 percent of the 1,195 who signed and live in the borough, that's still around 800 people from the borough, which is a large majority to him.
"If I could vote now, I'd probably say 'no' just because people are putting something to it," said Latchford. "But other than that, once we figure out how to see how valid the signatures are, that's what we want to go with."
Latchford suggested validating the signatures could be done in some sort of statistical manner, perhaps working with the borough's lawyer Larry Clapper to find out how to validate the names. He admitted again if there's no way to do that, it would be rough to decide the validity.
"I think we should take it for a bunch of people working hard for a cause they really believe in," said Latchford. "Along the lines of legality, it's not a point of misrepresentation, it's just a point that maybe this name wasn't quite done right or maybe they may not of done it correctly, versus them just going out and writing a bunch of names on it."
Latchford does feel the borough headlines the progress of wind farms by Gamesa on the mountain tops in the area. He said if the borough says "no" that could possibly affect other boroughs and townships with its votes if or when approached about wind development. If they vote "yes," he said it could be a trickle down effect on the ridge tops having wind mills erected.
Roseberry hopes council takes the petition signatures for what they are worth - the majority of Tyrone residents do not want Gamesa's wind farm proposal.
"We're going to keep on petitioning and try to get more people, get more literature out," stated Roseberry. "That's the biggest thing that people in Tyrone need; to be informed on the good and the bad about the wind farm."
The borough gave no indication on when council would vote on Gamesa’s wind farm proposal, citing that Councilpersons Patricia Stoner and Mark Kosoglow need to be caught up to speed with the project.
Roseberry, along with a handful of other residents, have been diligently petitioning Tyrone residents who oppose the 10-15 unit wind farm on the borough's watershed property. For those who might have noticed, he is the man that sits in front of the white van at the bottom of Clay Avenue and Hoover's Lane.
As of last night, Roseberry handed council 1,195 signatures from residents in the 16686 area code, which didn't include many signatures from people outside Tyrone who he said wanted to sign the petition.
"I'm here to represent the people of Tyrone area who are opposed to the leasing of the watershed property to Gamesa for the purpose of the wind farm," stated Roseberry to council.
Roseberry and others obtained the 1,195 signatures in three and a half weeks, and he said that they are going to keep on getting signatures until council decides to vote on Gamesa's proposal.
The signatures on the petition were given to council so the signatures can be reviewed, although council is not sure as of last night on how the signatures can be validated - and will have to take that issue into consideration.
"I'm pleased, but I'm a little edgy about it because I think council is going to turn down our petitions," said Roseberry. "They'll probably call them illegal because we didn't do it as a legal document. It might not be that way I hope."
Roseberry added that he does think the people have spoken and that the people of Tyrone are definitely speaking out; saying that "they did a good job for three and a half weeks with a handful of people's time."
Mayor James Kilmartin was excited the community has responded in the way they have, noting that some in the community have really taken action, and applauded them for that.
"I think it will weigh heavily on council's decision after seeing the petitions and hearing the voices that have been brought forth," said Kilmartin.
He added, "We want to hear what the borough residents say because they are the ones who elected us, but we also want to hear what the township and surrounding areas say because it's still the Tyrone community - we want to hear both sides."
Councilperson Jennifer Bryan says she is still looking at the monetary side of Gamesa's proposal, which she added is still in negotiation, and because of the Chesapeake Bay Tributary issue that could increase borough residents' monthly bills.
Gamesa’s proposal as it stands now would pay the borough $60,000-$90,000 annually under a 29 year, 11 month contract, or three percent of the gross annual electricity revenue.
"We need to find other ways to obtain revenue and this is why I'm really looking into it," said Bryan. "But are we completely sold on it? No. And I don't think anybody on council is."
Bryan added that she will take the petitions under advisement seriously and thinks the petitions were done in the accurate way.
"I'm also looking at it as I've been to Blue Knob and saw what Gamesa has done, and I think they're a reputable company," said Bryan. "Nothing has shown me that they're not yet, but I could be wrong on that."
Councilperson Bill Latchford was a little surprised on how many signatures were compiled, but noted that Roseberry and others are working really hard and they're passionate about their cause.
"Knowing that they said they worked in the 16686 area code makes it a little bit rough for us to figure out the validity of it, but I'm proud of them," said Latchford.
The validity of the signatures is a concern for Latchford, but he said if it was only 75 percent of the 1,195 who signed and live in the borough, that's still around 800 people from the borough, which is a large majority to him.
"If I could vote now, I'd probably say 'no' just because people are putting something to it," said Latchford. "But other than that, once we figure out how to see how valid the signatures are, that's what we want to go with."
Latchford suggested validating the signatures could be done in some sort of statistical manner, perhaps working with the borough's lawyer Larry Clapper to find out how to validate the names. He admitted again if there's no way to do that, it would be rough to decide the validity.
"I think we should take it for a bunch of people working hard for a cause they really believe in," said Latchford. "Along the lines of legality, it's not a point of misrepresentation, it's just a point that maybe this name wasn't quite done right or maybe they may not of done it correctly, versus them just going out and writing a bunch of names on it."
Latchford does feel the borough headlines the progress of wind farms by Gamesa on the mountain tops in the area. He said if the borough says "no" that could possibly affect other boroughs and townships with its votes if or when approached about wind development. If they vote "yes," he said it could be a trickle down effect on the ridge tops having wind mills erected.
Roseberry hopes council takes the petition signatures for what they are worth - the majority of Tyrone residents do not want Gamesa's wind farm proposal.
"We're going to keep on petitioning and try to get more people, get more literature out," stated Roseberry. "That's the biggest thing that people in Tyrone need; to be informed on the good and the bad about the wind farm."
The borough gave no indication on when council would vote on Gamesa’s wind farm proposal, citing that Councilpersons Patricia Stoner and Mark Kosoglow need to be caught up to speed with the project.
Wind turbines would ruin site, group says by Tom Grace
The Preservation League of New York State has jumped into a wind-project controversy in Jordanville, naming the Holy Trinity Monastery to the group's annual list of New York's most-threatened historic resources: ``Seven to Save.''
The nonprofit group says tranquility at the monastery, which sits on 750 acres in southern Herkimer County, would be ruined if a proposal to site about 50 wind turbines in the area ever moves forward.
``The Holy Trinity Monastery is of extraordinary historic, religious and cultural significance, but it is currently threatened by an industrial-scale wind energy project,'' Jay DiLorenzo, the nonprofit organization's president, said Friday.
Panoramic views and contemplative quiet will disappear from the surrounding countryside if wind tubines are erected as proposed by Iberdrola, DiLorenzo said.
The Spanish wind-turbine firm had planned to erect 68 turbines in the wind-rich towns of Stark and Warren.
The proposal generated some local opposition, and Cooperstown-based Otsego 2000 has been working with opponents, noting that some of the wind turbines would be visible from Otsego Lake and the Glimmerglass Historic District.
Last summer, the state Public Service Commission ruled that 19 of 68 proposed turbines, those most visible from the lake, had to be dropped from the project.
And last month, state Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood annulled special-use permits that would have allowed Iberdrola to erect the remaining 49 wind turbines.
Greenwood ruled that Warren and Stark had not adhered to guidelines in the State Environmental Quality Review Law when the project was reviewed.
The judge also wrote that on two occasions, the Warren Town Board violated the Open Meetings Law and ``improperly entered executive session in violation of the statute.''
However, many people in the area still support the project, according to horse farmer Kay Sheldon Moyer of Jordanville.
Moyer is a member of Friends of Renewable Energy, a group based in central New York with ``about 400 members,'' she said Monday.
``I don't believe there is any threat to the monastery,'' she said. ``And I think we should be taking advantage of the sustainable, renewable energy that we have here.''
Moyer said the Preservation League's bid to prevent a wind project will be answered by local residents, who believe a well-designed wind project would be good for the area.
FORE members promote solar, wind and other sustainable energy projects, she said, and believe that most residents in Warren and Stark want to see a wind farm built.
The nonprofit group says tranquility at the monastery, which sits on 750 acres in southern Herkimer County, would be ruined if a proposal to site about 50 wind turbines in the area ever moves forward.
``The Holy Trinity Monastery is of extraordinary historic, religious and cultural significance, but it is currently threatened by an industrial-scale wind energy project,'' Jay DiLorenzo, the nonprofit organization's president, said Friday.
Panoramic views and contemplative quiet will disappear from the surrounding countryside if wind tubines are erected as proposed by Iberdrola, DiLorenzo said.
The Spanish wind-turbine firm had planned to erect 68 turbines in the wind-rich towns of Stark and Warren.
The proposal generated some local opposition, and Cooperstown-based Otsego 2000 has been working with opponents, noting that some of the wind turbines would be visible from Otsego Lake and the Glimmerglass Historic District.
Last summer, the state Public Service Commission ruled that 19 of 68 proposed turbines, those most visible from the lake, had to be dropped from the project.
And last month, state Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood annulled special-use permits that would have allowed Iberdrola to erect the remaining 49 wind turbines.
Greenwood ruled that Warren and Stark had not adhered to guidelines in the State Environmental Quality Review Law when the project was reviewed.
The judge also wrote that on two occasions, the Warren Town Board violated the Open Meetings Law and ``improperly entered executive session in violation of the statute.''
However, many people in the area still support the project, according to horse farmer Kay Sheldon Moyer of Jordanville.
Moyer is a member of Friends of Renewable Energy, a group based in central New York with ``about 400 members,'' she said Monday.
``I don't believe there is any threat to the monastery,'' she said. ``And I think we should be taking advantage of the sustainable, renewable energy that we have here.''
Moyer said the Preservation League's bid to prevent a wind project will be answered by local residents, who believe a well-designed wind project would be good for the area.
FORE members promote solar, wind and other sustainable energy projects, she said, and believe that most residents in Warren and Stark want to see a wind farm built.
Monday, January 07, 2008
FPL has Targeted S. Hutchinson Island for 9- 410 foot industrial wind turbines
Florida Power & Light Co. has targeted S Hutchinson Island for an industrial wind power plant consisting of an initial 9 – 410 foot turbines on our public beaches and conservation land as well as on its property near the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
These types of industrial wind farms create an enormous amount of noise as well as constant shadow flickers during the day and strobes for aircraft at night. They are so huge that they are out of proportion to everything else and they dominate the landscape and can be seen from more than 30 miles away. They have destroyed the communities in which they have been built and have destroyed property values to the extent that homes have been demolished because people cannot live near them. In fact, wind turbine noise alone is such a big issue that there are international scientific conferences held each year on it.
See for yourself how loud they are and what they have done to the people unfortunate enough to live near them: http://www.wind-watch.org/videos.php
The sound recording at the bottom of the page is very helpful to give you an idea of what to expect. In our case, because the project is proposed on a barrier island and noise travels so well over water, the project is going to affect our area for miles around. Usually they build these plants in rural or uninhabited areas. This appears to be the first time they are proposing to place them in a populated area and on a barrier island where they will impact so many of us.
The worst part is that industrial sized wind plants are not even “green”. Because the output from the turbines is intermittent and variable and cannot be stored for later use, they can not be used to supply base energy for the grid and therefore other sources of energy cannot be taken offline. Industrial wind power does not reduce dependence on other fuels, does not reduce emissions or pollution and does not mitigate global warming. If not for the enormous federal tax subsidies and “green tags” that wind companies can sell (an invention of Enron), utilities would avoid such an unreliable and non-dispatchable source except in reliably windy locales. Because taxpayers pay for the cost of erecting and maintaining the turbines, however, giant turbines are extremely profitable. FPL made $2.2 billion dollars in 2002 and 2003 and paid zero federal income tax because of these tax subsidies and credits passed due in large part to the lobbying of the industrial wind industry with the help of a well meaning but uninformed populace.
You owe it to yourself and your community to educate yourself about industrial wind plants and then to educate others and our county commissioners:
http://www.presqueisle.org/audubon/conserv.html and http://www.wind-watch.org/ have great videos, diagrams and information that will give you a good idea of what to expect from this project. Our yahoo group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Save_St_Lucie/, also has numerous links, scientific papers and a great discussion about the impact on our neighborhood and it will be a source of information about commission meetings, rallies and upcoming events. Join now to stay apprised of this issue so important to all of us here in St. Lucie County.
What you can do to help save our natural island environment and the beautiful views along Indian River Drive and A1A:
1) Join the "Save St. Lucie Alliance" in Yahoo Groups website, which is specifically targeting the windmill turbine issue. Go to 'yahoo groups.com" and type in: Save St Lucie. The site will come up and in the upper right hand corner is a box: to join as a member. No cost. Information and messages are on the site. We need as many people to sign up as possible just so we can show a strong membership to the commissioners.
2) Send a quick email ASAP to our governmental officials stating that you are AGAINST the installation of ALL windmill turbines on Hutchinson Island (even on the FPL nuke plant site). Below are the email addresses of the County Commissioners, Gov. Crist, Senator Pruitt and Rep Gayle Harrell. I have also included some points/issues below, that may help you compose.
St. Lucie Commissioners:
Charles Grande: liz@co.st-lucie.fl.us
Doug Coward: cowardd@co.st-lucie.fl.us
Chris Craft: liz@co.st-lucie.fl.us
Paula Lewis: barbarab@co.st-lucie.fl.us
Joe Smith: joe_smith@co.st-lucie.fl.us
(there is an 'underscore' after joe and before smith)
Governor Charlie Crist: www.flgov.com
Senator Ken Pruitt: pruitt.ken.s28@flsenate.gov
Representative Gayle Harrell: gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov
3) Attend Commission Hearing: Contrary to statements in the newspapers, and although the published agenda for this coming Tuesday does not have any items related to FPL's wind turbine proposal, FPL is now lobbying the commission members to make a last minute addition to this Tuesday's agenda. On Tuesday, FPL expects your commissioners to (1) grant FPL permission to proceed with their soil testing/boring on our public beach properties, and (2) send a letter to the governor stating that the county has "no objection" to FPL moving forward with certain phases of the project. FPL of course has kindly offered to draft that letter for the commissioners. It is completely inappropriate for the commission to add this "stealth" agenda item without proper public notification, and thwart meaningful public comment on this very important subject.
Please contact the commissioners and let them know you oppose this addition to the agenda on such short notice - and if they won't postpone the discussion, please show up at 9:00 Tuesday morning to let the commissioners know how you feel in person!
These types of industrial wind farms create an enormous amount of noise as well as constant shadow flickers during the day and strobes for aircraft at night. They are so huge that they are out of proportion to everything else and they dominate the landscape and can be seen from more than 30 miles away. They have destroyed the communities in which they have been built and have destroyed property values to the extent that homes have been demolished because people cannot live near them. In fact, wind turbine noise alone is such a big issue that there are international scientific conferences held each year on it.
See for yourself how loud they are and what they have done to the people unfortunate enough to live near them: http://www.wind-watch.org/videos.php
The sound recording at the bottom of the page is very helpful to give you an idea of what to expect. In our case, because the project is proposed on a barrier island and noise travels so well over water, the project is going to affect our area for miles around. Usually they build these plants in rural or uninhabited areas. This appears to be the first time they are proposing to place them in a populated area and on a barrier island where they will impact so many of us.
The worst part is that industrial sized wind plants are not even “green”. Because the output from the turbines is intermittent and variable and cannot be stored for later use, they can not be used to supply base energy for the grid and therefore other sources of energy cannot be taken offline. Industrial wind power does not reduce dependence on other fuels, does not reduce emissions or pollution and does not mitigate global warming. If not for the enormous federal tax subsidies and “green tags” that wind companies can sell (an invention of Enron), utilities would avoid such an unreliable and non-dispatchable source except in reliably windy locales. Because taxpayers pay for the cost of erecting and maintaining the turbines, however, giant turbines are extremely profitable. FPL made $2.2 billion dollars in 2002 and 2003 and paid zero federal income tax because of these tax subsidies and credits passed due in large part to the lobbying of the industrial wind industry with the help of a well meaning but uninformed populace.
You owe it to yourself and your community to educate yourself about industrial wind plants and then to educate others and our county commissioners:
http://www.presqueisle.org/audubon/conserv.html and http://www.wind-watch.org/ have great videos, diagrams and information that will give you a good idea of what to expect from this project. Our yahoo group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Save_St_Lucie/, also has numerous links, scientific papers and a great discussion about the impact on our neighborhood and it will be a source of information about commission meetings, rallies and upcoming events. Join now to stay apprised of this issue so important to all of us here in St. Lucie County.
What you can do to help save our natural island environment and the beautiful views along Indian River Drive and A1A:
1) Join the "Save St. Lucie Alliance" in Yahoo Groups website, which is specifically targeting the windmill turbine issue. Go to 'yahoo groups.com" and type in: Save St Lucie. The site will come up and in the upper right hand corner is a box: to join as a member. No cost. Information and messages are on the site. We need as many people to sign up as possible just so we can show a strong membership to the commissioners.
2) Send a quick email ASAP to our governmental officials stating that you are AGAINST the installation of ALL windmill turbines on Hutchinson Island (even on the FPL nuke plant site). Below are the email addresses of the County Commissioners, Gov. Crist, Senator Pruitt and Rep Gayle Harrell. I have also included some points/issues below, that may help you compose.
St. Lucie Commissioners:
Charles Grande: liz@co.st-lucie.fl.us
Doug Coward: cowardd@co.st-lucie.fl.us
Chris Craft: liz@co.st-lucie.fl.us
Paula Lewis: barbarab@co.st-lucie.fl.us
Joe Smith: joe_smith@co.st-lucie.fl.us
(there is an 'underscore' after joe and before smith)
Governor Charlie Crist: www.flgov.com
Senator Ken Pruitt: pruitt.ken.s28@flsenate.gov
Representative Gayle Harrell: gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov
3) Attend Commission Hearing: Contrary to statements in the newspapers, and although the published agenda for this coming Tuesday does not have any items related to FPL's wind turbine proposal, FPL is now lobbying the commission members to make a last minute addition to this Tuesday's agenda. On Tuesday, FPL expects your commissioners to (1) grant FPL permission to proceed with their soil testing/boring on our public beach properties, and (2) send a letter to the governor stating that the county has "no objection" to FPL moving forward with certain phases of the project. FPL of course has kindly offered to draft that letter for the commissioners. It is completely inappropriate for the commission to add this "stealth" agenda item without proper public notification, and thwart meaningful public comment on this very important subject.
Please contact the commissioners and let them know you oppose this addition to the agenda on such short notice - and if they won't postpone the discussion, please show up at 9:00 Tuesday morning to let the commissioners know how you feel in person!
Proponents of Jordanville wind Project faces new hurdle by KIM DUNNE
JORDANVILLE - Residents who support the Jordanville Wind Project in the towns of Warren and Stark were faced with another obstacle last week in the building of a wind farm.
The New York State Preservation League has announced that the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville is being placed on the “Seven To Save” list.
The list spotlights New York state historic properties that face challenges. It also draws attention to urban houses of worship that are in trouble, the threat of abandonment of municipally-owned landmark buildings, and the need to consider historic preservation in the face of development pressure. These seven places are in danger of disappearing because of lack of funding and financial incentives, insensitive public policies, general neglect, disinvestment and, in several cases, demolition.
The state placed the Jordanville monastery on the list by request of the deputy abbott who said the windmills will disrupt the sights and sounds of the 750-acres of land owned by the monastery.
Being placed on this list means the windmills will not be able to be built without review of the negative impact they could have on the monastery and an agreement between the two parties.
“It's disappointing that some opponents of clean energy have abandoned honest argument and are now using underhanded tricks in order to block the development of clean energy in New York state,” said Carol Murphy, executive director of Alliance for Clean Energy New York. “There is simply no reason that the Holy Trinity Monastery cannot co-exist with a wind farm in the town of Jordanville for decades to come.”
“Clean energy projects can and should be developed in concert with the protection of New York's landscape and historic structures. This project is good for Jordanville, good for Central New York, and good for New York state,” Murphy added.
“The Holy Trinity Monastery is of extraordinary historic, religious and cultural significance, but it is currently threatened by an industrial-scale wind energy project,” said Jay DiLorenzo, president of the Preservation League. “We are here not only to call for a thorough evaluation of the project's negative impacts on the Monastery area, but to urge the adoption of statewide siting requirements for wind energy projects. Early identification, acknowledgment and protection of historic resources consistent with state and federal environmental review processes will level the playing field and protect the special character of historic communities and sites across the state.”
This setback comes just four months after the Jordanville project was scaled down due to effects the windmills could have on the Glimmerglass Historic District.
In September, the Department of Public Service reduced the number of turbines from 68to 49 citing the turbines could have an “adverse impact” on the historic district.
It also comes after residents and landowners in the towns of Warren and Stark filed an Article 78 petition last year that stated the town of Warren Town Board, town of Stark Town Board, Jordanville Wind LLC and Community Energy Inc. did not follow the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Open Meetings Law.
In December the residents won that case.
The ruling states that the towns did not do necessary tests on the land and impact of the windmills in the area. It also states that the towns failed to provide documents as requested by residents, which is in violation of the Freedom of Information Law and the board went into executive session without stating reasons that were approved to be going into executive session, according to the December ruling.
The New York State Preservation League has announced that the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville is being placed on the “Seven To Save” list.
The list spotlights New York state historic properties that face challenges. It also draws attention to urban houses of worship that are in trouble, the threat of abandonment of municipally-owned landmark buildings, and the need to consider historic preservation in the face of development pressure. These seven places are in danger of disappearing because of lack of funding and financial incentives, insensitive public policies, general neglect, disinvestment and, in several cases, demolition.
The state placed the Jordanville monastery on the list by request of the deputy abbott who said the windmills will disrupt the sights and sounds of the 750-acres of land owned by the monastery.
Being placed on this list means the windmills will not be able to be built without review of the negative impact they could have on the monastery and an agreement between the two parties.
“It's disappointing that some opponents of clean energy have abandoned honest argument and are now using underhanded tricks in order to block the development of clean energy in New York state,” said Carol Murphy, executive director of Alliance for Clean Energy New York. “There is simply no reason that the Holy Trinity Monastery cannot co-exist with a wind farm in the town of Jordanville for decades to come.”
“Clean energy projects can and should be developed in concert with the protection of New York's landscape and historic structures. This project is good for Jordanville, good for Central New York, and good for New York state,” Murphy added.
“The Holy Trinity Monastery is of extraordinary historic, religious and cultural significance, but it is currently threatened by an industrial-scale wind energy project,” said Jay DiLorenzo, president of the Preservation League. “We are here not only to call for a thorough evaluation of the project's negative impacts on the Monastery area, but to urge the adoption of statewide siting requirements for wind energy projects. Early identification, acknowledgment and protection of historic resources consistent with state and federal environmental review processes will level the playing field and protect the special character of historic communities and sites across the state.”
This setback comes just four months after the Jordanville project was scaled down due to effects the windmills could have on the Glimmerglass Historic District.
In September, the Department of Public Service reduced the number of turbines from 68to 49 citing the turbines could have an “adverse impact” on the historic district.
It also comes after residents and landowners in the towns of Warren and Stark filed an Article 78 petition last year that stated the town of Warren Town Board, town of Stark Town Board, Jordanville Wind LLC and Community Energy Inc. did not follow the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Open Meetings Law.
In December the residents won that case.
The ruling states that the towns did not do necessary tests on the land and impact of the windmills in the area. It also states that the towns failed to provide documents as requested by residents, which is in violation of the Freedom of Information Law and the board went into executive session without stating reasons that were approved to be going into executive session, according to the December ruling.
Another UPC Law Suit Will Be Hear in Federal Court
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Woodcock/2007/JAW_08072007_1-07cv55_SURPLEC_V_MPSC.pdf
CV-07-55-B-W
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
SURPLEC, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
MAINE PUBLIC SERVICE CO.,
UPC WIND MANAGEMENT, LLC, and
EVERGREEN WIND POWER, LLC
Defendants.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES UPC Wind Management LLC and Evergreen Wind Power LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket # 23), and DISMISSES their Motion to Stay Discovery (Docket # 36).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of August, 2007
CV-07-55-B-W
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
SURPLEC, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
MAINE PUBLIC SERVICE CO.,
UPC WIND MANAGEMENT, LLC, and
EVERGREEN WIND POWER, LLC
Defendants.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES UPC Wind Management LLC and Evergreen Wind Power LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket # 23), and DISMISSES their Motion to Stay Discovery (Docket # 36).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of August, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)