STEUBEN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PROPOSED AGENDA
January 24, 2008
12:00 p.m.
I. Call to Order - Doyle
II. Secretary’s Report - Connors
III. Treasurer’s Report - Warren
IV. New Business
A. Update on Hiring Practices - Mott
B. Final Vote – Windfarm Prattsburgh - Sherron
C. Final Vote – Windfarm Cohocton - Sherron
V. Old Business - Doyle
VI. Other Business - Doyle
VII. Adjournment - Doyle
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Wind Energy FTC Review by Nancy Wahlstrom
It is a personal dream of mine that the Federal Government or some other agency would take a hard look at the emerging market for carbon credits and advertising claims.
I hope that you will take a minute to send comments if you think that these programs need strict government oversight or have complaints.
https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-carbonworkshop/
Federal Trade Commission
Title: Public Workshop and Request for Comments
Subject Category: Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims; Carbon Offsets and Renewable Energy Certificates
Published: November 27, 2007 View Notice (PDF) (Download Adobe Reader)
Comments Due: Friday, January 25, 2008
How To Comment: On January 8, 2008, the Federal Trade Commission will host a one-day public workshop to examine the emerging market for carbon offsets (i.e., greenhouse gas emission reduction products) and renewable energy certificates, and related advertising claims. The workshop will be a component on the Commission's regulatory review of the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims. The Commission invites interested parties to comment on issues related to the workshop. Please refer to the Federal Register Notice for a discussion of the various issues. Comments may be submitted before or after the workshop provided they are received by January 25, 2008.
Pre-registration is not necessary to attend the workshop, but is encouraged so that the Commission can better plan for the event. To pre-register, please email your name and affiliation to carbonworkshop@ftc.gov.
Privacy & Use The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at www.ftc.gov. Any information placed in the following fields on this form -- "Title," "First Name," "Last Name," "Organization Name,' "State," "Postal Code," "Country,' "Comments," and "Attachment" -- will be publicly available on the FTC Web site. Although filling out this comment form is voluntary, the fields marked with an asterisk are required in order for the FTC to fully consider a particular comment. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including other routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.
Accessibility If you are unable to access this form, click here for an alternate method of submitting a public comment.
I hope that you will take a minute to send comments if you think that these programs need strict government oversight or have complaints.
https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-carbonworkshop/
Federal Trade Commission
Title: Public Workshop and Request for Comments
Subject Category: Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims; Carbon Offsets and Renewable Energy Certificates
Published: November 27, 2007 View Notice (PDF) (Download Adobe Reader)
Comments Due: Friday, January 25, 2008
How To Comment: On January 8, 2008, the Federal Trade Commission will host a one-day public workshop to examine the emerging market for carbon offsets (i.e., greenhouse gas emission reduction products) and renewable energy certificates, and related advertising claims. The workshop will be a component on the Commission's regulatory review of the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims. The Commission invites interested parties to comment on issues related to the workshop. Please refer to the Federal Register Notice for a discussion of the various issues. Comments may be submitted before or after the workshop provided they are received by January 25, 2008.
Pre-registration is not necessary to attend the workshop, but is encouraged so that the Commission can better plan for the event. To pre-register, please email your name and affiliation to carbonworkshop@ftc.gov.
Privacy & Use The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at www.ftc.gov. Any information placed in the following fields on this form -- "Title," "First Name," "Last Name," "Organization Name,' "State," "Postal Code," "Country,' "Comments," and "Attachment" -- will be publicly available on the FTC Web site. Although filling out this comment form is voluntary, the fields marked with an asterisk are required in order for the FTC to fully consider a particular comment. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including other routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.
Accessibility If you are unable to access this form, click here for an alternate method of submitting a public comment.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Nancy Wahlstrom email to the NYS Attorney General
I just emailed a letter I had sent to the attorney general in the past. I do not get how they can sell a credit when there is nothing to back it up.
Below you will find one of many letters I have sent to the NYS attorney general office complaining about the false and misleading information that is included in my electric bill. I certainly hope that the federal government will require proof of actual emission savings before sales of green credits. Letter follows For more than a year I have complained about the misleading information that is included in my electric bill. The flyer on wind energy implies a savings to the environment that uses fallacious methods to suggest impacts.
It is a misuse of data to imply that when wind energy is generated there is a resultant savings in emissions. According to NYSERDA there is no data to support whether there is any change to emissions when wind is produced or not produced. In, fact there is currently no way to measure this at all. They have a formula that they rely on, but it is not a factual representation of what really happens when wind energy is produced. Now we find that one of the leading wind energy developers Iberdrola is buying RG&;E and NYSEG? Through misleading information included in our electric bills, and the RPS, the stage has been set for this foreign company to destroy western NY with installation of huge industrial machines. T
he NY RPS (is also an unnecessary burden on NY ratepayers since we already have one of the highest levels of renewables in the country and focuses on wind which does not produce energy during peak electric use in NY State.) What do I expect from the attorney generals office? A return of all funds collected under the misleading wind program, a return to ratepayers of all cost associated with the false advertising included in our bills and a penalty so other companies do not use similar methods to defraud the public.
Nancy Wahlstrom
Below you will find one of many letters I have sent to the NYS attorney general office complaining about the false and misleading information that is included in my electric bill. I certainly hope that the federal government will require proof of actual emission savings before sales of green credits. Letter follows For more than a year I have complained about the misleading information that is included in my electric bill. The flyer on wind energy implies a savings to the environment that uses fallacious methods to suggest impacts.
It is a misuse of data to imply that when wind energy is generated there is a resultant savings in emissions. According to NYSERDA there is no data to support whether there is any change to emissions when wind is produced or not produced. In, fact there is currently no way to measure this at all. They have a formula that they rely on, but it is not a factual representation of what really happens when wind energy is produced. Now we find that one of the leading wind energy developers Iberdrola is buying RG&;E and NYSEG? Through misleading information included in our electric bills, and the RPS, the stage has been set for this foreign company to destroy western NY with installation of huge industrial machines. T
he NY RPS (is also an unnecessary burden on NY ratepayers since we already have one of the highest levels of renewables in the country and focuses on wind which does not produce energy during peak electric use in NY State.) What do I expect from the attorney generals office? A return of all funds collected under the misleading wind program, a return to ratepayers of all cost associated with the false advertising included in our bills and a penalty so other companies do not use similar methods to defraud the public.
Nancy Wahlstrom
PSC Grants Certificate for Sheldon Energy Wind Project
pr08010%20High%20Sheldon%20PSC.pdf
STATE OF NEW YORK
Public Service Commission
Garry Brown, Chairman
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn, (518) 474-7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us
FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY 08010/07-E-0213
PSC Grants Certificate for Sheldon Energy Wind Project
— Construction and Operation Approved for Wyoming County Wind Farm —
Albany, NY—1/16/08— The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today decided to authorize the construction and operation of a wind energy project capable of generating 112.5 megawatts (MW) of electricity in the Town of Sheldon, Wyoming County, that will connect with an existing New York State Electric & Gas Corporation transmission line.
In granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), the Commission included appropriate conditions to assure that the public interest considerations regarding reliability of the interconnected electric grid are addressed, and that environmental management of the facility is appropriate using the wind turbines proposed by Sheldon Energy, LLC. According to the developer, the estimated economic benefits in the project area will be $2.1 million annually.
“Among commonly expressed Commission goals are the needs to increase energy diversity and promote a cleaner, healthier environment by generating electricity from renewable energy sources,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “The Sheldon Energy project will generate electricity utilizing renewable resource technology to provide clean and renewable supplies of electricity to the wholesale energy market.”
Sheldon Energy plans to build 75 wind turbines, each rated at 1.5 MW, plus 20 miles of access roads, overhead and underground electrical lines, a 2-acre interconnection substation, construction staging areas, and a centrally located operations and maintenance facility. It will connect with NYSEG’s 230 kV Stolle Road–Meyer transmission line. The wind turbines will range in height up to 397 feet, with a rotor diameter of approximately 253 to 271 feet.
Environmental review of the proposed facilities was conducted pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Article VIII of the Environmental Conservation Law, with the Town of Sheldon acting as lead agency, and the Commission as an involved agency. The project was analyzed for potential environmental impacts on land use and zoning, visual resources, socioeconomic issues, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, soils, geology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology including threatened and endangered species, effects on communications facilities, storm water management, and impacts of construction. The town determined that a large-scale wind power-generating project will result in significant economic
benefits to the area.
According to the petition, the project will sell its output into the wholesale markets administered by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) or adjacent control areas. The company will participate in renewable energy programs with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, green marketers and other buyers. In addition the project will offer capacity, voltage support and ancillary services to the NYISO markets. According to the petition, the company will sell the output of its project exclusively at wholesale and will not be a retail supplier of electricity.
Sheldon Energy is a subsidiary of Invenergy Wind LLC. According to the company, Invenergy subsidiaries have eight projects totaling 686 MW under development or in commercial operation in Poland, Montana and Texas. The company intends to commence construction as soon as possible and anticipates that its project will begin commercial operation near the end of 2008.
The Commission’s decision today, when issued, will be available on the Commission’s www.dps.state.ny.us Web site by accessing the File Room and searching for Case 07-E-0213. Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission decisions can also be obtained from the Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
STATE OF NEW YORK
Public Service Commission
Garry Brown, Chairman
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn, (518) 474-7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us
FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY 08010/07-E-0213
PSC Grants Certificate for Sheldon Energy Wind Project
— Construction and Operation Approved for Wyoming County Wind Farm —
Albany, NY—1/16/08— The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today decided to authorize the construction and operation of a wind energy project capable of generating 112.5 megawatts (MW) of electricity in the Town of Sheldon, Wyoming County, that will connect with an existing New York State Electric & Gas Corporation transmission line.
In granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), the Commission included appropriate conditions to assure that the public interest considerations regarding reliability of the interconnected electric grid are addressed, and that environmental management of the facility is appropriate using the wind turbines proposed by Sheldon Energy, LLC. According to the developer, the estimated economic benefits in the project area will be $2.1 million annually.
“Among commonly expressed Commission goals are the needs to increase energy diversity and promote a cleaner, healthier environment by generating electricity from renewable energy sources,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “The Sheldon Energy project will generate electricity utilizing renewable resource technology to provide clean and renewable supplies of electricity to the wholesale energy market.”
Sheldon Energy plans to build 75 wind turbines, each rated at 1.5 MW, plus 20 miles of access roads, overhead and underground electrical lines, a 2-acre interconnection substation, construction staging areas, and a centrally located operations and maintenance facility. It will connect with NYSEG’s 230 kV Stolle Road–Meyer transmission line. The wind turbines will range in height up to 397 feet, with a rotor diameter of approximately 253 to 271 feet.
Environmental review of the proposed facilities was conducted pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Article VIII of the Environmental Conservation Law, with the Town of Sheldon acting as lead agency, and the Commission as an involved agency. The project was analyzed for potential environmental impacts on land use and zoning, visual resources, socioeconomic issues, traffic and transportation, air quality, noise, soils, geology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology including threatened and endangered species, effects on communications facilities, storm water management, and impacts of construction. The town determined that a large-scale wind power-generating project will result in significant economic
benefits to the area.
According to the petition, the project will sell its output into the wholesale markets administered by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) or adjacent control areas. The company will participate in renewable energy programs with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, green marketers and other buyers. In addition the project will offer capacity, voltage support and ancillary services to the NYISO markets. According to the petition, the company will sell the output of its project exclusively at wholesale and will not be a retail supplier of electricity.
Sheldon Energy is a subsidiary of Invenergy Wind LLC. According to the company, Invenergy subsidiaries have eight projects totaling 686 MW under development or in commercial operation in Poland, Montana and Texas. The company intends to commence construction as soon as possible and anticipates that its project will begin commercial operation near the end of 2008.
The Commission’s decision today, when issued, will be available on the Commission’s www.dps.state.ny.us Web site by accessing the File Room and searching for Case 07-E-0213. Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission decisions can also be obtained from the Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
Dozens protest today's COMIDA meeting
Dozens of people lined up outside the County of Monroe Industrial Development Agency's meeting today to protest the organization. Some people even called COMIDA incompetent. They say COMIDA is wasting taxpayer money and does not really support local jobs.
Town of Brighton leaders say they have repeatedly tried to get COMIDA to recoup $60,000 dollars in mortgage tax breaks given to the Wellesley Inn for a recent renovation.
Wellesley backed out of an agreement to use local labor on the project, and COMIDA terminated the tax break. But the town hasn't gotten any of its share of the money yet.
Ray Tierney, Brighton Town Council Member, said, “This is money that the town and the county are entitled to, and more importantly, this board doesn't function. It shouldn't be waiting for town council members and town governments to sign resolutions to ask them to enforce their own policy.”
COMIDA'S executive director said she could not directly answer Brighton's complaint.
COMIDA Executive Director Judy Siel said, “It's between the attorneys. There's some kind of resolution that's been put forward by the town of Brighton that what they think was done by the IDA was improper. And so our attorney does not feel...there's two sides to every story.”
Councilman Tierney says the actions of COMIDA board are arrogant and incompetent.
Tierney added, “If it comes off that I'm upset, I am. This shouldn't be dragging on. This is simple. The agreement was terminated. They're entitled to no benefits. Why isn't somebody doing more to recoup that money?”
Brighton councilman Tierney says COMIDA incentives drive up your tax bill. COMIDA gave away $14 million in property, sales and mortgage tax breaks over a ten-year period. The county, towns and schools lost more than $4.5 million in property taxes alone.
COMIDA is authorized under state law to give tax breaks to help local businesses expand, and attract new companies here.
Town of Brighton leaders say they have repeatedly tried to get COMIDA to recoup $60,000 dollars in mortgage tax breaks given to the Wellesley Inn for a recent renovation.
Wellesley backed out of an agreement to use local labor on the project, and COMIDA terminated the tax break. But the town hasn't gotten any of its share of the money yet.
Ray Tierney, Brighton Town Council Member, said, “This is money that the town and the county are entitled to, and more importantly, this board doesn't function. It shouldn't be waiting for town council members and town governments to sign resolutions to ask them to enforce their own policy.”
COMIDA'S executive director said she could not directly answer Brighton's complaint.
COMIDA Executive Director Judy Siel said, “It's between the attorneys. There's some kind of resolution that's been put forward by the town of Brighton that what they think was done by the IDA was improper. And so our attorney does not feel...there's two sides to every story.”
Councilman Tierney says the actions of COMIDA board are arrogant and incompetent.
Tierney added, “If it comes off that I'm upset, I am. This shouldn't be dragging on. This is simple. The agreement was terminated. They're entitled to no benefits. Why isn't somebody doing more to recoup that money?”
Brighton councilman Tierney says COMIDA incentives drive up your tax bill. COMIDA gave away $14 million in property, sales and mortgage tax breaks over a ten-year period. The county, towns and schools lost more than $4.5 million in property taxes alone.
COMIDA is authorized under state law to give tax breaks to help local businesses expand, and attract new companies here.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Wind Turbines in Hamlin NY respone to Kathy Kriz by Glenn Schleede
Dear Ms. Kriz,
Based on your January 14, 2008, story, "Turbine or Not Turbine," I suspect that you may not be fully aware of the extent and nature of the nationwide (even worldwide) controversies about wind energy.
This is somewhat understandable since the wind industry and other wind advocates have, for years, greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy and greatly understated the adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts. They have misled the public, media and government officials.
In fact, "wind farms" are being built primarily because of huge tax breaks and subsidies for "wind farm" owners, not because of their energy, environmental, or economic benefits. A few landowners may derive additional income but at tremendous cost to their neighbors and to the area in which the "wind farm" is built.
Wind industry lobbyists have been very successful in misleading politicians at every level of government. As a result we now have federal, state, and local officials and policies that result in:
a. Transferring millions of dollars annually from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to the pockets of a very large (often foreign owned) corporations that own "wind farms" (and a few dollars to landowners who don't mind harming their neighbors, the environment or scenic and property values).
b. Directing billions of capital investment dollars into energy projects ("wind farms") that produce very little electricity -- which electricity is intermittent, volatile, unreliable and most likely to be produced at night in cold months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity reaches peak demand levels.
Hamlin certainly isn't he only place where the controversy is brewing. Dozens of grassroots opposition groups have sprung up across the country where state and local governments have adopted policies such as those adopted and/or proposed in NY. There are several dozen in upstate and western NY alone.
"Wind farm" developers are well financed (particularly with tax breaks and subsidies) and clever. In many cases, they arrive on the scene quietly and signup a few landowners, including some who are members of local government bodies who then advocate the developer's interests with their fellow government officials, local citizens, and the media. Often, local governments do not have or do not enforce "open government" and/or conflict of interest laws that adequately protect citizens.
If you are going to do additional stories about wind energy, I'd urge you to learn more of the facts. You might want to visit such web sites as www.windaction.org and www.wind-watch.org.
Also, I'm attaching a critical evaluation of the "energy plan" for NY announced by your governor and other state officials on April 19, 2007. This paper explains in some detail why wind energy and the "energy plan" make little sense for the people of NY -- especially the people of upstate and western NY.
Good luck with your future reporting.
Glenn R. Schleede (former western New Yorker)
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
P. S. I grew up a few miles from Hamlin and know the area quite well. It's sad that a few people in the Town who wish to profit personally from a "wind farm" are willing to sacrifice the area. It's also sad that some of them are hiding behind false environmental and energy claims. If the local government officials were really interested in protecting citizens' interests, they would be in Albany fighting against proposals to override local government -- and citizens' rights; i.e., fighting against the infinite "Title X" that would move more authority to politicians in Albany and permit further exploitation of upstate and western NY.
Based on your January 14, 2008, story, "Turbine or Not Turbine," I suspect that you may not be fully aware of the extent and nature of the nationwide (even worldwide) controversies about wind energy.
This is somewhat understandable since the wind industry and other wind advocates have, for years, greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy and greatly understated the adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts. They have misled the public, media and government officials.
In fact, "wind farms" are being built primarily because of huge tax breaks and subsidies for "wind farm" owners, not because of their energy, environmental, or economic benefits. A few landowners may derive additional income but at tremendous cost to their neighbors and to the area in which the "wind farm" is built.
Wind industry lobbyists have been very successful in misleading politicians at every level of government. As a result we now have federal, state, and local officials and policies that result in:
a. Transferring millions of dollars annually from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to the pockets of a very large (often foreign owned) corporations that own "wind farms" (and a few dollars to landowners who don't mind harming their neighbors, the environment or scenic and property values).
b. Directing billions of capital investment dollars into energy projects ("wind farms") that produce very little electricity -- which electricity is intermittent, volatile, unreliable and most likely to be produced at night in cold months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity reaches peak demand levels.
Hamlin certainly isn't he only place where the controversy is brewing. Dozens of grassroots opposition groups have sprung up across the country where state and local governments have adopted policies such as those adopted and/or proposed in NY. There are several dozen in upstate and western NY alone.
"Wind farm" developers are well financed (particularly with tax breaks and subsidies) and clever. In many cases, they arrive on the scene quietly and signup a few landowners, including some who are members of local government bodies who then advocate the developer's interests with their fellow government officials, local citizens, and the media. Often, local governments do not have or do not enforce "open government" and/or conflict of interest laws that adequately protect citizens.
If you are going to do additional stories about wind energy, I'd urge you to learn more of the facts. You might want to visit such web sites as www.windaction.org and www.wind-watch.org.
Also, I'm attaching a critical evaluation of the "energy plan" for NY announced by your governor and other state officials on April 19, 2007. This paper explains in some detail why wind energy and the "energy plan" make little sense for the people of NY -- especially the people of upstate and western NY.
Good luck with your future reporting.
Glenn R. Schleede (former western New Yorker)
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
P. S. I grew up a few miles from Hamlin and know the area quite well. It's sad that a few people in the Town who wish to profit personally from a "wind farm" are willing to sacrifice the area. It's also sad that some of them are hiding behind false environmental and energy claims. If the local government officials were really interested in protecting citizens' interests, they would be in Albany fighting against proposals to override local government -- and citizens' rights; i.e., fighting against the infinite "Title X" that would move more authority to politicians in Albany and permit further exploitation of upstate and western NY.
Turbine or Not Turbine by Kathy Kriz in WHAM13.com
Kathy Kriz (Hamlin, N.Y.) – Leaders in the town of Hamlin said they need extra time as they consider a wind turbine law, so they will soon vote on extending a moratorium on wind development.
Still unclear is how tall should wind turbines be, and how far should they be set back from people's homes and property lines?
Hamlin is so divided over this issue that some longtime neighbors have stopped talking to each other.
Testing is underway on Jim Burch's apple farm in search of steady wind. By signing land leases, Burch and others receive annual checks from the Iberdrola Wind Company, ranging from $1,000 to $5,000.
If turbines go up: “You're talking maybe $10,000 a year. Maybe more, maybe less,” Burch said.
Not enough to retire on, but enough to carry on farming.
“It's the same reason we go out and pick up juice apples in the fall up until the snow is on the ground. Even though they're not the good apples, we're not making much per bushel. It all helps the bottom line,” he added.
Down the road, opponents contend that it's money that's driving Hamlin's green movement.
What's more, the population is shifting.
Hamlin Preservation Group Co-chair Troy Nesbitt said, “Our town is shrinking, unfortunately. We are building houses, there are projects going on currently. If you put a bunch of wind towers in this town, who's going to want to live here?”
While Nesbitt's group represents about 30 people in Hamlin, the opposite side says Nesbitt's group is actually the minority voice and that the recent election proves that.
“The anti-wind people got 400 votes, the pro-side got over 1,200,” said Art McFarlane, who favors having wind turbines.
Hamlin's town supervisor, Denny Roach (R), will continue his quest to adopt a law permitting turbines with certain limits.
"Hamlin is rural, and our intent is to try to maintain our rural, agricultural environment, and our character,” Roach said.
Some questioned Roach's character when, in July, he disbanded Hamlin's wind tower committee which was investigating pros and cons of wind development.
Roach said he was worried legislation in Albany might soon pass that would give towns less of a say in deciding where energy projects should go.
With their mission cut short, most of the nine wind tower committee members took sides. Three supported wind development in northwest Hamlin, four objected.
Before wind companies can move ahead, local leaders must agree on a law outlining limits on tower height, and setbacks.
So, while neighbor relations remain testy, come spring, wind power may be in season along the lakeshore in Hamlin.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Opponents will move ahead with lawsuits
COHOCTON | Opponents to wind farm projects in the town of Cohocton will have their day in court.
Supreme Court Judge Marianne Furfure ruled Wednesday Cohocton Wind Watch, a group opposed to local wind farm development, may go forward with three pending lawsuits filed last summer. The lawsuits are designed to stop construction of the 50-turbine projects in Cohocton.
Last fall, attorney for Canandaigua Power Partners, the wind farm developer, requested Furfure dismiss the lawsuits, saying opponents had no legal standing.
But Furfure has ruled opponents did have the right to legally challenge the wind farms.
Allegations against the projects by Cohocton Wind Watch include flawed special application permits for the projects and other procedural errors.
Attorney David P. Miller, who is representing Cohocton Wind Watch, said he will meet with his clients Monday to consider filing a stop work order against the projects.
Supreme Court Judge Marianne Furfure ruled Wednesday Cohocton Wind Watch, a group opposed to local wind farm development, may go forward with three pending lawsuits filed last summer. The lawsuits are designed to stop construction of the 50-turbine projects in Cohocton.
Last fall, attorney for Canandaigua Power Partners, the wind farm developer, requested Furfure dismiss the lawsuits, saying opponents had no legal standing.
But Furfure has ruled opponents did have the right to legally challenge the wind farms.
Allegations against the projects by Cohocton Wind Watch include flawed special application permits for the projects and other procedural errors.
Attorney David P. Miller, who is representing Cohocton Wind Watch, said he will meet with his clients Monday to consider filing a stop work order against the projects.
SCIDA January 11, 2008 Letter by James Hall
January 11, 2007
Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
Po Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393
SCIDA Board, Michael Doyle - Chairman, Philip Roche - Vice Chairman, George Connors - Secretary, Richard Weakland - Member, Michael Nisbet - Member, Douglas Malone - Member and John Sirianni – Member:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the Media/Press Release from attorney David P. Miller. The ruling by Supreme Court Judge Furfure means that the merit of the three Article 78 actions before her court will be heard.
SCIDA has scheduled a NEW (first was not a legal public hearing) Public Hearing on the PILOT proposal for the UPC Cohocton/Dutch Hill project, on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 10:00AM at the Atlanta Court Office. The lawful compliance of this UPC project is in legal jeopardy. Because of the gravity of the litigation and the overwhelming public objection to this project, I urge that the entire SCIDA Board be present for the entire Public Hearing.
For SCIDA to even consider, much less vote on a PILOT for this UPC project under the current circumstances would be a grave error. I have called this date, the SCIDA office and confirmed that your next meeting is at NOON Thursday, January 24, 2008. I request written verification if this UPC PILOT will be voted upon at this time, or when it will be on the agenda.
Substantial documentation will be presented at the January 18, 2008 Public Hearing. The record is voluminous and deserves specific and inclusive individual review by each board member. The current Clipper turbine failure at Steel Winds is no small issue. The lack of authority of SCIDA to impose a PILOT outside of Steuben County is real. The Naples School District is in Ontario County and the Springwater property owners, who are part of the Wayland-Cohocton School District, are in Livingston County.
As you are already aware, the conduct of your executive director, James Sherron has been questioned. Individual board members are at risk of malfeasance. SCIDA may well be named as a party in a fraud action. Each board member has a personal duty to protect the public interest. The appearance that SCIDA acts as a private business venture for the benefit of certain factions is real. If alleged allegations prove to be factual, the entire board could be culpable.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
cc: Andrew Cuomo – NYS Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer – NYS Governor
Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
Po Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393
SCIDA Board, Michael Doyle - Chairman, Philip Roche - Vice Chairman, George Connors - Secretary, Richard Weakland - Member, Michael Nisbet - Member, Douglas Malone - Member and John Sirianni – Member:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the Media/Press Release from attorney David P. Miller. The ruling by Supreme Court Judge Furfure means that the merit of the three Article 78 actions before her court will be heard.
SCIDA has scheduled a NEW (first was not a legal public hearing) Public Hearing on the PILOT proposal for the UPC Cohocton/Dutch Hill project, on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 10:00AM at the Atlanta Court Office. The lawful compliance of this UPC project is in legal jeopardy. Because of the gravity of the litigation and the overwhelming public objection to this project, I urge that the entire SCIDA Board be present for the entire Public Hearing.
For SCIDA to even consider, much less vote on a PILOT for this UPC project under the current circumstances would be a grave error. I have called this date, the SCIDA office and confirmed that your next meeting is at NOON Thursday, January 24, 2008. I request written verification if this UPC PILOT will be voted upon at this time, or when it will be on the agenda.
Substantial documentation will be presented at the January 18, 2008 Public Hearing. The record is voluminous and deserves specific and inclusive individual review by each board member. The current Clipper turbine failure at Steel Winds is no small issue. The lack of authority of SCIDA to impose a PILOT outside of Steuben County is real. The Naples School District is in Ontario County and the Springwater property owners, who are part of the Wayland-Cohocton School District, are in Livingston County.
As you are already aware, the conduct of your executive director, James Sherron has been questioned. Individual board members are at risk of malfeasance. SCIDA may well be named as a party in a fraud action. Each board member has a personal duty to protect the public interest. The appearance that SCIDA acts as a private business venture for the benefit of certain factions is real. If alleged allegations prove to be factual, the entire board could be culpable.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
cc: Andrew Cuomo – NYS Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer – NYS Governor
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN COHOCTON WIND PROJECT
Recently, two wind power companies, Canandaigua Power Partners and Canandaigua Power Partners 2, tried to get three lawsuits that Cohocton Wind Watch had filed, thrown out of court.
However, Steuben County Court Judge Marianne Furfure has ruled that Cohocton Wind Watch will be able to go forward with their lawsuits. The three lawsuits were filed against the wind power companies that are putting up wind turbines in the Cohocton area.
Cohocton Wind Watch attorney David Miller tells our news department that if the Cohocton Wind Watch lawsuits are successful, about 50 or 60 will not be constructed in the Cohocton area. It is also possible that the wind turbines that are being constructed now, will be taken down.
Cohocton Wind Watch is alleging that many of the special use permits for some of the wind turbines were incorrectly approved by officials. Cohocton Wind Watch argues that some of the special use permits should not have been approved, due to various legal reasons.
However, Steuben County Court Judge Marianne Furfure has ruled that Cohocton Wind Watch will be able to go forward with their lawsuits. The three lawsuits were filed against the wind power companies that are putting up wind turbines in the Cohocton area.
Cohocton Wind Watch attorney David Miller tells our news department that if the Cohocton Wind Watch lawsuits are successful, about 50 or 60 will not be constructed in the Cohocton area. It is also possible that the wind turbines that are being constructed now, will be taken down.
Cohocton Wind Watch is alleging that many of the special use permits for some of the wind turbines were incorrectly approved by officials. Cohocton Wind Watch argues that some of the special use permits should not have been approved, due to various legal reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)