A wind power developer says it wants to downsize its approved project in far western Maryland under a newly streamlined regulatory process.
California-based Clipper Windpower has a permit from the state Public Service Commission to build 40 giant turbines on Backbone Mountain in Garrett County, generating up to 101 megawatts of electricity. But construction has been stalled by lawsuits filed by those who claim wind farms are inefficient, unsightly and hazardous to wildlife.
Now Clipper says it would reduce the project to 28 turbines and 70 megawatts. That would make it small enough to qualify for a fast-track approval process the state implemented last year to make Maryland friendlier to wind power developers.
Critics claim the approach will lead to more -- but smaller -- projects, effectively resulting in the same number of turbines with less public scrutiny.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes on Stimulus Vote
U%20S%20%20Senate%20Roll%20Call%20Votes%20110th%20Congress%20-%202nd%20Session%20%2002%2006%202008.pdf
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion To Invoke Cloture On The Reid Amdt No. 3983 )
Vote Number: 8 Vote Date: February 6, 2008, 05:46 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3983 to H.R. 5140 (Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008)
Statement of Purpose: Of a perfecting nature.
Vote
Counts: YEAs 58
NAYs 41
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion To Invoke Cloture On The Reid Amdt No. 3983 )
Vote Number: 8 Vote Date: February 6, 2008, 05:46 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3983 to H.R. 5140 (Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008)
Statement of Purpose: Of a perfecting nature.
Vote
Counts: YEAs 58
NAYs 41
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Voltage rising over Hamlin wind towers by Mike Costanza
Hamlin’s proposed Wind Energy Facilities Law could draw a feisty crowd this Thursday when the Hamlin Town Board opens the floor to public comment.
Wind energy facilities — tall, windmill-like towers designed to turn wind into electricity — have generated controversy since they appeared on Hamlin’s horizon in 2006. Now the voltage is rising.
There was a lot of tension at a Jan. 22 Town Board workshop on the proposed law. Though the workshop didn’t include time for public comment, tempers flared in the crowded boardroom as those seeking tougher restrictions on the siting of the towers accused the board of not doing its job.
“You’re irresponsible,” said Jerry Borkholder, rising to his feet and pointing at the board. “You’re not protecting the people.”
Borkholder, who ran against Hamlin Supervisor Dennis Roach in November on a platform of wind-tower issues, sat down only after Roach repeatedly told him to do so.
Hamlin’s proposed law fills both sides of 13 pages. In order to accommodate what could be a large crowd, the board will hold Thursday’s meeting in a local gymnasium.
Hamlin’s path to controversy started back in 2006, when the Maryland energy company Competitive Power Ventures began examining the feasibility of using wind towers to generate power in Hamlin. The company was subsequently bought by international energy-giant Iberdrola.
If the winds are right in Hamlin, Iberdrola may seek the town’s permission to build turbines — each as much as 400 feet tall to the top of the blades. Some landowners have leased their properties for use as wind tower sites provided the Town Board gives the go-ahead.
Early in 2007, Hamlin’s board appointed a nine-member Wind Tower Committee to examine the issues surrounding wind towers. The now-defunct committee split on the issues. The majority, citing research into the noise and light flicker of turbines, called for separating towers from homes on adjacent properties by at least 2,640 feet, a half mile. The Hamlin Preservation Group, a local citizens organization, supported the majority’s setback proposal. Citing other research, the minority called for a minimum distance of 1,700 feet between towers and adjacent homes.
The Town Board turned the committee’s findings over to Buffalo attorney Daniel Spitzer, who was hired to help draft the regulations. Spitzer’s office subsequently returned with a setback it considered appropriate in legal terms — 1,000 feet.
After further discussion at the January workshop, the Town Board settled on a 1,500-foot setback though some members still seemed inclined to set the minimum distance at 1,000 feet.
Hamlin’s wind-tower regulations call for a plan to protect the value of the properties adjacent to wind tower sites, though the details would have to be worked out by the town and whatever developer wants to build on a given site.
Roach said the Town Board would have to discuss what it learns from residents Feb. 7 before considering changes to the Wind Energy Facilities Law, and probably won’t be ready to vote on the law at its Feb. 11 meeting.
Another town’s experience with wind towers
To see some of the real effects of wind-tower placement, head 90 miles south to Cohocton, Steuben County, where the appearance of wind tower developers stirred up strong feelings on the pro-and anti-tower sides.
Cohocton’s Town Board eventually passed setbacks of 1,500 feet from neighboring residences and 500 feet from property lines where no residence is present. Subsequently, UPC Wind’s subsidiaries, Canandaigua Power Partners LLC I and II, began building 50 wind towers in the town. The first seven are going up on the Drum family’s farm.
Gene Drum and his father keep 250 head of cattle and farm nearly 600 acres, including parts of Dutch Hill.
You can see parts of Livingston and Ontario counties from the hilltop and the wind can be strong there.
“We’ve always talked about doing something to harness the wind,” Drum said.
Farming is a tough life that’s grown more costly through the years. As other farmers sold their land, the Drums began to look for ways to increase their revenue without selling. When a wind-power developer approached the family about 10 years ago, weighed the possibility of using wind to generate cash for the farm.
“I’m just trying to figure out what we could do to maintain our farming,” Drum said. “We felt as though this would give us a little revenue to pay our taxes.”
Before signing with the wind-tower developers, he and his father visited wind farms in Fenner, Madison County, and Warsaw, Wyoming County, and researched the claims that wind towers could hurt his family’s health.
“There’s no proven fact that any of that is going to be detrimental to our health,” Drum said. “If there was ever anything that was going to harm anybody, we sure wouldn’t have done it, because we have families, also.”
The closest tower will rise 1,800 feet from Drum’s home. He expects the towers on his land to go online before the end of August.
Cohocton resident Robert Strasburg sees nothing good in the high-tech windmills. “There’s a lot of negative issues,” he said.
Strasburg, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch, a local group that has sued to stop the local wind project, said the towers are threats to the health of the community and its property values.
“This is about raping American taxpayers,” said Strasburg, who ran unsuccessfully for Cohocton supervisor in November on an anti-wind tower platform.
Strasburg makes his living in the timber industry and through buying and selling land, said he lost money on 10 acres in town when plans to build three wind towers near his property emerged.
“I’ve had no less than seven interested in the property,” Strasburg said. “The minute they find out about the turbines, they just walk away.”
The meeting is Thursday, Feb. 7 at 6 p.m. at St. John Lutheran Church, 1107 Lake Road West Fork, Hamlin.
Highlights of Hamlin’s proposed Wind Energy Facilities Law
Wind towers would have to:
• Stand no more than 400 feet tall, from base to blade tip.
• Produce noise no louder than 50 decibels, as measured at the closest exterior wall of any nearby residence. If the ambient sound at that point exceeds 50 decibels, the sound of the tower would have to be no more than 5 decibels louder than the ambient, or surrounding, sound level.
• Stand no less than 1,500 feet from the closest residence not part of the wind farm, 600 feet from the nearest public road and from the nearest boundary line of private property not part of the wind farm.
To erect a wind tower, the developer has to submit to Hamlin’s Town Board:
• Applications for the creation of a wind overlay zone and for a special use permit. A wind overlay zone sets the boundaries within which the tower or towers would have to be built and the wind tower regulations would be in effect.
• Wind overlay zones would be limited to those parts of Hamlin zoned as residential-very low. Those areas are the least populated in the town.
• Studies indicating the effect the noise of the machine, the flickering shadows caused by its whirling blades and the sight of the structure could have on nearby residences or the surrounding area.
• Studies of the tower’s potential effects on local bird and bat populations, threatened or endangered species, water wells and radio, television, cell phone and other wireless communications.
• A plan to protect the values of neighboring properties, including means of selecting eligible properties and of determining whether they’ve lost value as a result of tower placement and the maximum length of time the owners would be eligible to be paid the difference.
• The construction job’s schedule, routes to be taken to the site and the sizes and weights of the road-worthy equipment to be used on it. Except with Hamlin’s agreement, construction would only take place between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
• A decommissioning plan, stating the expected life of the tower and the estimated cost of removing it and of returning the site to its previous condition and a guaranteed source of cash for the job.
• A process for resolving complaints about the towers, including a minimum time by which the developer would respond to emergencies.
For more information, or to view a copy of the proposed regulations: visit http://hamlinny.org/wind-tower6.html.
To comment: Speak at the next Town Board meeting, 7 p.m., on Monday, Feb. 11, at Hamlin Town Hall, 1658 Lake Road. Hamlin Supervisor Dennis Roach can be reached by calling (585) 964-8981 or by e-mail at supervisor@hamlinny.org.
Wind energy facilities — tall, windmill-like towers designed to turn wind into electricity — have generated controversy since they appeared on Hamlin’s horizon in 2006. Now the voltage is rising.
There was a lot of tension at a Jan. 22 Town Board workshop on the proposed law. Though the workshop didn’t include time for public comment, tempers flared in the crowded boardroom as those seeking tougher restrictions on the siting of the towers accused the board of not doing its job.
“You’re irresponsible,” said Jerry Borkholder, rising to his feet and pointing at the board. “You’re not protecting the people.”
Borkholder, who ran against Hamlin Supervisor Dennis Roach in November on a platform of wind-tower issues, sat down only after Roach repeatedly told him to do so.
Hamlin’s proposed law fills both sides of 13 pages. In order to accommodate what could be a large crowd, the board will hold Thursday’s meeting in a local gymnasium.
Hamlin’s path to controversy started back in 2006, when the Maryland energy company Competitive Power Ventures began examining the feasibility of using wind towers to generate power in Hamlin. The company was subsequently bought by international energy-giant Iberdrola.
If the winds are right in Hamlin, Iberdrola may seek the town’s permission to build turbines — each as much as 400 feet tall to the top of the blades. Some landowners have leased their properties for use as wind tower sites provided the Town Board gives the go-ahead.
Early in 2007, Hamlin’s board appointed a nine-member Wind Tower Committee to examine the issues surrounding wind towers. The now-defunct committee split on the issues. The majority, citing research into the noise and light flicker of turbines, called for separating towers from homes on adjacent properties by at least 2,640 feet, a half mile. The Hamlin Preservation Group, a local citizens organization, supported the majority’s setback proposal. Citing other research, the minority called for a minimum distance of 1,700 feet between towers and adjacent homes.
The Town Board turned the committee’s findings over to Buffalo attorney Daniel Spitzer, who was hired to help draft the regulations. Spitzer’s office subsequently returned with a setback it considered appropriate in legal terms — 1,000 feet.
After further discussion at the January workshop, the Town Board settled on a 1,500-foot setback though some members still seemed inclined to set the minimum distance at 1,000 feet.
Hamlin’s wind-tower regulations call for a plan to protect the value of the properties adjacent to wind tower sites, though the details would have to be worked out by the town and whatever developer wants to build on a given site.
Roach said the Town Board would have to discuss what it learns from residents Feb. 7 before considering changes to the Wind Energy Facilities Law, and probably won’t be ready to vote on the law at its Feb. 11 meeting.
Another town’s experience with wind towers
To see some of the real effects of wind-tower placement, head 90 miles south to Cohocton, Steuben County, where the appearance of wind tower developers stirred up strong feelings on the pro-and anti-tower sides.
Cohocton’s Town Board eventually passed setbacks of 1,500 feet from neighboring residences and 500 feet from property lines where no residence is present. Subsequently, UPC Wind’s subsidiaries, Canandaigua Power Partners LLC I and II, began building 50 wind towers in the town. The first seven are going up on the Drum family’s farm.
Gene Drum and his father keep 250 head of cattle and farm nearly 600 acres, including parts of Dutch Hill.
You can see parts of Livingston and Ontario counties from the hilltop and the wind can be strong there.
“We’ve always talked about doing something to harness the wind,” Drum said.
Farming is a tough life that’s grown more costly through the years. As other farmers sold their land, the Drums began to look for ways to increase their revenue without selling. When a wind-power developer approached the family about 10 years ago, weighed the possibility of using wind to generate cash for the farm.
“I’m just trying to figure out what we could do to maintain our farming,” Drum said. “We felt as though this would give us a little revenue to pay our taxes.”
Before signing with the wind-tower developers, he and his father visited wind farms in Fenner, Madison County, and Warsaw, Wyoming County, and researched the claims that wind towers could hurt his family’s health.
“There’s no proven fact that any of that is going to be detrimental to our health,” Drum said. “If there was ever anything that was going to harm anybody, we sure wouldn’t have done it, because we have families, also.”
The closest tower will rise 1,800 feet from Drum’s home. He expects the towers on his land to go online before the end of August.
Cohocton resident Robert Strasburg sees nothing good in the high-tech windmills. “There’s a lot of negative issues,” he said.
Strasburg, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch, a local group that has sued to stop the local wind project, said the towers are threats to the health of the community and its property values.
“This is about raping American taxpayers,” said Strasburg, who ran unsuccessfully for Cohocton supervisor in November on an anti-wind tower platform.
Strasburg makes his living in the timber industry and through buying and selling land, said he lost money on 10 acres in town when plans to build three wind towers near his property emerged.
“I’ve had no less than seven interested in the property,” Strasburg said. “The minute they find out about the turbines, they just walk away.”
The meeting is Thursday, Feb. 7 at 6 p.m. at St. John Lutheran Church, 1107 Lake Road West Fork, Hamlin.
Highlights of Hamlin’s proposed Wind Energy Facilities Law
Wind towers would have to:
• Stand no more than 400 feet tall, from base to blade tip.
• Produce noise no louder than 50 decibels, as measured at the closest exterior wall of any nearby residence. If the ambient sound at that point exceeds 50 decibels, the sound of the tower would have to be no more than 5 decibels louder than the ambient, or surrounding, sound level.
• Stand no less than 1,500 feet from the closest residence not part of the wind farm, 600 feet from the nearest public road and from the nearest boundary line of private property not part of the wind farm.
To erect a wind tower, the developer has to submit to Hamlin’s Town Board:
• Applications for the creation of a wind overlay zone and for a special use permit. A wind overlay zone sets the boundaries within which the tower or towers would have to be built and the wind tower regulations would be in effect.
• Wind overlay zones would be limited to those parts of Hamlin zoned as residential-very low. Those areas are the least populated in the town.
• Studies indicating the effect the noise of the machine, the flickering shadows caused by its whirling blades and the sight of the structure could have on nearby residences or the surrounding area.
• Studies of the tower’s potential effects on local bird and bat populations, threatened or endangered species, water wells and radio, television, cell phone and other wireless communications.
• A plan to protect the values of neighboring properties, including means of selecting eligible properties and of determining whether they’ve lost value as a result of tower placement and the maximum length of time the owners would be eligible to be paid the difference.
• The construction job’s schedule, routes to be taken to the site and the sizes and weights of the road-worthy equipment to be used on it. Except with Hamlin’s agreement, construction would only take place between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
• A decommissioning plan, stating the expected life of the tower and the estimated cost of removing it and of returning the site to its previous condition and a guaranteed source of cash for the job.
• A process for resolving complaints about the towers, including a minimum time by which the developer would respond to emergencies.
For more information, or to view a copy of the proposed regulations: visit http://hamlinny.org/wind-tower6.html.
To comment: Speak at the next Town Board meeting, 7 p.m., on Monday, Feb. 11, at Hamlin Town Hall, 1658 Lake Road. Hamlin Supervisor Dennis Roach can be reached by calling (585) 964-8981 or by e-mail at supervisor@hamlinny.org.
Senator Hillary Clinton Response Letter to Nadja Laska - Stimulus Bill
Dear Mrs. Laska:
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding the state of the economy and the need for an economic stimulus package that will work quickly to address the most pressing challenges facing working families today.
In January, the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives and the Bush Administration struck a bipartisan compromise to extend immediate tax rebates to more than 100 million hardworking Americans, including 35 million families who would have been unfairly left out under the Administration 's initial proposal. T his initiative passed in the House of Representatives, and it will soon be addressed by the full Senate, where alternative approaches are also being discussed.
While I have also called for extending tax rebates to working and middle class Americans, I believe that we need to go further in providing hardworking families with the assistance that they need. In addition to my support for fast-acting, progressive rebates, and ensuring that these rebates include senior citizen households, I have called for a comprehensive economic stimulus package that addresses the mortgage crisis, home heating costs, unemployment insurance and producing new "green collar" jobs through alternative energy investments.
Specifically, I have called for a $30 billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to assist states, cities and community organizations in preventing unnecessary home foreclosures; a 90-day moratorium on subprime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on subprime mortgages for at least five years or until servicers have converted the unworkable mortgages into loans families can afford; a $25 billion investment in home heating assistance for working families; a $5 billion investment in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies to jumpstart "green collar" job growth; and a $10 billion effort to strengthen and extend unemployment insurance for workers who are laid off for extended periods.
As the Senate takes up this important issue in the weeks ahead, please be assured that I will continue to work hard in support of a fast-acting, comprehensive stimulus package that provides a boost to our economy and ensures that working families across New York and the United States receive the full assistance that they need.
Again, thank you for writing to me about these important economic issues. For updates on this issue and other matters being discussed before the United States Senate, please visit my website at http://clinton.senate.gov .
Sincerely,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
_______________________________________________
Dear Senator Clinton;
I strongly object to the inclusion of industrial wind production tax credit extension in the Stimulus Bill which is currently being considered.
Although I support other forms of alternative energy such as hydro and solar; I would urge The Senate to remove any preferential incentives for ill-conceived and improperly sited wind projects.
Industrial wind projects are a tested and failed technology.
With 30 years experience (wind farms in California and Europe) the data is most clear and convincing that electricity produced by industrial wind farms is intermittent, and produces only negligible amounts of useful electricity to the grid.
Wind energy is neither reliable nor cost effective.
The purpose of this "Stimulus Package" is to deliver much needed assistance to the struggling American Taxpayer and boost our American Economy.
The addition of $5.75 billion over 10 years for wind credits is an unwelcome and insulting burden to the very taxpayers who already subsidize up to 80% of the wind energy projects by their tax dollars.
I would urge you to accept the House version of the Stimulus Bill without the added burden of The Production Tax Credit extension.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadja Laska
Impact of Article X siting on NYS Local Governments in Rural Counties - Senator George H. Winner, Jr
January 31, 2008
Dear Local Government Official:
As you may know, two bills have been introduced in the state Legislature that would re-authorize Article X of the Public Service Law which is designed to streamline the siting review and approval process for major electric generating facilities. (A brief summary of the proposed provisions is shown on Page 2). Wind farm projects that meet certain thresholds established for power plants are included in these proposals, with the process governed by a statewide siting board.
Currently, municipalities in New York govern the siting process for wind farms proposed within their jurisdictions utilizing land use regulations they have enacted and the SEQRA review process, with several projects either already completed or under review. The proposed Article X legislation would impact such local control over the siting of wind farms.
The NYS Legislative Commission on Rural Resources has been a strong proponent of responsible wind energy development in rural New York. It is our intent to inform the Legislature of the impact on rural communities of the proposed Article X legislation. Please take a few moments to provide your guidance to us by completing the questionnaire on Page 3 and return by Fax (518.426.6960) or E-mail: ruralres@senate.state.ny.us by February 20. It is anticipated action will be taken on the Article X legislation this session so time is of the essence in submitting your input. Call 518.455.2544 if you have any questions or need assistance in completing the survey.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
Senator George H. Winner, Jr.
Chairman Note: The US wind energy industry installed 5,244 megawatts (MW) of wind power capacity in 2007, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). The rapid growth boosts the total US wind power capacity by 45% in only one year. In fact, wind power provided 30% of the new generating capacity installed in the United States in 2007. And, in New York, there are currently six operating wind farms, five under construction, and at least 30 more planned. Prepared by the NYS Legislative Commission on Rural Resources January 2008
Synopsis of Article X Bills Senate Bill
Senate Bill 5908/ Assembly Bill 8697
Two bills (Senate 5908 and Assembly 8697) have been introduced in the state Legislature to re-authorize Article X of the Public Service Law that governs the siting of major electric generating facilities. Although not specifically mentioned anywhere in the proposed legislation, wind farm projects that meet certain kilowatt threshold capacities shown below would also be included in the siting review process along with power plants.
A statewide siting board would govern the review and approval of all such projects, with construction prohibited without applicants first obtaining an operating certificate. Applicants would provide the following information and materials: a description of the site and facility, alternative locations, environmental impacts, health impacts, generating plant costs and useful life, need for the plant, security issues, and provision for public notice and input.
Major electric generating facilities would be defined under the Assembly bill as those that meet or exceed a threshold of 30 thousand kilowatts. The Senate bill defines two types of electric generation facilities as being either “major” or “minor”, with corresponding thresholds of 80 thousand or more and 50 thousand or more kilowatts. Minor projects would be charged lower fees.
Both bills include provisions that create a pre-application process that requires applicants to file a preliminary scoping statement describing the project, its potential environmental impacts and proposed studies to evaluate those impacts. Such studies would include air and water quality, ecology, land use, noise, visual, cultural, socioeconomic, transportation and other considerations. The public would be kept abreast of the filing through published notices and other outreach efforts designed to encourage its participation.
The siting board would be required to determine if the proposed facility is in compliance with local laws and regulations, unless it finds that those local requirements are unreasonably restrictive in view of existing technology or the needs of or cost to rate payers. Municipalities or state agencies would be prohibited from requiring additional permits or approvals of a proposed facility beyond those expressly provided for under the legislation, with minor amendments. Conforming provisions from the state Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) clarify that actions taken by the siting board under Article X are not subject to the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL Article 8).
The siting board would have 60 days to determine if an application complied with Article X and if so to set a date for a public hearing. Reviews of new projects with an expected capacity under 200 thousand kilowatts must be completed within 12 months after receipt of a complete application, with a 6 month extension available to projects exceeding 200 thousand kilowatts, if needed.
For more information on detailed provisions in the two bills, readers are encouraged to go to either the Senate or Assembly web sites at www.senate.state.ny.us or www.assembly.state. ny.us. Prepared by the NYS Legislative Commission on Rural Resources January 2008
Article%20X%20questionnaire%202-6-08.pdf
(Click on above link to take the Article X Survey)
Dear Local Government Official:
As you may know, two bills have been introduced in the state Legislature that would re-authorize Article X of the Public Service Law which is designed to streamline the siting review and approval process for major electric generating facilities. (A brief summary of the proposed provisions is shown on Page 2). Wind farm projects that meet certain thresholds established for power plants are included in these proposals, with the process governed by a statewide siting board.
Currently, municipalities in New York govern the siting process for wind farms proposed within their jurisdictions utilizing land use regulations they have enacted and the SEQRA review process, with several projects either already completed or under review. The proposed Article X legislation would impact such local control over the siting of wind farms.
The NYS Legislative Commission on Rural Resources has been a strong proponent of responsible wind energy development in rural New York. It is our intent to inform the Legislature of the impact on rural communities of the proposed Article X legislation. Please take a few moments to provide your guidance to us by completing the questionnaire on Page 3 and return by Fax (518.426.6960) or E-mail: ruralres@senate.state.ny.us by February 20. It is anticipated action will be taken on the Article X legislation this session so time is of the essence in submitting your input. Call 518.455.2544 if you have any questions or need assistance in completing the survey.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
Senator George H. Winner, Jr.
Chairman Note: The US wind energy industry installed 5,244 megawatts (MW) of wind power capacity in 2007, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). The rapid growth boosts the total US wind power capacity by 45% in only one year. In fact, wind power provided 30% of the new generating capacity installed in the United States in 2007. And, in New York, there are currently six operating wind farms, five under construction, and at least 30 more planned. Prepared by the NYS Legislative Commission on Rural Resources January 2008
Synopsis of Article X Bills Senate Bill
Senate Bill 5908/ Assembly Bill 8697
Two bills (Senate 5908 and Assembly 8697) have been introduced in the state Legislature to re-authorize Article X of the Public Service Law that governs the siting of major electric generating facilities. Although not specifically mentioned anywhere in the proposed legislation, wind farm projects that meet certain kilowatt threshold capacities shown below would also be included in the siting review process along with power plants.
A statewide siting board would govern the review and approval of all such projects, with construction prohibited without applicants first obtaining an operating certificate. Applicants would provide the following information and materials: a description of the site and facility, alternative locations, environmental impacts, health impacts, generating plant costs and useful life, need for the plant, security issues, and provision for public notice and input.
Major electric generating facilities would be defined under the Assembly bill as those that meet or exceed a threshold of 30 thousand kilowatts. The Senate bill defines two types of electric generation facilities as being either “major” or “minor”, with corresponding thresholds of 80 thousand or more and 50 thousand or more kilowatts. Minor projects would be charged lower fees.
Both bills include provisions that create a pre-application process that requires applicants to file a preliminary scoping statement describing the project, its potential environmental impacts and proposed studies to evaluate those impacts. Such studies would include air and water quality, ecology, land use, noise, visual, cultural, socioeconomic, transportation and other considerations. The public would be kept abreast of the filing through published notices and other outreach efforts designed to encourage its participation.
The siting board would be required to determine if the proposed facility is in compliance with local laws and regulations, unless it finds that those local requirements are unreasonably restrictive in view of existing technology or the needs of or cost to rate payers. Municipalities or state agencies would be prohibited from requiring additional permits or approvals of a proposed facility beyond those expressly provided for under the legislation, with minor amendments. Conforming provisions from the state Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) clarify that actions taken by the siting board under Article X are not subject to the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL Article 8).
The siting board would have 60 days to determine if an application complied with Article X and if so to set a date for a public hearing. Reviews of new projects with an expected capacity under 200 thousand kilowatts must be completed within 12 months after receipt of a complete application, with a 6 month extension available to projects exceeding 200 thousand kilowatts, if needed.
For more information on detailed provisions in the two bills, readers are encouraged to go to either the Senate or Assembly web sites at www.senate.state.ny.us or www.assembly.state. ny.us. Prepared by the NYS Legislative Commission on Rural Resources January 2008
Article%20X%20questionnaire%202-6-08.pdf
(Click on above link to take the Article X Survey)
Report: Possible benefits, problems with NYRI power line proposal by Devlin Barrett
WASHINGTON - A report by congressional investigators concludes power lines like the proposed New York Regional Interconnect in upstate New York could make the electric grid more efficient, but could also pose safety and security risks.
Potential disadvantages, the GAO found, were:
_ Lower property values along the route.
_ Reduced incentives to conserve energy.
_ Some safety or security risks in having power lines so close to transportation routes.
Many communities along the line's path are trying to stop the project, saying their property values will be hurt by ugly power lines that actually increase the cost of electricity in their towns. Arcuri, along with fellow upstate Democratic Reps. Maurice Hinchey and John Hall have vigorously opposed the plan.
(Click to read entire article)
Potential disadvantages, the GAO found, were:
_ Lower property values along the route.
_ Reduced incentives to conserve energy.
_ Some safety or security risks in having power lines so close to transportation routes.
Many communities along the line's path are trying to stop the project, saying their property values will be hurt by ugly power lines that actually increase the cost of electricity in their towns. Arcuri, along with fellow upstate Democratic Reps. Maurice Hinchey and John Hall have vigorously opposed the plan.
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Tim Lang Wind Farm Prattsburgh February 4, 2008 Letter by Brad Jones
February 4, 2008
To: Tim Lang, Project Manager, Wind Farm Prattsburgh, UPC New York Wind LLC
From: Brad and Linda Jones, Italy NY
Dear Tim,
We are part of a group of citizens in Italy NY who have been studying industrial wind developments for some time.
Based on real world experience at Mars Hill, Maple Ridge, Meyersdale, and Garrett County, as well as in Australia and the UK, we are concerned that WFP and CPP will have serious and negative impact on nearby property values. Please do not insult our intelligence by referencing the Fenner study. That kid had never taken a course in either business or economics and the study design and assumptions were fatally flawed.
We are presently building a computer model to quantify WFP's impact on property values in Italy.
From actual experience at existing wind projects we know two things about the impact of industrial wind projects on property values:
1. The loss in property value is directly proportional to the proximity of the turbines. The closer you are, the more you lose. And in some cases, such as Garrett County MD, this impact extends as far as the eye can see.
2. Higher end properties will lose a much larger proportion of their value than low end properties. For example, a $200K residence with a heritage viewshed will lose a much higher percentage of its value than a $40K double-wide hidden in the valley.
These conclusions are also supported by local real estate experts who are already losing sales because of the wind projects. They are not able to find ANY buyers for some of the more valuable adjacent lands (which in the past would have sold in a matter of weeks). Due to UPC's project in Cohocton the hilltops there are virtually worthless as the scenic beauty and tranquillity has been lost. Very few seekers of rural property will choose to buy next to an industrial complex. The three most important factors in property values continue to be location, location, and location. For Cohocton, location has suddenly changed, and very much for the worse.
Based on conservative assumptions and distance-proportional factors we have calculated that WFP will reduce property values in the Town of Italy by approximately $14,000,000 or 21% of the total. With similar impacts in Naples, Jerusalem, Pulteney, and Wheeler the total loss in value would be north of $50M. The Cohocton projects will have similar impacts in Naples, Italy, Springwater, Wayland, Avoca, and Wheeler. By the time all of this is added up it amounts to a rather significant number.
Please explain exactly how UPC will compensate thousands of landowners for their losses. Without full compensation, there will necessarily be a class action lawsuit.
Unfortunately the loss in property value directly caused by the UPC projects is only half of the problem. Those of us who are far enough away that we are not impacted will feel quite fortunate UNTIL we receive our future tax bills.
Those who have lost property value because of WFP will be seeking lower assessments, thus reducing the overall tax roll. Therefore tax rates will need to increase proportionately to continue to raise the needed tax dollars. So while our neighbors to the south will see lower tax bills, all of the rest of us will be paying more to compensate for their losses.
Please explain exactly how UPC will compensate property owners who have to pay higher taxes because of the UPC projects.
Without full compensation, there will necessarily be a class action lawsuit.
You may be aware that several Town Boards in NY have requested adjacent towns considering wind developments to give them a one mile buffer from their town lines in order to reduce the impact on their tax rolls. Perhaps WFP and CPP would be willing to consider similar setbacks, and avoid those costly class action suits.
We look forward to your response.
brad and linda jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)
To: Tim Lang, Project Manager, Wind Farm Prattsburgh, UPC New York Wind LLC
From: Brad and Linda Jones, Italy NY
Dear Tim,
We are part of a group of citizens in Italy NY who have been studying industrial wind developments for some time.
Based on real world experience at Mars Hill, Maple Ridge, Meyersdale, and Garrett County, as well as in Australia and the UK, we are concerned that WFP and CPP will have serious and negative impact on nearby property values. Please do not insult our intelligence by referencing the Fenner study. That kid had never taken a course in either business or economics and the study design and assumptions were fatally flawed.
We are presently building a computer model to quantify WFP's impact on property values in Italy.
From actual experience at existing wind projects we know two things about the impact of industrial wind projects on property values:
1. The loss in property value is directly proportional to the proximity of the turbines. The closer you are, the more you lose. And in some cases, such as Garrett County MD, this impact extends as far as the eye can see.
2. Higher end properties will lose a much larger proportion of their value than low end properties. For example, a $200K residence with a heritage viewshed will lose a much higher percentage of its value than a $40K double-wide hidden in the valley.
These conclusions are also supported by local real estate experts who are already losing sales because of the wind projects. They are not able to find ANY buyers for some of the more valuable adjacent lands (which in the past would have sold in a matter of weeks). Due to UPC's project in Cohocton the hilltops there are virtually worthless as the scenic beauty and tranquillity has been lost. Very few seekers of rural property will choose to buy next to an industrial complex. The three most important factors in property values continue to be location, location, and location. For Cohocton, location has suddenly changed, and very much for the worse.
Based on conservative assumptions and distance-proportional factors we have calculated that WFP will reduce property values in the Town of Italy by approximately $14,000,000 or 21% of the total. With similar impacts in Naples, Jerusalem, Pulteney, and Wheeler the total loss in value would be north of $50M. The Cohocton projects will have similar impacts in Naples, Italy, Springwater, Wayland, Avoca, and Wheeler. By the time all of this is added up it amounts to a rather significant number.
Please explain exactly how UPC will compensate thousands of landowners for their losses. Without full compensation, there will necessarily be a class action lawsuit.
Unfortunately the loss in property value directly caused by the UPC projects is only half of the problem. Those of us who are far enough away that we are not impacted will feel quite fortunate UNTIL we receive our future tax bills.
Those who have lost property value because of WFP will be seeking lower assessments, thus reducing the overall tax roll. Therefore tax rates will need to increase proportionately to continue to raise the needed tax dollars. So while our neighbors to the south will see lower tax bills, all of the rest of us will be paying more to compensate for their losses.
Please explain exactly how UPC will compensate property owners who have to pay higher taxes because of the UPC projects.
Without full compensation, there will necessarily be a class action lawsuit.
You may be aware that several Town Boards in NY have requested adjacent towns considering wind developments to give them a one mile buffer from their town lines in order to reduce the impact on their tax rolls. Perhaps WFP and CPP would be willing to consider similar setbacks, and avoid those costly class action suits.
We look forward to your response.
brad and linda jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)
Economic Stimulus Bill February 6, 2008 by Alan Isselhard
February 6, 2008
Dear Senator
Re: Economic Stimulus Bill
I strongly object to the inclusion of industrial wind tax extensions in the Stimulus Bill which is being considered. While supporting many forms of alternative energy such as biomass, hydro, landfill gas, and solar; I urge the Senate to strip out any preferential incentives for ill-conceived and improper sited wind projects.
It is crucial that you urge fellow Republican Senators to vote against the Baucus/Grassley bill to sneak in the federal credits into the Economic Stimulus Plan. Hold firm and demand that the House Bill is the version that passes.
The subsidies for wind energy are a gross misuse of public money. The public is being taxed unfairly with the proceeds given to foreign owned wind developers to industrialize our rural communities with mammoth giants that produce unreliable, minuscule amounts of expensive low quality electricity.
The turbines' impacts on the landscapes and lives of neighboring people is totally disproportionate to the meager contribution they make in providing unreliable energy and the pitiful savings they offer in CO2 reductions.
Wind power is wrong for our rural landscape and that those who pursue it are driven not by concern for the environment, but by the opportunity to pocket enormous profits offered by huge taxpayer subsidies that the state and federal government has encouraged and made possible.
The quote below is shocking:
Federal tax benefits pay as much as 65% of the capital cost of wind power projects in the United States.
Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.
The main reason why there are dozens of companies attempting to develop wind farms here in NYS is because wind power is financially viable - and, short term, highly profitable for developers through multiple tax incentives, Empire Zone deals, and NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) cash transfers while this financial burden is ultimately transferred to us, the abused NYS taxpayers. On top of this disgrace the Federal government is adding more disgusting financial incentives. Then, when all the attractive financial enhancements expire some day as they certainly will – worn out wind turbines will be abandoned and the behemoth eyesores will victimize the communities in which they exist - again. This all amounts to a highly taxpayer subsidized destruction of the countryside – that benefits mainly foreigners! Think America FIRST!
Please vote to end industrial wind tax extensions in the Stimulus Bill!
Sincerely,
Alan Isselhard
8135 North Huron Rd.
Wolcott, New York 14590
Dear Senator
Re: Economic Stimulus Bill
I strongly object to the inclusion of industrial wind tax extensions in the Stimulus Bill which is being considered. While supporting many forms of alternative energy such as biomass, hydro, landfill gas, and solar; I urge the Senate to strip out any preferential incentives for ill-conceived and improper sited wind projects.
It is crucial that you urge fellow Republican Senators to vote against the Baucus/Grassley bill to sneak in the federal credits into the Economic Stimulus Plan. Hold firm and demand that the House Bill is the version that passes.
The subsidies for wind energy are a gross misuse of public money. The public is being taxed unfairly with the proceeds given to foreign owned wind developers to industrialize our rural communities with mammoth giants that produce unreliable, minuscule amounts of expensive low quality electricity.
The turbines' impacts on the landscapes and lives of neighboring people is totally disproportionate to the meager contribution they make in providing unreliable energy and the pitiful savings they offer in CO2 reductions.
Wind power is wrong for our rural landscape and that those who pursue it are driven not by concern for the environment, but by the opportunity to pocket enormous profits offered by huge taxpayer subsidies that the state and federal government has encouraged and made possible.
The quote below is shocking:
Federal tax benefits pay as much as 65% of the capital cost of wind power projects in the United States.
Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.
The main reason why there are dozens of companies attempting to develop wind farms here in NYS is because wind power is financially viable - and, short term, highly profitable for developers through multiple tax incentives, Empire Zone deals, and NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) cash transfers while this financial burden is ultimately transferred to us, the abused NYS taxpayers. On top of this disgrace the Federal government is adding more disgusting financial incentives. Then, when all the attractive financial enhancements expire some day as they certainly will – worn out wind turbines will be abandoned and the behemoth eyesores will victimize the communities in which they exist - again. This all amounts to a highly taxpayer subsidized destruction of the countryside – that benefits mainly foreigners! Think America FIRST!
Please vote to end industrial wind tax extensions in the Stimulus Bill!
Sincerely,
Alan Isselhard
8135 North Huron Rd.
Wolcott, New York 14590
Naples School District February 7, 2008 Letter by Alan Isselhard
February 7, 2008
Naples School District
136 N Main St
Naples, NY 14512
Dear Naples School District,
Re: SCIDA – PILOT – Naples S.D.
I am aware that the Steuben County IDA is attempting to cheat the Naples School District out of taxes for 3 wind turbines currently being installed in Steuben County within the Naples school district. Ive learned that the SCIDA group is providing a PILOT for the wind energy developer that will only provide a tax pittance for the Naples school district. This all reeks of collusion and corruption within SCIDA and should be investigated by the NYS Attorney General!
I am complaining because I own property within the Naples school district in the town of S. Bristol and I have to pay my fair share of Naples school district taxes at 100% valuation and I expect any other property owners will be required to do the same on the full value of their property - this includes wind energy developers and the full value of wind turbines and their related infrastructure. The wind turbines should be taxed for school taxes at full assessed value and nothing less.
These questions need answers:
Can it be legal for SCIDA to agree to a PILOT with the wind developer for property inside Steuben County that influences school taxes in an adjacent county outside Steuben County? How can SCIDA dictate what the Naples school district will receive when voters in the school district have nothing to say (vote) about the issues in Steuben County. This is kind of a reverse taxation without representation.
Would it be illegal for the Naples school district to accept anything less than full assessed value for taxing purposes when considering the value of the wind turbines within the Naples school district?
Can the Naples school district assess the wind turbines and infrastructure at full tax value anyway and bring the matter into the courts if the wind developer (or property owner) doesn't pay the full school tax bill based on a normal full value assessment – just like that which would happen in the case of a private home owner?
SCIDA executive director Sherron is quoted as having said:
Sherron said that PILOT negotiations with developers began “three or four years ago” and that the IDA committed to the amounts included in the adopted payment schedule back then. Though taxing authorities could have earned more revenue by taxing turbines at their full assessed value — “whether (the developers) could afford to come in and pay that kind of money was questionable,” Sherron said. “If there was not a PILOT, they would not have come here — they would have gone elsewhere.”
UPC wind had offered earlier to pay a PILOT of $4.4 million each year. In light of that offer, members of the community objected at a hearing earlier this month to the much lower PILOT pay schedule that was eventually adopted. Sherron explained, however, that the $4.4 million was proposed back when UPC thought it would be receiving state aid in the form of Empire Zone benefits. When UPC realized that those benefits would not be available, the developer was no longer able to afford the higher payments, Sherron said.
Can you demand that Sherron prove, in writing, the above statements?
I cannot find anything within the NYS Department of Taxation and Financial Empire Zone program tax benefits that lowers or excuses school district taxes much less the same in an adjoining county where a school district overlaps a county that has a PILOT agreement.
The Naples school district (and Steuben County too) is falling victim to yet another scam by wind developers and SCIDA (payoffs maybe?) who time and again betray trusting rural communities in issues like this.
Per the NYS Comptroller's Office - I the PILOT applies to the area where the project is located -and I believe this can only apply to Steuben County – exactly where the turbines are located.
Please note that the Naples Library may also be affected by the SCIDA PILOT and this should be investigated as well.
I believe the Naples school district should vigorously pursue this matter within the court system against the SCIDA and wind developer as soon as possible. Maybe when Steuben County realizes the wrongs committed by their SCIDA and legal expenses involved - they will correct the situation and the Naples school district will receive what they are justly due.
Once again – my feeling is that the Naples S.D. should accept nothing less than taxes based on 100% assessed value for turbines in Steuben County within the Naples S.D.
Sincerely,
Alan Isselhard
8135 North Huron Rd.
Wolcott, NY 14590
Naples School District
136 N Main St
Naples, NY 14512
Dear Naples School District,
Re: SCIDA – PILOT – Naples S.D.
I am aware that the Steuben County IDA is attempting to cheat the Naples School District out of taxes for 3 wind turbines currently being installed in Steuben County within the Naples school district. Ive learned that the SCIDA group is providing a PILOT for the wind energy developer that will only provide a tax pittance for the Naples school district. This all reeks of collusion and corruption within SCIDA and should be investigated by the NYS Attorney General!
I am complaining because I own property within the Naples school district in the town of S. Bristol and I have to pay my fair share of Naples school district taxes at 100% valuation and I expect any other property owners will be required to do the same on the full value of their property - this includes wind energy developers and the full value of wind turbines and their related infrastructure. The wind turbines should be taxed for school taxes at full assessed value and nothing less.
These questions need answers:
Can it be legal for SCIDA to agree to a PILOT with the wind developer for property inside Steuben County that influences school taxes in an adjacent county outside Steuben County? How can SCIDA dictate what the Naples school district will receive when voters in the school district have nothing to say (vote) about the issues in Steuben County. This is kind of a reverse taxation without representation.
Would it be illegal for the Naples school district to accept anything less than full assessed value for taxing purposes when considering the value of the wind turbines within the Naples school district?
Can the Naples school district assess the wind turbines and infrastructure at full tax value anyway and bring the matter into the courts if the wind developer (or property owner) doesn't pay the full school tax bill based on a normal full value assessment – just like that which would happen in the case of a private home owner?
SCIDA executive director Sherron is quoted as having said:
Sherron said that PILOT negotiations with developers began “three or four years ago” and that the IDA committed to the amounts included in the adopted payment schedule back then. Though taxing authorities could have earned more revenue by taxing turbines at their full assessed value — “whether (the developers) could afford to come in and pay that kind of money was questionable,” Sherron said. “If there was not a PILOT, they would not have come here — they would have gone elsewhere.”
UPC wind had offered earlier to pay a PILOT of $4.4 million each year. In light of that offer, members of the community objected at a hearing earlier this month to the much lower PILOT pay schedule that was eventually adopted. Sherron explained, however, that the $4.4 million was proposed back when UPC thought it would be receiving state aid in the form of Empire Zone benefits. When UPC realized that those benefits would not be available, the developer was no longer able to afford the higher payments, Sherron said.
Can you demand that Sherron prove, in writing, the above statements?
I cannot find anything within the NYS Department of Taxation and Financial Empire Zone program tax benefits that lowers or excuses school district taxes much less the same in an adjoining county where a school district overlaps a county that has a PILOT agreement.
The Naples school district (and Steuben County too) is falling victim to yet another scam by wind developers and SCIDA (payoffs maybe?) who time and again betray trusting rural communities in issues like this.
Per the NYS Comptroller's Office - I the PILOT applies to the area where the project is located -and I believe this can only apply to Steuben County – exactly where the turbines are located.
Please note that the Naples Library may also be affected by the SCIDA PILOT and this should be investigated as well.
I believe the Naples school district should vigorously pursue this matter within the court system against the SCIDA and wind developer as soon as possible. Maybe when Steuben County realizes the wrongs committed by their SCIDA and legal expenses involved - they will correct the situation and the Naples school district will receive what they are justly due.
Once again – my feeling is that the Naples S.D. should accept nothing less than taxes based on 100% assessed value for turbines in Steuben County within the Naples S.D.
Sincerely,
Alan Isselhard
8135 North Huron Rd.
Wolcott, NY 14590
Monday, February 04, 2008
Sound Specialist Offers Expertise on Industrial Wind Installations by Mary Kay Barton
"Understanding Sound Associated with Industrial Wind Developments", was the theme of the presentation by Rick Bolton, Engineer & Sound Specialist, and sponsored by Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood (CHRN), on Wednesday, January 30, at Perry's Masonic Temple. Though Wednesday's inclement weather prohibited attendance by many from outlying areas, citizens and Town Board members from Perry, Gainesville, Leicester, and Orangeville were there. Mr. Bolton's presentation was designed to convey a basic understanding of the complexities of sound, effects on humans, and flaws in current analysis standards being employed by wind developers in the U.S.
Mr. Bolton, has spent the past several years researching, commenting on, and conducting numerous studies on sound associated with industrial turbines. Bolton is considered by his peers and the courts to be an expert in the field. "Some of my reports have been used successfully in litigation, though we would rather avoid that," Mr. Bolton stated.
Mr. Bolton explained that sound associated with wind turbines is an extremely complex issue, and one that needs thorough analysis. "Sounds are waves - just like light and water," he said. These sound waves are measured in deci-Bels (dB, or dBA - A-weighted deci-Bels - most closely imitate the human ear).
"Human audibility is extremely sensitive," he said. "In fact, far more sensitive than anything we can use to record sound electronically. While the human ear can detect to 0 dBA (the night-time noise level in the country after a newly fallen snow), the lowest range even the most expensive noise meters can measure is 14 dBA."
Bolton explained that all aspects of sound - amplitude, frequency, duration, quality, phase, propagation distance, refraction, intensity, modulation (which he hasn't seen addressed in any wind developer provided studies), need to be thoroughly analyzed and figured in.
Elaborating on the factors that can amplify sound, Bolton pointed out:
1.) Sound can propagate for over a mile, and even further over water;
2.) Sound gets worse in water (i.e. - ice, fog);
3.) Low frequencies can double sound by refraction off hard surfaces (hillsides, snow-pack);
4.) 'Wave Coherence', created by a number of turbines together, amplifies sound;
5.) When the wind is blowing, it can refract noise from the elevated source-point downward;
6.) Sounds below 30 Hz, termed 'infrasound', create serious health problems, & turbines are believed to be a strong source of 'infrasound', though still under debate (See studies by Netherland's G.P. van den Berg)
Ice-loading on the front edge of turbine blade tips was also noted as a sound amplifier. The ice disturbs air flow around the blade, creating turbulence, and increasing sound. This is easy to understand for anyone who owns a boat, and has ever experienced the difficulty that occurs when trying to operate with a dinged-up prop whose edges are no longer smooth.
Bolton explained the many ways wind developers methodology is flawed. Field measurements are not done correctly (i.e. - improper microphone placement, no justification for sampling sites, etc.); Accurate samplings need to be done for a full year to account for seasonal variations, but aren't; and computer prediction models wind developers rely on are inadequate because they don't account for the aforementioned modulation noise, atmospheric amplification, ground & hillside refraction, blade icing noise increase, and coherence among turbines.
Facts contained in Perry's DEIS from the sound study done by Horizon for Perry were brought up that highlighted Bolton's point that sound studies being done are totally inadequate: "5 monitoring locations; Survey was carried out over roughly a 3-week period; Unfortunately, 3 primary & 2 backup instruments were destroyed by water infiltration, so octave band data could not be collected for ALL positions for the entire 3-week survey; There were a number of periods of either inclement weather or low wind speeds - conditions that are not generally useful; General conditions of temperature, barometric pressure, & wind for the survey period are shown in plots below as observed at DANSVILLE, NY - some 20 miles southeast of the site."
Illustrating and explaining his points with numerous charts and graphs that were part of his presentation, he also included examples and measurements from homes that had been abandoned by their owners due to the resulting life-altering health effects of living too close to turbines. Not surprisingly, these health problems have been linked to sleep disturbances.
The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend that sound level should not exceed 30 dBA for a good night's sleep. WHO also unanimously agrees that noise levels greater than 42 dBA create sleep disturbances, and that disturbed sleep has serious health effects.
Bolton explained that rural country settings currently enjoy extremely quiet night-time noise levels of 20 - 30 dBA, which he called "a cherished asset". However, wind developers typically propose 50 dBA as acceptable noise levels at property lines of neighboring homes to their industrial wind installations. They do so despite the fact that the DEC recommends no more than a 6 dBA increase over existing night-time ambient noise levels.
"Every 6 dBA is a perceived doubling of sound, or loudness," Bolton said. When you understand this, you can begin to understand the problems that are occurring from siting these facilities far too close to people's homes in rural areas. Bolton's research suggests that 3,000' - 5,000' setbacks from the nearest property line should be the rule of thumb. That's not what developers in a hurry to cash in want to hear, or comply with, though.
Neither citizens, nor the town officials being rushed through zoning, siting, and approval processes by wind developers truly understand the vast difference between 30 and 50 dBA until it is too late, the turbines are already up and running, and those living in the footprint of these industrial wind installations are left dealing with the resulting problems. Bolton stressed the importance of "getting it right" before allowing industrial wind facilities to be built, since mitigation after the fact isn't available. He has yet to see wind developers do any follow-up studies for those now experiencing problems. They simply ignore them.
Bolton also explained that NY Townships are perpetuating flawed methods by accepting, and placing in their ordinances, the 50 dBA sound levels being submitted by wind developers, without demanding justifications - despite the fact that this is contrary to SEQR rules. NYS DEC's Environmental Conservation Rules for SEQR state that the noise pollution potential must be evaluated at each affected "receptor" (neighboring property).
NYS DEC's Program Policy, "Assessing & Mitigating Noise Impacts", states: "When a sound level evaluation indicates that receptors may experience sound levels or characteristics that produce significant noise impacts, or impairment of property use, the Department is to require the permittee or applicant to employ necessary measures to either eliminate, or mitigate, adverse noise effects."
If our townships fail to hold developers accountable to required standards, "we will lose the privilege, and precious asset, of having the peace and quiet of the country," he said.
Mr. Bolton then took questions from the crowd. In response to questions asking what he thought of being "surrounded" by up to 23 turbines within 1.5 miles of their homes, he answered, "I would be VERY concerned if I were you."
When asked if he has conducted any studies in the Perry area, Bolton replied that he had. Those who attended Perry's Public Hearing October 16, 2006, will remember Mr. Bolton adding his comments, and handing in the study he did for Perry to the Board that evening. (Mr. Bolton's comments on the Noise Issue can be found in the Comments to Perry's DEIS under H-1, pages 1-24.)
Mr. Bolton, has spent the past several years researching, commenting on, and conducting numerous studies on sound associated with industrial turbines. Bolton is considered by his peers and the courts to be an expert in the field. "Some of my reports have been used successfully in litigation, though we would rather avoid that," Mr. Bolton stated.
Mr. Bolton explained that sound associated with wind turbines is an extremely complex issue, and one that needs thorough analysis. "Sounds are waves - just like light and water," he said. These sound waves are measured in deci-Bels (dB, or dBA - A-weighted deci-Bels - most closely imitate the human ear).
"Human audibility is extremely sensitive," he said. "In fact, far more sensitive than anything we can use to record sound electronically. While the human ear can detect to 0 dBA (the night-time noise level in the country after a newly fallen snow), the lowest range even the most expensive noise meters can measure is 14 dBA."
Bolton explained that all aspects of sound - amplitude, frequency, duration, quality, phase, propagation distance, refraction, intensity, modulation (which he hasn't seen addressed in any wind developer provided studies), need to be thoroughly analyzed and figured in.
Elaborating on the factors that can amplify sound, Bolton pointed out:
1.) Sound can propagate for over a mile, and even further over water;
2.) Sound gets worse in water (i.e. - ice, fog);
3.) Low frequencies can double sound by refraction off hard surfaces (hillsides, snow-pack);
4.) 'Wave Coherence', created by a number of turbines together, amplifies sound;
5.) When the wind is blowing, it can refract noise from the elevated source-point downward;
6.) Sounds below 30 Hz, termed 'infrasound', create serious health problems, & turbines are believed to be a strong source of 'infrasound', though still under debate (See studies by Netherland's G.P. van den Berg)
Ice-loading on the front edge of turbine blade tips was also noted as a sound amplifier. The ice disturbs air flow around the blade, creating turbulence, and increasing sound. This is easy to understand for anyone who owns a boat, and has ever experienced the difficulty that occurs when trying to operate with a dinged-up prop whose edges are no longer smooth.
Bolton explained the many ways wind developers methodology is flawed. Field measurements are not done correctly (i.e. - improper microphone placement, no justification for sampling sites, etc.); Accurate samplings need to be done for a full year to account for seasonal variations, but aren't; and computer prediction models wind developers rely on are inadequate because they don't account for the aforementioned modulation noise, atmospheric amplification, ground & hillside refraction, blade icing noise increase, and coherence among turbines.
Facts contained in Perry's DEIS from the sound study done by Horizon for Perry were brought up that highlighted Bolton's point that sound studies being done are totally inadequate: "5 monitoring locations; Survey was carried out over roughly a 3-week period; Unfortunately, 3 primary & 2 backup instruments were destroyed by water infiltration, so octave band data could not be collected for ALL positions for the entire 3-week survey; There were a number of periods of either inclement weather or low wind speeds - conditions that are not generally useful; General conditions of temperature, barometric pressure, & wind for the survey period are shown in plots below as observed at DANSVILLE, NY - some 20 miles southeast of the site."
Illustrating and explaining his points with numerous charts and graphs that were part of his presentation, he also included examples and measurements from homes that had been abandoned by their owners due to the resulting life-altering health effects of living too close to turbines. Not surprisingly, these health problems have been linked to sleep disturbances.
The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend that sound level should not exceed 30 dBA for a good night's sleep. WHO also unanimously agrees that noise levels greater than 42 dBA create sleep disturbances, and that disturbed sleep has serious health effects.
Bolton explained that rural country settings currently enjoy extremely quiet night-time noise levels of 20 - 30 dBA, which he called "a cherished asset". However, wind developers typically propose 50 dBA as acceptable noise levels at property lines of neighboring homes to their industrial wind installations. They do so despite the fact that the DEC recommends no more than a 6 dBA increase over existing night-time ambient noise levels.
"Every 6 dBA is a perceived doubling of sound, or loudness," Bolton said. When you understand this, you can begin to understand the problems that are occurring from siting these facilities far too close to people's homes in rural areas. Bolton's research suggests that 3,000' - 5,000' setbacks from the nearest property line should be the rule of thumb. That's not what developers in a hurry to cash in want to hear, or comply with, though.
Neither citizens, nor the town officials being rushed through zoning, siting, and approval processes by wind developers truly understand the vast difference between 30 and 50 dBA until it is too late, the turbines are already up and running, and those living in the footprint of these industrial wind installations are left dealing with the resulting problems. Bolton stressed the importance of "getting it right" before allowing industrial wind facilities to be built, since mitigation after the fact isn't available. He has yet to see wind developers do any follow-up studies for those now experiencing problems. They simply ignore them.
Bolton also explained that NY Townships are perpetuating flawed methods by accepting, and placing in their ordinances, the 50 dBA sound levels being submitted by wind developers, without demanding justifications - despite the fact that this is contrary to SEQR rules. NYS DEC's Environmental Conservation Rules for SEQR state that the noise pollution potential must be evaluated at each affected "receptor" (neighboring property).
NYS DEC's Program Policy, "Assessing & Mitigating Noise Impacts", states: "When a sound level evaluation indicates that receptors may experience sound levels or characteristics that produce significant noise impacts, or impairment of property use, the Department is to require the permittee or applicant to employ necessary measures to either eliminate, or mitigate, adverse noise effects."
If our townships fail to hold developers accountable to required standards, "we will lose the privilege, and precious asset, of having the peace and quiet of the country," he said.
Mr. Bolton then took questions from the crowd. In response to questions asking what he thought of being "surrounded" by up to 23 turbines within 1.5 miles of their homes, he answered, "I would be VERY concerned if I were you."
When asked if he has conducted any studies in the Perry area, Bolton replied that he had. Those who attended Perry's Public Hearing October 16, 2006, will remember Mr. Bolton adding his comments, and handing in the study he did for Perry to the Board that evening. (Mr. Bolton's comments on the Noise Issue can be found in the Comments to Perry's DEIS under H-1, pages 1-24.)
Senate Finance Committee Letter by Robert Pforzheimer
Dear Finance Committee member,
Please DO NOT extend the production tax credit or any other tax breaks for industrial scale wind facilities. These projects are more destructive to the environment than beneficial. They fragment habitat, kill birds and bats, pollute wetlands, lower property values, and destroy the quality of life for rural communities.
Foreign LLC’s are benefitting from these tax breaks while contributing very little dispatchable power to the grid. Experience in Europe has shown that wind factories have not lived up to developers claims of lowering emissions or shutting down any other types of generation. Without your generous tax breaks no one would be building wind turbines. Investment in solar, geothermal, bio fuels, and especially conservation would accomplish far more toward our energy goals than destroying our environment with wind turbines.
Thank you for your consideration,
Robert Pforzheimer
Sutton, VT
Robert Pforzheimer
338 Michaud Dr.
Sutton, VT 05867
802 467 1108
Please DO NOT extend the production tax credit or any other tax breaks for industrial scale wind facilities. These projects are more destructive to the environment than beneficial. They fragment habitat, kill birds and bats, pollute wetlands, lower property values, and destroy the quality of life for rural communities.
Foreign LLC’s are benefitting from these tax breaks while contributing very little dispatchable power to the grid. Experience in Europe has shown that wind factories have not lived up to developers claims of lowering emissions or shutting down any other types of generation. Without your generous tax breaks no one would be building wind turbines. Investment in solar, geothermal, bio fuels, and especially conservation would accomplish far more toward our energy goals than destroying our environment with wind turbines.
Thank you for your consideration,
Robert Pforzheimer
Sutton, VT
Robert Pforzheimer
338 Michaud Dr.
Sutton, VT 05867
802 467 1108
Clipper Windpower Completes Sales Contract With UPC For Delivery of 387 MW of Liberty Wind Turbines Between 2009-2011
Clipper Windpower Plc today announced that it has completed a sales agreement with a subsidiary of UPC Wind for the supply of 387.5 MW (155 units) of Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbines for delivery between years 2009-2011.
Carpinteria, CA (PRWEB) January 29, 2008 -- Clipper Windpower Plc today announced that it has completed a sales agreement with a subsidiary of UPC Wind for the supply of 387.5 MW (155 units) of Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbines for delivery between years 2009-2011.
Under the terms of the agreement, in addition to wind turbine supply, Clipper will provide wind turbine installation supervision, and operations and maintenance services for a period of five years. The wind turbines will be deployed by UPC Wind in projects the company plans to develop within the United States during the 2009-2011 timeframe. The wind turbines will be built at Clipper's 330,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty machine is the largest wind turbine built in the United States.
About UPC Wind
UPC Wind, www.upcwind.com, engages in wind energy development, including financing, construction, operation and ownership of wind power generating facilities in North America where it is currently developing over 3,000 megawatts of wind power projects.
About Clipper Windpower
Clipper Windpower, www.clipperwind.com, is a rapidly growing company engaged in wind energy technology, turbine manufacturing, and wind project development. With offices in the United Kingdom, United States of America (California, Colorado, Iowa, and Maryland), Denmark, and Mexico and a ISO9001:2000 QMS Certified, 330,000 square foot manufacturing and assembly facility located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the company designs advanced wind turbines, manufactures its 2.5-MW Liberty wind turbine and actively develops wind power generating projects in the Americas and Europe. Clipper is a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange's Alternative Investment Market (AIM). Clipper's ticker symbol is CWP.
The ordinary shares of Clipper Windpower Plc are traded on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange and are not registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Such shares may not be offered or sold to residents of the United States or to persons acting on their behalf, or to other persons who are "United States Persons" within the meaning of Regulation S as promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, unless such shares have been registered under the Securities Act or there is an available exemption from registration.
For more information contact:
Mary McCann-Gates - Director, Global Communications
Clipper Windpower, Inc.
6305 Carpinteria Avenue, Suite 300,
Carpinteria, CA 93013
805.690.3275 (main)
805.576.1323 (direct)
805.899.1115 (fax)
661.301.0400 (int'l mobile)
mmccann@clipperwind.com
Carpinteria, CA (PRWEB) January 29, 2008 -- Clipper Windpower Plc today announced that it has completed a sales agreement with a subsidiary of UPC Wind for the supply of 387.5 MW (155 units) of Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbines for delivery between years 2009-2011.
Under the terms of the agreement, in addition to wind turbine supply, Clipper will provide wind turbine installation supervision, and operations and maintenance services for a period of five years. The wind turbines will be deployed by UPC Wind in projects the company plans to develop within the United States during the 2009-2011 timeframe. The wind turbines will be built at Clipper's 330,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty machine is the largest wind turbine built in the United States.
About UPC Wind
UPC Wind, www.upcwind.com, engages in wind energy development, including financing, construction, operation and ownership of wind power generating facilities in North America where it is currently developing over 3,000 megawatts of wind power projects.
About Clipper Windpower
Clipper Windpower, www.clipperwind.com, is a rapidly growing company engaged in wind energy technology, turbine manufacturing, and wind project development. With offices in the United Kingdom, United States of America (California, Colorado, Iowa, and Maryland), Denmark, and Mexico and a ISO9001:2000 QMS Certified, 330,000 square foot manufacturing and assembly facility located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the company designs advanced wind turbines, manufactures its 2.5-MW Liberty wind turbine and actively develops wind power generating projects in the Americas and Europe. Clipper is a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange's Alternative Investment Market (AIM). Clipper's ticker symbol is CWP.
The ordinary shares of Clipper Windpower Plc are traded on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange and are not registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Such shares may not be offered or sold to residents of the United States or to persons acting on their behalf, or to other persons who are "United States Persons" within the meaning of Regulation S as promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, unless such shares have been registered under the Securities Act or there is an available exemption from registration.
For more information contact:
Mary McCann-Gates - Director, Global Communications
Clipper Windpower, Inc.
6305 Carpinteria Avenue, Suite 300,
Carpinteria, CA 93013
805.690.3275 (main)
805.576.1323 (direct)
805.899.1115 (fax)
661.301.0400 (int'l mobile)
mmccann@clipperwind.com
UPC Wind Obtains Tax Equity Financing for its 2008 New York Portfolio
BOSTON, Feb 04, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- LEH | news | PowerRating | PR Charts -- UPC Wind, an independent developer of wind power in the United States, today announced that it has secured tax equity financing from Lehman Brothers Holdings. Inc., for its 199 megawatt (MW) wind power project portfolio being constructed in upstate New York. This financing includes 58 Clipper 2.5 MW "Liberty" series wind turbine generators. The portfolio's three projects will deliver 199 MW of clean renewable energy to the Northeast.
"We're pleased to close the first-ever tax equity financing of Clipper turbines," said Tim Rosenzweig, UPC Wind's Chief Financial Officer. "This financing follows the successful turbine supply and construction loans for Clipper equipment we did with HSH Nordbank and Nord LB last year."
UPC Wind has installed eight of the 2.5 MW Clipper "Liberty" turbines at its 20 MW Steel Winds project in Lackawanna, N.Y. These were the first eight Clipper turbines produced at Clipper's Cedar Rapids facility. UPC Wind is currently installing another 50 such turbines at its 125 MW Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind farm projects in Cohocton, N.Y.
Also included in the portfolio financing is a 54 MW project under soon to be under construction in Prattsburgh, N.Y., that will utilize General Electric 1.5 MW SLE turbines.
In addition to increasing domestic energy production and increasing energy security, wind power is considered cost competitive with conventional sources of electricity, such as oil or gas. Unlike traditional sources of energy, wind has no fuel cost, therefore serving as a natural hedge against volatile fuel prices, which constitutes a significant portion of monthly electricity bills in most markets in the United States. Wind power also emits no greenhouse gases
UPC Wind is a leading independent wind power developer backed by affiliates of Madison Dearborn Partners and D.E. Shaw.
"We're pleased to close the first-ever tax equity financing of Clipper turbines," said Tim Rosenzweig, UPC Wind's Chief Financial Officer. "This financing follows the successful turbine supply and construction loans for Clipper equipment we did with HSH Nordbank and Nord LB last year."
UPC Wind has installed eight of the 2.5 MW Clipper "Liberty" turbines at its 20 MW Steel Winds project in Lackawanna, N.Y. These were the first eight Clipper turbines produced at Clipper's Cedar Rapids facility. UPC Wind is currently installing another 50 such turbines at its 125 MW Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind farm projects in Cohocton, N.Y.
Also included in the portfolio financing is a 54 MW project under soon to be under construction in Prattsburgh, N.Y., that will utilize General Electric 1.5 MW SLE turbines.
In addition to increasing domestic energy production and increasing energy security, wind power is considered cost competitive with conventional sources of electricity, such as oil or gas. Unlike traditional sources of energy, wind has no fuel cost, therefore serving as a natural hedge against volatile fuel prices, which constitutes a significant portion of monthly electricity bills in most markets in the United States. Wind power also emits no greenhouse gases
UPC Wind is a leading independent wind power developer backed by affiliates of Madison Dearborn Partners and D.E. Shaw.
Senator Baucus Finance Committee Chair Februrary 3, 2008 by Andy J. McEvoy
February 3, 2008
Chairman Max Baucus
Ph. 202-224-2651
Fax 202-224-0515
Dear Senator Baucus,
PLEASE Do Not allow the Industrial Wind “Production Tax Credit” to be included in the “Stimulus Bill” which is being considered.
I am not anti wind, but I Do Not believe that the Production Tax Credit is in the best interests of the hard working American taxpayers. It appears that the Wind Industry has turned into an investment strategy for investors rather than a way to generate electricity. The consumers end up paying higher electric rates as well as watching their hard earned tax dollars go out of the country to the many overseas companies who now “own” the Wind Industry.
You have an obligation to protect the taxpayers. Please continue to do so.
If the Wind Industry is an economically viable entity, than it will survive for a year without the PTC. Please do not support the Production Tax Credit.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. McEvoy
P.O. Box 1011
Little Falls, N.Y. 13365
Ph. 315-823-4773
Chairman Max Baucus
Ph. 202-224-2651
Fax 202-224-0515
Dear Senator Baucus,
PLEASE Do Not allow the Industrial Wind “Production Tax Credit” to be included in the “Stimulus Bill” which is being considered.
I am not anti wind, but I Do Not believe that the Production Tax Credit is in the best interests of the hard working American taxpayers. It appears that the Wind Industry has turned into an investment strategy for investors rather than a way to generate electricity. The consumers end up paying higher electric rates as well as watching their hard earned tax dollars go out of the country to the many overseas companies who now “own” the Wind Industry.
You have an obligation to protect the taxpayers. Please continue to do so.
If the Wind Industry is an economically viable entity, than it will survive for a year without the PTC. Please do not support the Production Tax Credit.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. McEvoy
P.O. Box 1011
Little Falls, N.Y. 13365
Ph. 315-823-4773
Sunday, February 03, 2008
US Senator February 3, 2008 Letter from CWW by James Hall
February 3, 2008
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
RE: Stimulus Bill provisions on energy tax breaks
Dear Senator:
CWW strongly objects to the inclusion of industrial wind tax extensions in the Stimulus Bill which is being considered. While supporting many forms of alternative energy such as biomass, hydro, landfill gas, and solar; Cohocton Wind Watch urges the Senate to strip out any preferential incentives for ill-conceived and improperly sited wind projects.
Industrial wind projects provide intermittent power, at best; which requires conventional power stations to operate and remain in service. Most of the electricity from wind turbines is produced at night in cold months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity demand reaches peak levels.
The inconsistent wind patterns in most of the Mid-Atlantic region means that wind projects can only provide negligible useful electricity. Yet, large scale use of wind turbines requires upgrading of the electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of this inefficient technology.
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) cannot be justified for an uneconomical wind industry. REC prices should be adjusted based on a project's actual supply of electricity not energy capacity (i.e. time of day, time of year, and location adjustments).
In New England energy on the grid is already priced based on its ability to supply capacity near load. In other words, a plant that produces electricity at 2pm in August gets paid more for its energy than the guy supplying at 2am in January. Why doesn’t federal legislation demand that the wind industry conform to the same standard?
The presence of ex-Enron executives, foreign ownership and questionable business practices has lead to the filing of an Anti-trust complaint, DA criminal probe and an AG investigation into the wind industry in New York State. The pattern of a culture of corruption is at the core of the numerous bribe allegations and political payoffs. This has lead to scores of legal actions in every state where the wind industry has encroached upon residential areas. Inadequate turbine siting places public health and safety at serious risk.
CWW urges you to accept the House version of the Stimulus Bill. The Daily Herald cites the burden if wind credits are added to the bill: “if they were to continue over 10 years the cost to the government would be $5.75 billion, according to the Finance Committee.”
Cohocton Wind Watch has hundreds of member supporters and well over 100,000 viewers of our web site: http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
Regards,
James Hall for CWW
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
RE: Stimulus Bill provisions on energy tax breaks
Dear Senator:
CWW strongly objects to the inclusion of industrial wind tax extensions in the Stimulus Bill which is being considered. While supporting many forms of alternative energy such as biomass, hydro, landfill gas, and solar; Cohocton Wind Watch urges the Senate to strip out any preferential incentives for ill-conceived and improperly sited wind projects.
Industrial wind projects provide intermittent power, at best; which requires conventional power stations to operate and remain in service. Most of the electricity from wind turbines is produced at night in cold months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity demand reaches peak levels.
The inconsistent wind patterns in most of the Mid-Atlantic region means that wind projects can only provide negligible useful electricity. Yet, large scale use of wind turbines requires upgrading of the electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of this inefficient technology.
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) cannot be justified for an uneconomical wind industry. REC prices should be adjusted based on a project's actual supply of electricity not energy capacity (i.e. time of day, time of year, and location adjustments).
In New England energy on the grid is already priced based on its ability to supply capacity near load. In other words, a plant that produces electricity at 2pm in August gets paid more for its energy than the guy supplying at 2am in January. Why doesn’t federal legislation demand that the wind industry conform to the same standard?
The presence of ex-Enron executives, foreign ownership and questionable business practices has lead to the filing of an Anti-trust complaint, DA criminal probe and an AG investigation into the wind industry in New York State. The pattern of a culture of corruption is at the core of the numerous bribe allegations and political payoffs. This has lead to scores of legal actions in every state where the wind industry has encroached upon residential areas. Inadequate turbine siting places public health and safety at serious risk.
CWW urges you to accept the House version of the Stimulus Bill. The Daily Herald cites the burden if wind credits are added to the bill: “if they were to continue over 10 years the cost to the government would be $5.75 billion, according to the Finance Committee.”
Cohocton Wind Watch has hundreds of member supporters and well over 100,000 viewers of our web site: http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
Regards,
James Hall for CWW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)