Democrats who lead the U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday unveiled a new bill to extend tax breaks for investments in solar hot water heaters, wind-power projects and buildings that are designed to be energy efficient.
While the chamber had originally considered passing the bill this week, lawmakers are readjusting their schedules following the death of Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., and now may not take the measure up until the last week in February, after a brief recess.
The House is seeking to pass a wide-ranging, $17.5 billion renewable energy and building-efficiency bill even though Republicans have repeatedly blocked their efforts in the Senate. In renewing their push, Democrats are relying on the same financing plan that produced Senate opposition last year, repealing tax breaks granted to oil and gas companies.
"The American taxpayer should not be subsidizing oil and gas companies during times of record profits and record prices at the pump," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., in a statement. "We need an energy plan that reduces our dependency on foreign oil and invests in clean, renewable technology that will create jobs here in America."
New York is a big winner in the bill, while the oil companies that reside in Texas would lose out. Under the bill, Congress would provide tax credits for transportation projects connecting with the New York Liberty Zone, the area of Lower Manhattan that was damaged in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Oil companies would lose some $13.6 billion in tax breaks granted in 2004 for domestically produced goods. Exxon Mobil (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), ConocoPhillips (COP), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA), and BP Plc (BP) would lose the tax breaks entirely. The deduction would be frozen at 6% for smaller oil and gas companies. That deduction had been scheduled to jump to 9% in 2010, as part of a 2004 law that gradually phased in the manufacturing tax break.
Oil companies would also lose another $4.1 billion under provisions that provide less favorable tax treatment for certain kinds of foreign income.
Republicans are almost certain to cry foul, reflecting their view that the U.S. should focus on increasing domestic oil production, such as through drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats have tended to focus on making the economy more energy efficient and encouraging investment in renewable energy.
Under the bill, Congress would extend for three years, until Dec. 31, 2011, tax credits for investments in wind-power developments, geothermal and trash combustion facilities, and other projects that generate power from so-called renewable energy. For projects that get up and running starting in 2010, the total amount of tax credits that can be earned would be limited to 35% of a facility's costs. The measure is estimated to result in tax breaks of $6.57 billion over 10 years.
Congress would also extend for eight years, through the end of 2016, tax credits for commercial investments in solar-energy equipment. Companies are currently able to receive a credit of 30% of the cost of solar-energy projects, with no limit, but those credits will expire at year's end unless Congress acts.
Congress would extend until the end of 2014 the tax credit for homeowners who buy solar panels or solar hot water heaters. The tax credit would also be more generous, doubling to $4,000 from $2,000.
Democrats are counting on making their case by pointing out that oil companies are earning record profits as oil prices hover close to new highs. Exxon earlier this month reported the biggest annual profit from recurring business ever posted in U.S. corporate history, while Chevron, the No. 2 U.S. oil company, also had a record year.
The bill, called the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, is H.R. 5351.
Web link: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20080212-71785...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
PSC Calendar of Hearings on Iberdrola acquistion of Energy East
CALENDAR_021108.pdf
CALENDAR
OF HEARINGS
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350
The Calendar of Hearings is published weekly by the New York State Department of Public Service. In the event that there are no regularly scheduled hearings, no calendar will appear for that week.
The Department uses multiple contractors to provide transcripts of hearings and conferences. Parties interested in receiving copies of transcripts should generally make arrangements directly with the specific reporter covering the hearing or conference of interest. (Special procedures exist for municipalities in Article X cases.)
PLEASE NOTE: If you are not an active party and you plan to attend a hearing at 90 Church Street, please notify Jan Goorsky (at 212-417-2378) in advance of the hearing. When you arrive for the hearing, please be prepared to show a valid and current photo identification to be admitted into the building.
February 11, 2008
DATE
& TIME
CASE
NUMBER(S)
PROCEEDING/COMPANY
& LOCATION___________
JUDGE
TYPE OF HEARING_____
Feb. 19
1:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Putnam County Training and Operations Building
112 Old Route 4
Carmel, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 19
7:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Binghamton State Office Building
Community Room
44 Hawley Street
Binghamton, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 20
1:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A
Ithaca Town Hall
Shirley Raffensperger Meeting Room
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
DATE
& TIME
CASE
NUMBER(S)
PROCEEDING/COMPANY
& LOCATION___________
JUDGE
TYPE OF HEARING_____
2
Feb. 20
7:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Lancaster Town Hall
Board Room
21 Central Avenue
Lancaster, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 21
1:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Rochester Public Library
Rundell Auditorium
115 South Avenue
Rochester, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 22
1:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Plattsburgh City Hall
Chambers
41 City Hall Place
Plattsburgh, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 25
10:00 a.m. (Continuing Daily as Necessary)
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
3 Empire State Plaza
3rd Floor Hearing Room
Albany, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Evidentiary Hearing
(Acquisition)
CALENDAR
OF HEARINGS
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350
The Calendar of Hearings is published weekly by the New York State Department of Public Service. In the event that there are no regularly scheduled hearings, no calendar will appear for that week.
The Department uses multiple contractors to provide transcripts of hearings and conferences. Parties interested in receiving copies of transcripts should generally make arrangements directly with the specific reporter covering the hearing or conference of interest. (Special procedures exist for municipalities in Article X cases.)
PLEASE NOTE: If you are not an active party and you plan to attend a hearing at 90 Church Street, please notify Jan Goorsky (at 212-417-2378) in advance of the hearing. When you arrive for the hearing, please be prepared to show a valid and current photo identification to be admitted into the building.
February 11, 2008
DATE
& TIME
CASE
NUMBER(S)
PROCEEDING/COMPANY
& LOCATION___________
JUDGE
TYPE OF HEARING_____
Feb. 19
1:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Putnam County Training and Operations Building
112 Old Route 4
Carmel, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 19
7:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Binghamton State Office Building
Community Room
44 Hawley Street
Binghamton, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 20
1:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A
Ithaca Town Hall
Shirley Raffensperger Meeting Room
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
DATE
& TIME
CASE
NUMBER(S)
PROCEEDING/COMPANY
& LOCATION___________
JUDGE
TYPE OF HEARING_____
2
Feb. 20
7:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Lancaster Town Hall
Board Room
21 Central Avenue
Lancaster, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 21
1:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Rochester Public Library
Rundell Auditorium
115 South Avenue
Rochester, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 22
1:00 p.m.
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
Plattsburgh City Hall
Chambers
41 City Hall Place
Plattsburgh, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
(Acquisition)
Feb. 25
10:00 a.m. (Continuing Daily as Necessary)
07-M-0906
IBERDROLA, S.A.
3 Empire State Plaza
3rd Floor Hearing Room
Albany, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Evidentiary Hearing
(Acquisition)
Monday, February 11, 2008
Takeover of RG&E's parent may be in doubt
(February 11, 2008) — The $4.5 billion purchase of Energy East Corp., parent of Rochester Gas and Electric, by a Spanish utility may be delayed or even scuttled because the overseas utility itself is an apparent takeover target.
The state Public Service Commission staff has asked for a postponement of hearings on Iberdrola SA's proposed purchase of Energy East because of reports linking European utilities with a potential hostile bid for Iberdrola.
Iberdrola responded to the PSC staff by saying that delaying the proceedings is “unnecessary and should be rejected because there has been no offer or bid made, or agreement reached, to acquire the stock of, or obtain a controlling interest in Iberdrola.”
Approval by New York state is the last regulatory hurdle for Iberdrola’s planned purchase of Energy East, which is the parent of New York State Electric and Gas as well as RG&E.
Hearings on the deal are to begin this month unless the PSC goes along with the staff request for a delay.
Electricite de France SA last week said it held talks with Iberdrola’s largest shareholder about investing in the Spanish utility. E.ON AG of Germany is also considering a takeover bid, according to newspaper reports in Europe.
The state Public Service Commission staff has asked for a postponement of hearings on Iberdrola SA's proposed purchase of Energy East because of reports linking European utilities with a potential hostile bid for Iberdrola.
Iberdrola responded to the PSC staff by saying that delaying the proceedings is “unnecessary and should be rejected because there has been no offer or bid made, or agreement reached, to acquire the stock of, or obtain a controlling interest in Iberdrola.”
Approval by New York state is the last regulatory hurdle for Iberdrola’s planned purchase of Energy East, which is the parent of New York State Electric and Gas as well as RG&E.
Hearings on the deal are to begin this month unless the PSC goes along with the staff request for a delay.
Electricite de France SA last week said it held talks with Iberdrola’s largest shareholder about investing in the Spanish utility. E.ON AG of Germany is also considering a takeover bid, according to newspaper reports in Europe.
E.ON is considering making a counterbid for Iberdrola, the Spanish owner of ScottishPower.
“They are looking at it very carefully,” said one source, who added that E.ON board members including chief executive Wulf Bernotat continue to view Spain as a key strategic priority after it was thwarted in an earlier effort to buy Endesa, another Spanish group.
E.ON could consider buying a stake in Iberdrola on its own or might seek the help of a joint bidder, probably a Spanish company such as ACS, to smooth the way for a deal, allowing it to buy certain assets but not others. Such a strategy might also allow the group to avoid political opposition within Spain as well as from competition authorities.
Spain is a rapidly growing energy market, while Iberdrola is one of the world's leading experts in renewable power, especially wind and solar energy, which is considered a huge growth opportunity following the EU's announcement that 20 per cent of Europe's energy must come from renewable sources by 2020.
Power suppliers are seeking to forge pan-European networks as the European Union acts to force member states to deregulate their energy markets more fully.
The companies also believe they have to be large to deal with huge wholesale energy groups such as Russia's Gazprom.
E.ON's attempt to buy Endesa dragged on for two years but the group was finally defeated last year.
A spokesman for E.ON in the UK referred calls to Germany where a spokesman could not be reached for comment.
E.ON could consider buying a stake in Iberdrola on its own or might seek the help of a joint bidder, probably a Spanish company such as ACS, to smooth the way for a deal, allowing it to buy certain assets but not others. Such a strategy might also allow the group to avoid political opposition within Spain as well as from competition authorities.
Spain is a rapidly growing energy market, while Iberdrola is one of the world's leading experts in renewable power, especially wind and solar energy, which is considered a huge growth opportunity following the EU's announcement that 20 per cent of Europe's energy must come from renewable sources by 2020.
Power suppliers are seeking to forge pan-European networks as the European Union acts to force member states to deregulate their energy markets more fully.
The companies also believe they have to be large to deal with huge wholesale energy groups such as Russia's Gazprom.
E.ON's attempt to buy Endesa dragged on for two years but the group was finally defeated last year.
A spokesman for E.ON in the UK referred calls to Germany where a spokesman could not be reached for comment.
-721674.jpg)
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Group seeks to strengthen Freedom of Information law by Joseph Spector
February 10, 2008 — ALBANY — With a surge in visits to its Web site, the state Committee on Open Government is urging the state Legislature to strengthen laws aimed at increasing access to public records and government.
The Committee on Open Government, a state agency charged with overseeing the state's Freedom of Information laws, or FOIL, said it has seen growth in the number of people utilizing its Web site over the past year.
In its annual report to the state Legislature, the committee said the number of hits to its Web site — www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/coogwww.html — grew by nearly 40 percent between 2006 and 2007, for a total of nearly 2.5 million visitors.
The committee is using the growth to lobby the Legislature to strengthen laws on the public's access to government records.
"It seems that there has been an explosion in the public's interest in open-government laws," said Bob Freeman, the committee's executive director, who has been with the agency since 1974.
People and the press typically file FOIL requests for correspondence by officials, government documents, meeting minutes and how taxes are spent.
Here are some recommendations from the Committee on Open Government's report:
Authorize courts to invalidate actions by boards when the actions occurred in violation of Open Meetings Law.
Require award of attorney's fees when it is proven in court that votes happened illegally.
Require that notices of meetings of an agency be posted online.
Assembly Governmental Operations Committee Chairman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome, Oneida County, said she expects to hear the agency's recommendations at a hearing next week.
JSPECTOR@Gannett.com
The Committee on Open Government, a state agency charged with overseeing the state's Freedom of Information laws, or FOIL, said it has seen growth in the number of people utilizing its Web site over the past year.
In its annual report to the state Legislature, the committee said the number of hits to its Web site — www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/coogwww.html — grew by nearly 40 percent between 2006 and 2007, for a total of nearly 2.5 million visitors.
The committee is using the growth to lobby the Legislature to strengthen laws on the public's access to government records.
"It seems that there has been an explosion in the public's interest in open-government laws," said Bob Freeman, the committee's executive director, who has been with the agency since 1974.
People and the press typically file FOIL requests for correspondence by officials, government documents, meeting minutes and how taxes are spent.
Here are some recommendations from the Committee on Open Government's report:
Authorize courts to invalidate actions by boards when the actions occurred in violation of Open Meetings Law.
Require award of attorney's fees when it is proven in court that votes happened illegally.
Require that notices of meetings of an agency be posted online.
Assembly Governmental Operations Committee Chairman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome, Oneida County, said she expects to hear the agency's recommendations at a hearing next week.
JSPECTOR@Gannett.com
Assembly names Cahill energy chairman by Jason Subik
CAPITOL — Newly appointed New York Assembly Energy Committee Chairman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, said Friday that he supports “fuel neutrality” for a possible reauthorization of New York’s expired Article 10 fast-track power plant siting law.
“I have no problems with fuel neutrality. However fuel neutrality … means that, whatever the fuel, it would have to meet the strictest of environmental standards, so fuel neutrality may actually impose greater environmental restrictions than having different standards for different fuels,” Cahill said. “There’s no reason to be concerned, particularly, about the fuel source for hydroelectric power plants. On the other hand there is great reason to be concerned for a coal-based fuel.”
Cahill was appointed to chair the Assembly’s standing committee on energy Wednesday by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, nearly eight months after then-assemblyman and energy committee chairman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam, was appointed president and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
Cahill never served on the energy committee prior to his appointment but said he was a part of the Article 10 conference committee between the Assembly and the state Senate at the end of the last legislative session. He said although that conference did not produce a bill, progress has been made on the issue.
“There was the position that was taken on one side of the argument that was … sort of a site-at-any-cost position and on the other side the extreme position was there is almost no reason to site a power plant because they are all environmentally insensitive, and we whittled away at those two extremes and got very close to the middle,” Cahill said.
That middle solution could meet Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s stated goal of bringing back Article 10 to increase New York’s energy supply, but only doing so in a way that addresses carbon dioxide emissions linked by some scientists to global climate change.
Cahill said the two sources of increased energy supply he wants to promote the most are renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and conservation.
“The tax code can be used to benefit individuals that take measures to conserve energy,” Cahill said.
Gavin Donohue, president and CEO of the Independent Power Producers of NY, said New York already has conservation programs in place which raise electricity costs for consumers.
“We’re already doing a ton of stuff on energy conservation programs and the rate payers are paying for it, so we don’t want to do something that exacerbates the rates people are paying,” he said.
New York state has the third-highest average retail price for electricity of any state in the union, 72 percent higher than the national average, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The average retail price of electricity in New York state is 15.27 cents per kilowatt hour. The national average price is 8.90 cents per kwh. Only Hawaii, 20.72 cents, and Massachusetts, 15.45 cents, pay more on average per kwh.
Donohue said his organization represents some wind power farms but wind and solar are expensive and not currently capable of producing enough electricity to meet New York state’s demand.
New York state received only 1.8 percent of its electricity generation in 2006 from renewable energy sources.
Cahill said he does not favor “so-called clean coal” power plants.
“The strongest advocates [for cleaner coal] are giving it a second look. In the context of a fuel neutrality approach any fuel could be considered, some fuels may be determined to be too noxious to meet our standards,” he said. “I don’t know that there is good science upon the complete cycle of any coal fuel that would be consistent with the goal of cleaning our environment.”
General Electric, as part of its ecomagination initiative to produce technology that curtails CO2 emissions, has developed the GE Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. According to the company’s Web site, the system reduces pollutants by as much as 50 percent compared with a conventional coal power plant, including 95 percent of mercury emissions.
Donohue said he looks forward to working with Cahill whom he called a personal friend. He said a fast-track power plant siting law with fuel neutrality could be very encouraging to power plant companies. However, he also expressed concern for Cahill’s apparent problems with cleaner coal power plants.
“The reality of the situation is clean coal is a new technology and if you want a fuel neutral bill, like he said, then that should be part of it because if you meet the emission [standards] you should get your permit,” Donohue said.
“I have no problems with fuel neutrality. However fuel neutrality … means that, whatever the fuel, it would have to meet the strictest of environmental standards, so fuel neutrality may actually impose greater environmental restrictions than having different standards for different fuels,” Cahill said. “There’s no reason to be concerned, particularly, about the fuel source for hydroelectric power plants. On the other hand there is great reason to be concerned for a coal-based fuel.”
Cahill was appointed to chair the Assembly’s standing committee on energy Wednesday by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, nearly eight months after then-assemblyman and energy committee chairman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam, was appointed president and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
Cahill never served on the energy committee prior to his appointment but said he was a part of the Article 10 conference committee between the Assembly and the state Senate at the end of the last legislative session. He said although that conference did not produce a bill, progress has been made on the issue.
“There was the position that was taken on one side of the argument that was … sort of a site-at-any-cost position and on the other side the extreme position was there is almost no reason to site a power plant because they are all environmentally insensitive, and we whittled away at those two extremes and got very close to the middle,” Cahill said.
That middle solution could meet Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s stated goal of bringing back Article 10 to increase New York’s energy supply, but only doing so in a way that addresses carbon dioxide emissions linked by some scientists to global climate change.
Cahill said the two sources of increased energy supply he wants to promote the most are renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and conservation.
“The tax code can be used to benefit individuals that take measures to conserve energy,” Cahill said.
Gavin Donohue, president and CEO of the Independent Power Producers of NY, said New York already has conservation programs in place which raise electricity costs for consumers.
“We’re already doing a ton of stuff on energy conservation programs and the rate payers are paying for it, so we don’t want to do something that exacerbates the rates people are paying,” he said.
New York state has the third-highest average retail price for electricity of any state in the union, 72 percent higher than the national average, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The average retail price of electricity in New York state is 15.27 cents per kilowatt hour. The national average price is 8.90 cents per kwh. Only Hawaii, 20.72 cents, and Massachusetts, 15.45 cents, pay more on average per kwh.
Donohue said his organization represents some wind power farms but wind and solar are expensive and not currently capable of producing enough electricity to meet New York state’s demand.
New York state received only 1.8 percent of its electricity generation in 2006 from renewable energy sources.
Cahill said he does not favor “so-called clean coal” power plants.
“The strongest advocates [for cleaner coal] are giving it a second look. In the context of a fuel neutrality approach any fuel could be considered, some fuels may be determined to be too noxious to meet our standards,” he said. “I don’t know that there is good science upon the complete cycle of any coal fuel that would be consistent with the goal of cleaning our environment.”
General Electric, as part of its ecomagination initiative to produce technology that curtails CO2 emissions, has developed the GE Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. According to the company’s Web site, the system reduces pollutants by as much as 50 percent compared with a conventional coal power plant, including 95 percent of mercury emissions.
Donohue said he looks forward to working with Cahill whom he called a personal friend. He said a fast-track power plant siting law with fuel neutrality could be very encouraging to power plant companies. However, he also expressed concern for Cahill’s apparent problems with cleaner coal power plants.
“The reality of the situation is clean coal is a new technology and if you want a fuel neutral bill, like he said, then that should be part of it because if you meet the emission [standards] you should get your permit,” Donohue said.
A Wind Storm: Pros and cons on Jordanville project by Martha H. Frey
New York state communities are being torn apart by wind power projects, both proposed and constructed. The rift left behind could last for generations to come and extends well beyond municipal boundaries. It’s clear that we have to approach wind power in a very different way if we don’t want to divide communities statewide.
Like the Hippocratic oath, “first, do no harm,” we should approach wind power development with the careful consideration that we would any large-scale industrial development.
First, let’s step away from the mudslinging, the rhetoric that is both pro and con wind power, and look at the facts:
* Large, industrial-scale wind power developments are Type I Actions under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
* Type I Actions are the kinds
of projects that are likely to have significant environmental impacts.
* These impacts can be far-reaching — affecting communities beyond the project area and a project’s host community. For wind power, they can include adverse impacts to agricultural lands, forests, birds and bats, water resources, transportation systems, cultural and historic resources, noise, sensitive scenic resources, local economies and real estate values.
* All significant impacts must be thoroughly examined and mitigated in an Environmental Impact Statement.
Now let’s look at the current situation of the Jordanville Wind Power Project (Jordanville Wind, LLC) proposed to be sited in the Towns of Warren and Stark by its parent and associate corporation Community Energy, Inc. and Iberdrola Renewable Energies USA, Ltd. A small number of citizens in the towns of Warren and Stark spoke up during the review process and raised serious questions about the environmental impacts of the project. The town boards pressed ahead and approved the project.
The citizens, with the help of Otsego 2000, Advocates for Stark and Advocates for Springfield initiated an Article 78 lawsuit. An Article 78 lawsuit seeks to challenge a local municipal decision made in error or illegally. This past December, the petitioners won, proving that the town of Warren, as the lead agency for the project, had failed to adequately explore environmental impacts or mitigate them, and that both town boards had violated the Open Meetings Law. Lawsuits are a last resort to enforce the law; no one took the lawsuit lightly.
Most disturbing about the Jordanville project is that people who supported the proposed development because of its environmental benefits seem to have turned their backs on the environment at the same time.
While proponents recognized wind power pluses, they ignored its impacts on historic resources, bats and birds, and water resources, and its noise. So it’s OK to violate SEQRA in the name of wind power? If we start going down that slippery slope, we may just undermine some of the most important legislation we have to protect the public interest. This doesn’t mean that wind power cannot be developed in New York state, but we must do a better job to address all impacts and let the process be as open as possible. If this means altering projects so they are a better fit—by moving turbine locations or reducing the overall size of a project—then so be it.
Statewide siting guidelines would help establish where wind power projects should go so they are the best fit for Upstate New York. These guidelines could become part of the new Article X legislation, a statewide law currently being redrafted for all energy projects. Siting guidelines would help protect a wide range of community and regional resources that are typically affected by wind power projects. It would also guarantee that those relying on Home Rule and ignoring the effects of projects outside the local town boundaries would have to look beyond their own municipal boundaries to their neighbors. It might also mean there would be less potential for the conflicts of interest that seem to plague these projects, a not uncommon situation in many small communities.
Article X could be structured to allow municipalities to adopt their own local wind power legislation that is more protective of resources, so siting guidelines could be used as a sound starting point.
If we simply go for the low-hanging fruit and think wind power will save our communities and bring newfound wealth, we’re missing the mark in Upstate New York. Sure a few property owners will have extra income, and host communities may broker a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement, but then what? Are we selling out too soon for too little?
The lure of easy money for economically depressed communities isn’t enough.
On the heels of Gov. Spitzer’s State of Upstate address, we must all realize that the revitalization of upstate New York will take much more than a one-note wind power strategy. More likely, leaders statewide will have to look to a multi-dimensional approach to solve Upstate’s economic quagmire.
In fact, the kinds of huge wind power projects that are being proposed throughout Upstate New York will harm some economic development opportunities. Tourism in rural New York—a multi-million dollar economic engine— is dependent to a large extent on its scenic value and its outstanding cultural sites and area attractions. Those who don’t see tourism as part of an
Upstate economic strategy are just as wrong as those who see it as the only strategy.
A balance must be met to ensure that Upstate has a range of economic development strategies that fit our needs. Now is the time to extend the olive branch and work together toward a solution we can all live with.
Like the Hippocratic oath, “first, do no harm,” we should approach wind power development with the careful consideration that we would any large-scale industrial development.
First, let’s step away from the mudslinging, the rhetoric that is both pro and con wind power, and look at the facts:
* Large, industrial-scale wind power developments are Type I Actions under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
* Type I Actions are the kinds
of projects that are likely to have significant environmental impacts.
* These impacts can be far-reaching — affecting communities beyond the project area and a project’s host community. For wind power, they can include adverse impacts to agricultural lands, forests, birds and bats, water resources, transportation systems, cultural and historic resources, noise, sensitive scenic resources, local economies and real estate values.
* All significant impacts must be thoroughly examined and mitigated in an Environmental Impact Statement.
Now let’s look at the current situation of the Jordanville Wind Power Project (Jordanville Wind, LLC) proposed to be sited in the Towns of Warren and Stark by its parent and associate corporation Community Energy, Inc. and Iberdrola Renewable Energies USA, Ltd. A small number of citizens in the towns of Warren and Stark spoke up during the review process and raised serious questions about the environmental impacts of the project. The town boards pressed ahead and approved the project.
The citizens, with the help of Otsego 2000, Advocates for Stark and Advocates for Springfield initiated an Article 78 lawsuit. An Article 78 lawsuit seeks to challenge a local municipal decision made in error or illegally. This past December, the petitioners won, proving that the town of Warren, as the lead agency for the project, had failed to adequately explore environmental impacts or mitigate them, and that both town boards had violated the Open Meetings Law. Lawsuits are a last resort to enforce the law; no one took the lawsuit lightly.
Most disturbing about the Jordanville project is that people who supported the proposed development because of its environmental benefits seem to have turned their backs on the environment at the same time.
While proponents recognized wind power pluses, they ignored its impacts on historic resources, bats and birds, and water resources, and its noise. So it’s OK to violate SEQRA in the name of wind power? If we start going down that slippery slope, we may just undermine some of the most important legislation we have to protect the public interest. This doesn’t mean that wind power cannot be developed in New York state, but we must do a better job to address all impacts and let the process be as open as possible. If this means altering projects so they are a better fit—by moving turbine locations or reducing the overall size of a project—then so be it.
Statewide siting guidelines would help establish where wind power projects should go so they are the best fit for Upstate New York. These guidelines could become part of the new Article X legislation, a statewide law currently being redrafted for all energy projects. Siting guidelines would help protect a wide range of community and regional resources that are typically affected by wind power projects. It would also guarantee that those relying on Home Rule and ignoring the effects of projects outside the local town boundaries would have to look beyond their own municipal boundaries to their neighbors. It might also mean there would be less potential for the conflicts of interest that seem to plague these projects, a not uncommon situation in many small communities.
Article X could be structured to allow municipalities to adopt their own local wind power legislation that is more protective of resources, so siting guidelines could be used as a sound starting point.
If we simply go for the low-hanging fruit and think wind power will save our communities and bring newfound wealth, we’re missing the mark in Upstate New York. Sure a few property owners will have extra income, and host communities may broker a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement, but then what? Are we selling out too soon for too little?
The lure of easy money for economically depressed communities isn’t enough.
On the heels of Gov. Spitzer’s State of Upstate address, we must all realize that the revitalization of upstate New York will take much more than a one-note wind power strategy. More likely, leaders statewide will have to look to a multi-dimensional approach to solve Upstate’s economic quagmire.
In fact, the kinds of huge wind power projects that are being proposed throughout Upstate New York will harm some economic development opportunities. Tourism in rural New York—a multi-million dollar economic engine— is dependent to a large extent on its scenic value and its outstanding cultural sites and area attractions. Those who don’t see tourism as part of an
Upstate economic strategy are just as wrong as those who see it as the only strategy.
A balance must be met to ensure that Upstate has a range of economic development strategies that fit our needs. Now is the time to extend the olive branch and work together toward a solution we can all live with.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Use of eminent domain threatened by NANCY MADSEN
Landowners in the path of a proposed transmission line for the Galloo Island Wind Project have been threatened with eminent domain if they don't accept payments for easements to the property.
Farmers contacted by the Times on Friday said they have not agreed to the payments, preferring to wait until they attend an informational meeting organized by local agricultural interests.
"I noticed it (eminent domain) when I read it," William E. Eastman, an Ellisburg farmer, said. "We decided to wait for the workshop."
The power lines will reach from Henderson through Ellisburg, Sandy Creek, Richland and Albion to a larger transmission line in Parish.
The letter states the assessed value of land and the acreage Upstate NY Power Corp. would need for its line, totaling the value for that area. Assessments are not tied to market value, which can be established only through sales or appraisals.
The letter then reads, "However, in order to avoid the expenses, delays, and related inefficiencies of eminent domain," it offers a payment about four times the assessed value.
Upstate NY Power is backed by the global investment and advisory firm Babcock & Brown Limited. Babcock & Brown or its affiliates have never used eminent domain to obtain land, spokesman Matthew Dallas said.
"We're working for a voluntary transfer of the easements required," he said. "We're offering significantly more than the fair market value."
But if a landowner doesn't participate, the company will look for alternatives, he said.
Upstate NY Power does not have the authority to wield eminent domain, at least not yet. Upstate NY Power was formed through the state's transportation law, which potentially gives it the ability to use eminent domain to obtain easements for electricity transmission.
But first, the company must receive a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need from the Public Service Commission. Upstate NY Power has not yet filed any applications, so it "has not been granted status," PSC spokeswoman Anne V. Dalton said.
Jefferson County Agricultural Coordinator Jay M. Matteson said agricultural interests are not lost in the review process. The state's commissioner of agriculture and markets is also "at the table," because much of the area that would be included is part of agricultural districts.
And the county also has a say. Michael J. Bourcy, community development coordinator for the Jefferson County Planning Department, said that any entity wishing to use eminent domain on more than 10 acres in an agricultural district must give a notice of intent to the county's Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board.
"One of the benefits of an agricultural district is that it can put a limit on eminent domain," he said.
If an entity claims land through eminent domain, it must pay the full fair market value of the property, which is determined in a court proceeding.
Farmers in Jefferson and Oswego counties first received a letter about Jan. 18 saying that their land could be host to transmission lines for a proposed power project.
"I was concerned when I saw the letter," said Douglas W. Shelmidine, a Belleville farmer and president of the board for the Jefferson County Agricultural Development Corp.
He decided that landowners needed more information. So the Agricultural Development Corp. and the Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District planned a workshop for Thursday.
The workshop will include presentations from Upstate NY Power, the state Department of Agriculture and Markets, the conservation district and an attorney. The Public Service Commission also may attend. The workshop will be from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Henderson Fire District Building on Route 178.
About Jan. 29, a second letter was hand-delivered by Gotec Land Services, hired by Upstate NY Power, to farmers who are in the planned transmission line district. That letter contained the actual offer and the phrase "eminent domain."
The letter also offers an extra $1,000 for legal fees. It gives the landowner 30 days to consider the offer before it expires.
Mr. Shelmidine said that Gotec asked if he would sign that day, so it could begin engineering work, but "it wasn't a pressured push," he said. He has been encouraging other farmers to wait, as he will, until after the informational session.
Mr. Eastman said other farmers he's talked to have similar reactions.
"Really, I guess it's going to be an important meeting," he said.
_____________________________________
Comments from a CWW friend:
"I bring this article to your attention because I wish to share with you – Every official mentioned in this article received a letter from ECCO asking for them to step in and help in educating residents in the Clayton and Orleans Industrial Horse Creek Wind Farm district. The Townships of Clayton and Orleans and PPM Energy have offered no formal education to our residents here. Is it not interesting that when the state becomes involved to take over (Galloo Island) all matters of help in educating residents comes forward? What about the land in the Horse Creek district? Does it not show that our land (agricultural) sits on an aqua shed and what about the property owners who are going to have transmission lines adjacent to their homes? Don’t we deserve the same consideration these land owners in the Henderson etc are getting?"
Farmers contacted by the Times on Friday said they have not agreed to the payments, preferring to wait until they attend an informational meeting organized by local agricultural interests.
"I noticed it (eminent domain) when I read it," William E. Eastman, an Ellisburg farmer, said. "We decided to wait for the workshop."
The power lines will reach from Henderson through Ellisburg, Sandy Creek, Richland and Albion to a larger transmission line in Parish.
The letter states the assessed value of land and the acreage Upstate NY Power Corp. would need for its line, totaling the value for that area. Assessments are not tied to market value, which can be established only through sales or appraisals.
The letter then reads, "However, in order to avoid the expenses, delays, and related inefficiencies of eminent domain," it offers a payment about four times the assessed value.
Upstate NY Power is backed by the global investment and advisory firm Babcock & Brown Limited. Babcock & Brown or its affiliates have never used eminent domain to obtain land, spokesman Matthew Dallas said.
"We're working for a voluntary transfer of the easements required," he said. "We're offering significantly more than the fair market value."
But if a landowner doesn't participate, the company will look for alternatives, he said.
Upstate NY Power does not have the authority to wield eminent domain, at least not yet. Upstate NY Power was formed through the state's transportation law, which potentially gives it the ability to use eminent domain to obtain easements for electricity transmission.
But first, the company must receive a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need from the Public Service Commission. Upstate NY Power has not yet filed any applications, so it "has not been granted status," PSC spokeswoman Anne V. Dalton said.
Jefferson County Agricultural Coordinator Jay M. Matteson said agricultural interests are not lost in the review process. The state's commissioner of agriculture and markets is also "at the table," because much of the area that would be included is part of agricultural districts.
And the county also has a say. Michael J. Bourcy, community development coordinator for the Jefferson County Planning Department, said that any entity wishing to use eminent domain on more than 10 acres in an agricultural district must give a notice of intent to the county's Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board.
"One of the benefits of an agricultural district is that it can put a limit on eminent domain," he said.
If an entity claims land through eminent domain, it must pay the full fair market value of the property, which is determined in a court proceeding.
Farmers in Jefferson and Oswego counties first received a letter about Jan. 18 saying that their land could be host to transmission lines for a proposed power project.
"I was concerned when I saw the letter," said Douglas W. Shelmidine, a Belleville farmer and president of the board for the Jefferson County Agricultural Development Corp.
He decided that landowners needed more information. So the Agricultural Development Corp. and the Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District planned a workshop for Thursday.
The workshop will include presentations from Upstate NY Power, the state Department of Agriculture and Markets, the conservation district and an attorney. The Public Service Commission also may attend. The workshop will be from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Henderson Fire District Building on Route 178.
About Jan. 29, a second letter was hand-delivered by Gotec Land Services, hired by Upstate NY Power, to farmers who are in the planned transmission line district. That letter contained the actual offer and the phrase "eminent domain."
The letter also offers an extra $1,000 for legal fees. It gives the landowner 30 days to consider the offer before it expires.
Mr. Shelmidine said that Gotec asked if he would sign that day, so it could begin engineering work, but "it wasn't a pressured push," he said. He has been encouraging other farmers to wait, as he will, until after the informational session.
Mr. Eastman said other farmers he's talked to have similar reactions.
"Really, I guess it's going to be an important meeting," he said.
_____________________________________
Comments from a CWW friend:
"I bring this article to your attention because I wish to share with you – Every official mentioned in this article received a letter from ECCO asking for them to step in and help in educating residents in the Clayton and Orleans Industrial Horse Creek Wind Farm district. The Townships of Clayton and Orleans and PPM Energy have offered no formal education to our residents here. Is it not interesting that when the state becomes involved to take over (Galloo Island) all matters of help in educating residents comes forward? What about the land in the Horse Creek district? Does it not show that our land (agricultural) sits on an aqua shed and what about the property owners who are going to have transmission lines adjacent to their homes? Don’t we deserve the same consideration these land owners in the Henderson etc are getting?"
PSC moves to delay hearings by LARRY RULISON
Iberdrola denies it's target of hostile takeover, wants bid for Energy East to go forward
ALBANY -- Attorneys at the state Public Service Commission were scrambling this week to postpone hearings over the $4.5 billion acquisition of Energy East Corp. by the Spanish utility Iberdrola SA.
Headquartered in Maine, Energy East has 3 million customers in New York and New England. Its Rochester-based utility, New York State Electric & Gas, has 45,000 customers in the Capital Region.
Iberdrola originally came to the PSC in August seeking approval of the deal. Hearings were scheduled to begin Feb. 25.
However, late last month, several news reports said that Iberdrola was the target of a hostile takeover bid by France's largest utility, Electricite de France, with possible help from a Spanish construction company called Actividades de Construccion y Servicios SA. Other reports said that Germany's largest utility, E.ON AG, was also interested in acquiring Iberdrola.
On Tuesday, staff attorneys at the PSC made a motion to an administrative judge overseeing the hearing process, asking him to indefinitely suspend the hearings until more information can be uncovered about Iberdrola's possible suitors. PSC staff is seeking an answer by Feb. 19.
"Indeed, it is uncertain if Iberdrola will even continue to exist if the hostile takeover is consummated," staff wrote. "It may not be possible for this proceeding to go forward in the face of this uncertainty."
In filings made Thursday in response to PCS staff's postponement motion, Iberdrola and Energy East were defiant.
"Staff's motion is unnecessary and should be rejected because there has been no offer or bid made, or agreement reached, to acquire the stock of, or obtain a controlling interest in, Iberdrola," lawyers for Iberdrola and Energy East wrote.
The companies also argued that even if a bid to acquire Iberdrola were to actually materialize, then the PSC staff would be able to react at that point.
"In such an event, the commission and staff would have the ability to fully evaluate the impact of any such proposed evaluation," the companies said.
Staff at the PSC, which regulates the state's energy and telecom utilities, perform its day-to-day tasks and make recommendations to the PSC's board of five commissioners, which have the final say in such cases.
In previous filings, PSC staff have been critical of Iberdrola's bid to acquire Energy East and suggested that the company needed to provide more consumer benefits. They said it also needed to shed its wind farms in New York and the power plants already owned by Energy East in the state.
Iberdrola,in its response Thursday, also included in its filing a letter from ACS, the Spanish construction company, that said that it "has held discussions" with Electricite de France "about its interest in Iberdrola," but no agreement was reached.
Iberdrola officials declined to comment beyond its filing, and PSC staff will not comment in the middle of merger cases. Rulison can be reached at 454-5504 or by e-mail at lrulison@timesunion.com.
ALBANY -- Attorneys at the state Public Service Commission were scrambling this week to postpone hearings over the $4.5 billion acquisition of Energy East Corp. by the Spanish utility Iberdrola SA.
Headquartered in Maine, Energy East has 3 million customers in New York and New England. Its Rochester-based utility, New York State Electric & Gas, has 45,000 customers in the Capital Region.
Iberdrola originally came to the PSC in August seeking approval of the deal. Hearings were scheduled to begin Feb. 25.
However, late last month, several news reports said that Iberdrola was the target of a hostile takeover bid by France's largest utility, Electricite de France, with possible help from a Spanish construction company called Actividades de Construccion y Servicios SA. Other reports said that Germany's largest utility, E.ON AG, was also interested in acquiring Iberdrola.
On Tuesday, staff attorneys at the PSC made a motion to an administrative judge overseeing the hearing process, asking him to indefinitely suspend the hearings until more information can be uncovered about Iberdrola's possible suitors. PSC staff is seeking an answer by Feb. 19.
"Indeed, it is uncertain if Iberdrola will even continue to exist if the hostile takeover is consummated," staff wrote. "It may not be possible for this proceeding to go forward in the face of this uncertainty."
In filings made Thursday in response to PCS staff's postponement motion, Iberdrola and Energy East were defiant.
"Staff's motion is unnecessary and should be rejected because there has been no offer or bid made, or agreement reached, to acquire the stock of, or obtain a controlling interest in, Iberdrola," lawyers for Iberdrola and Energy East wrote.
The companies also argued that even if a bid to acquire Iberdrola were to actually materialize, then the PSC staff would be able to react at that point.
"In such an event, the commission and staff would have the ability to fully evaluate the impact of any such proposed evaluation," the companies said.
Staff at the PSC, which regulates the state's energy and telecom utilities, perform its day-to-day tasks and make recommendations to the PSC's board of five commissioners, which have the final say in such cases.
In previous filings, PSC staff have been critical of Iberdrola's bid to acquire Energy East and suggested that the company needed to provide more consumer benefits. They said it also needed to shed its wind farms in New York and the power plants already owned by Energy East in the state.
Iberdrola,in its response Thursday, also included in its filing a letter from ACS, the Spanish construction company, that said that it "has held discussions" with Electricite de France "about its interest in Iberdrola," but no agreement was reached.
Iberdrola officials declined to comment beyond its filing, and PSC staff will not comment in the middle of merger cases. Rulison can be reached at 454-5504 or by e-mail at lrulison@timesunion.com.
Friday, February 08, 2008
House could weigh energy tax bill next week: aides
The U.S. House of Representatives next week could weigh legislation that extends tax incentives to use renewable energy sources like wind and solar and slaps new taxes on big energy companies, Democratic aides said on Friday.
Plans have not been finalized, but Democratic leaders including Speaker Nancy Pelosi want to show their displeasure at near-record high oil prices and record-setting profits recently reported by oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp, aides said on condition of anonymity.
The legislation, which has not been unveiled, could be similar to a $21.5 billion tax package passed by the House in August but later dropped in order to secure Senate passage, aides said.
"House Democratic leadership is considering placing an energy tax package on the House floor next week," one aide said, pointing to soaring oil industry profits.
U.S. oil companies have lobbied heavily against the tax package, and the White House has threatened to veto it if Congress passes it.
Exxon, the world's largest oil company not run by a state, last week reported fourth-quarter net income of $11.66 billion, the highest-ever profit for a U.S. company, driven in part by crude oil futures near $100 a barrel.
Energy tax provisions passed by the House last year dangled new federal tax incentives for homeowners and businesses to buy new solar arrays, wind turbines and hybrid gas-electric cars.
To foot most of the price tag, the House bill repealed about $13 billion in tax subsidies extended to big oil and gas producers like Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp.
The original House tax provisions repealed Section 199 tax deduction for major integrated oil companies, generating $10 billion over 10 years, and dropped foreign income tax deductions for companies that produce oil and natural gas overseas, raising $3.19 billion.
It also ended tax break for companies to write off some exploration expenses over seven years, raising $4.1 billion in revenues.
Plans have not been finalized, but Democratic leaders including Speaker Nancy Pelosi want to show their displeasure at near-record high oil prices and record-setting profits recently reported by oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp, aides said on condition of anonymity.
The legislation, which has not been unveiled, could be similar to a $21.5 billion tax package passed by the House in August but later dropped in order to secure Senate passage, aides said.
"House Democratic leadership is considering placing an energy tax package on the House floor next week," one aide said, pointing to soaring oil industry profits.
U.S. oil companies have lobbied heavily against the tax package, and the White House has threatened to veto it if Congress passes it.
Exxon, the world's largest oil company not run by a state, last week reported fourth-quarter net income of $11.66 billion, the highest-ever profit for a U.S. company, driven in part by crude oil futures near $100 a barrel.
Energy tax provisions passed by the House last year dangled new federal tax incentives for homeowners and businesses to buy new solar arrays, wind turbines and hybrid gas-electric cars.
To foot most of the price tag, the House bill repealed about $13 billion in tax subsidies extended to big oil and gas producers like Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp.
The original House tax provisions repealed Section 199 tax deduction for major integrated oil companies, generating $10 billion over 10 years, and dropped foreign income tax deductions for companies that produce oil and natural gas overseas, raising $3.19 billion.
It also ended tax break for companies to write off some exploration expenses over seven years, raising $4.1 billion in revenues.
Senate Bill S4608 Letter to NYS Senate and Assembly by Paul Jacobs
To our elected officials in the Senate and Assembly of the State of New York,
Please be aware that I support the Alesi bill S4068 in the strongest possible manner. It is imperative that we take time to think this situation over before a blight of industrial turbines defaces the most beautiful natural landscapes in our state. These projects are being proposed and implemented at a prodigious pace and is important that we take time NOW to consider whether turbines on all the hilltops of New York is an outcome we want to support. If we do not, then such an outcome is a fait accompli.*
Paul Jacobs
South Bristol, NY
*Fait accompli -- An accomplished fact; an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it.
S4608 ALESI
Public Authorities
TITLE....Establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies
04/19/07 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
01/09/08 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SUMMARY:
ALESI, FLANAGAN, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, RATH, SEWARD, YOUNG
Establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; further establishes an 18 month moratorium upon the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; repeals such provisions effective December 31, 2008.
Please be aware that I support the Alesi bill S4068 in the strongest possible manner. It is imperative that we take time to think this situation over before a blight of industrial turbines defaces the most beautiful natural landscapes in our state. These projects are being proposed and implemented at a prodigious pace and is important that we take time NOW to consider whether turbines on all the hilltops of New York is an outcome we want to support. If we do not, then such an outcome is a fait accompli.*
Paul Jacobs
South Bristol, NY
*Fait accompli -- An accomplished fact; an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it.
S4608 ALESI
Public Authorities
TITLE....Establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies
04/19/07 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
01/09/08 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SUMMARY:
ALESI, FLANAGAN, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, RATH, SEWARD, YOUNG
Establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; further establishes an 18 month moratorium upon the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; repeals such provisions effective December 31, 2008.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE...SUPPORT SENATOR ALESI'S BILL FOR AN 18 MONTH MORATORIUM ON WIND FARM CONSTRUCTION.....
S4608 has been reintroduced.
Most of the elections in New York State in November resulted in many elected officials that voice the same concerns introduced in this bill. It is imperative that all Assembly and Senate of New York State be notified of your support for this bill. Please let the sponsors know that you support them in their efforts and please let the others know they should support them and why. Please encourage your local officials to do the same.
It would be advantageous to our "campaign" to send detailed emails from any place in the world. Describe the destruction (to the environment, community, etc. any aspects you have.) these projects have caused to your town, state, or country. I will be happy to write some sample letters that can be used for those who need them, as I have in the past.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYBODY ON YOUR EMAIL LIST AND CC ME (or send me emails of contact lists), IF YOU WOULD, SO THAT I CAN COMPILE AN EVEN GREATER NETWORK.
FURTHERMORE, please keep your fingers and toes crossed that my town, Brandon, NY USA will pass the restrictive ordinance on February 20th which will in essence ban industrial turbines from another community.
Most passionately,
Anne Britton
www.weopposewindfarms.org
North Country Advocates for the Environment
COPY THESE EMAIL ADDRESSES....you can do all of them at once...INSERT THEM INTO THE "TO" SECTION AND GET THEM SENT OUT...
eadams@senate.state.ny.us;alesi@senate.state.ny.us;
bonacic@senate.state.ny.us;breslin@senate.state.ny.us;
bruno@senate.state.ny.us; connor@senate.state.ny.us;
jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us;diaz@senate.state.ny.us;
dilan@senate.state.ny.us;duane@senate.state.ny.us;
farley@senate.state.ny.us;flanagan@senate.state.ny.us;
fuschill@senate.state.ny.us;golden@senate.state.ny.us;
gonzalez@senate.state.ny.us;griffo@senate.state.ny.us;
hannon@senate.state.ny.us;hassellt@senate.state.ny.us;
shuntley@senate.state.ny.us;ojohnson@senate.state.ny.us;
jdklein@senate.state.ny.us;lkrueger@senate.state.ny.us;
kruger@senate.state.ny.us;lanza@senate.state.ny.us;
larkin@senate.state.ny.us;lavalle@senate.state.ny.us;
leibell@senate.state.ny.us;senator@senatorlibous.com;
little@senate.state.ny.us;maltese@senate.state.ny.us;
marcelli@senate.state.ny.us;maziarz@senate.state.ny.us;
montgome@senate.state.ny.us;morahan@senate.state.ny.us;
nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us;onorato@senate.state.ny.us;
oppenhei@senate.state.ny.us;padavan@senate.state.ny.us;
parker@senate.state.ny.us;perkins@senate.state.ny.us;
rath@senate.state.ny.us;robach@senate.state.ny.us;
sabini@senate.state.ny.us;saland@senate.state.ny.us;
sampson@senate.state.ny.us;savino@senate.state.ny.us;
schneide@senate.state.ny.us;serrano@senate.state.ny.us;
seward@senate.state.ny.us;skelos@senate.state.ny.us;
masmith@senate.state.ny.us;stachows@senate.state.ny.us;
stavisky@senate.state.ny.us;scousins@senate.state.ny.us;
athompso@senate.state.ny.us;trunzo@senate.state.ny.us;
valesky@senate.state.ny.us;winner@senate.state.ny.us;
wright@senate.state.ny.us;cyoung@senate.state.ny.us
abbatep@assembly.state.ny.us, alessim@assembly.state.ny.us, arroyoc@assembly.state.ny.us, aubertd@assembly.state.ny.us, bacallj@assembly.state.ny.us, barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us, barrar@assembly.state.ny.us, benedem@assembly.state.ny.us, benjamm@assembly.state.ny.us, bingj@assembly.state.ny.us, boylep@assembly.state.ny.us, brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us, bradlea@assembly.state.ny.us, brennaj@assembly.state.ny.us, brownj@assembly.state.ny.us, cahillk@assembly.state.ny.us, crouchc@assembly.state.ny.us, cymbros@assembly.state.ny.us, diazr@assembly.state.ny.us, diazl@assembly.state.ny.us, dinapot@assembly.state.ny.us, dinowij@assembly.state.ny.us, engles@assembly.state.ny.us, farrelh@assembly.state.ny.us, finchg@assembly.state.ny.us, fitzpam@assembly.state.ny.us, friedms@assembly.state.ny.us, greenr@assembly.state.ny.us, hayesj@assembly.state.ny.us, gianarm@assembly.state.ny.us, giglioj@assembly.state.ny.us, glickd@assembly.state.ny.us, gordond@assembly.state.ny.us, gottfrr@assembly.state.ny.us, hayesj@assembly.state.ny.us, hikindd@assembly.state.ny.us, hoyts@assembly.state.ny.us, igniziv@assembly.state.ny.us, karbenr@assembly.state.ny.us, kirwant@assembly.state.ny.us, kolbb@assembly.state.ny.us, koond@assembly.state.ny.us, lafayei@assembly.state.ny.us, latimeg@assembly.state.ny.us, lavellj@assembly.state.ny.us, lavinec@assembly.state.ny.us, lentolj@assembly.state.ny.us, lopezv@assembly.state.ny.us, mageew@assembly.state.ny.us, magnarw@assembly.state.ny.us, maisela@assembly.state.ny.us, manninp@assembly.state.ny.us, mcdonar@assembly.state.ny.us, McDonoD@assembly.state.ny.us, mcenenj@assembly.state.ny.us, mckevit@assembly.state.ny.us, mclaugb@assembly.state.ny.us, mengj@assembly.state.ny.us, millerj@assembly.state.ny.us, mironem@assembly.state.ny.us, morellj@assembly.state.ny.us, mosiell@assembly.state.ny.us, odonned@assembly.state.ny.us, omarat@assembly.state.ny.us, oaksr@assembly.state.ny.us, ortizf@assembly.state.ny.us, ortlofc@assembly.state.ny.us, parmenw@assembly.state.ny.us, peraltj@assembly.state.ny.us, perryn@assembly.state.ny.us, powella@assembly.state.ny.us, pretloj@assembly.state.ny.us, quinnj@assembly.state.ny.us, raiaa@assembly.state.ny.us, ramosp@assembly.state.ny.us, reilicw@assembly.state.ny.us, reillyr@assembly.state.ny.us, riveraj@assembly.state.ny.us, riverap@assembly.state.ny.us, saladij@assembly.state.ny.us, scarbow@assembly.state.ny.us, schimmr@assembly.state.ny.us, schroem@assembly.state.ny.us, seminea@assembly.state.ny.us, stephew@assembly.state.ny.us, sweeney@assembly.state.ny.us, tediscj@assembly.state.ny.us, thielef@assembly.state.ny.us, tokaszp@assembly.state.ny.us, townsd@assembly.state.ny.us, townsed@assembly.state.ny.us, walkerr2@assembly.state.ny.us, weisenh@assembly.state.ny.us, weprinm@assembly.state.ny.us, wrightk@assembly.state.ny.us, zebrowk@assembly.state.ny.us
Assembly list compiled by Peggy of Save Western NY.
Thank you, Peggy
STATUS:
S4608 ALESI
Public Authorities
TITLE....Establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies
04/19/07 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
01/09/08 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SUMMARY:
ALESI, FLANAGAN, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, RATH, SEWARD, YOUNG
Establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; further establishes an 18 month moratorium upon the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; repeals such provisions effective December 31, 2008. BILL TEXT:
STATE OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
4608
2007-2008 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
April 19, 2007
___________
Introduced by Sens. ALESI, FLANAGAN, LEIBELL, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, RATH,
SEWARD -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be
committed to the Committee on Energy and Telecommunications
AN ACT in relation to establishing the New York state task force on wind
generating facilities siting and permitting policies
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, there
2 is hereby established a moratorium upon the siting and permitting of
3 wind energy production facilities for a period of 18 months. During the
4 period this section is in effect, no wind energy production facilities
5 shall be constructed or commence operation in any municipality in this
6 state.
7 § 2. The New York state task force on wind generating facilities
8 siting and permitting policy is hereby established. 1. The role of such
9 task force shall include, but not be limited to:
10 (a) analyzing the variety of current local processes for siting wind
11 energy production facilities;
12 (b) considering establishing a standardized formula for the siting of
13 wind energy generating facilities to use the following factors:
14 (i) proximity to residential areas;
15 (ii) availability of natural resources;
16 (iii) economic impact on the local community;
17 (iv) visual, audible and atmospheric impacts; and
18 (v) impact on adjacent communities;
19 (c) investigating the possibility of a uniform permitting procedure
20 for the siting of wind energy generating facilities;
21 (d) studying the feasibility of establishing a statewide list of prop-
22 erties which are appropriate for wind energy generating facilities and
23 the siting of such a facility would have no impact on residential or
24 neighboring communities; and
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD11155-01-7
S. 4608 2
1 (e) preparing and submitting a report to the governor and the legisla-
2 ture that provides specific recommendations including, but not limited
3 to, the existing local laws on the siting of wind energy generating
4 facilities; the necessity of a statewide policy on wind energy generat-
5 ing facilities and the possible structure of a statewide policy on wind
6 energy generating facilities.
7 2. The task force shall issue such report by December 31, 2008.
8 § 3. (a) The New York state task force on wind generating facilities
9 siting and permitting policy shall study the need for a uniform state-
10 wide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy generat-
11 ing facilities.
12 (b) Such task force shall consist of fifteen members including: the
13 commissioners of agriculture and markets, department of economic devel-
14 opment, department of environmental conservation, department of health,
15 chairperson of the public service commission, chairperson of the New
16 York state energy research and development authority, or a designee of
17 any such officers. The remaining nine at-large members shall be
18 appointed as follows: three members shall be appointed by the governor,
19 one of whom shall be an officer, employee or representative of a utility
20 company, one of whom shall be a member, officer or employee of a state-
21 wide association representing and advocating for the interests of local
22 governments, one of whom shall be a representative of a public interest
23 group; two members shall be appointed by the temporary president of the
24 senate, one of whom shall be a member, officer or employee of a state-
25 wide association representing the interest of farmers; one member shall
26 be appointed by the minority leader of the senate; two members shall be
27 appointed by the speaker of the assembly, one of whom shall be a member,
28 officer or employee of a statewide organization advocating on behalf of
29 the environment; and one member shall be appointed by the minority lead-
30 er of the assembly.
31 § 4. The chairperson of the New York state energy research and devel-
32 opment authority shall be the chairperson of the task force.
33 § 5. The members of the task force shall serve without actual compen-
34 sation, except the at-large members shall be allowed their necessary and
35 actual expenses incurred in the performance of their duties under this
36 act.
37 § 6. The task force shall expire December 31, 2008.
38 § 7. The New York state energy research and development authority
39 shall provide the task force with such facilities, assistance, and data
40 as will enable the task force to carry out its powers and duties. Addi-
41 tionally, all other departments or agencies of the state or subdivisions
42 thereof shall at the request of the chairperson, provide the task force
43 with such facilities, assistance and data as will enable the task force
44 to carry out its powers and duties.
45 § 8. This act shall take effect immediately.
SPONSORS MEMO:
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
INTRODUCER'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
submitted in accordance with Senate Rule VI. Sec 1
Most of the elections in New York State in November resulted in many elected officials that voice the same concerns introduced in this bill. It is imperative that all Assembly and Senate of New York State be notified of your support for this bill. Please let the sponsors know that you support them in their efforts and please let the others know they should support them and why. Please encourage your local officials to do the same.
It would be advantageous to our "campaign" to send detailed emails from any place in the world. Describe the destruction (to the environment, community, etc. any aspects you have.) these projects have caused to your town, state, or country. I will be happy to write some sample letters that can be used for those who need them, as I have in the past.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYBODY ON YOUR EMAIL LIST AND CC ME (or send me emails of contact lists), IF YOU WOULD, SO THAT I CAN COMPILE AN EVEN GREATER NETWORK.
FURTHERMORE, please keep your fingers and toes crossed that my town, Brandon, NY USA will pass the restrictive ordinance on February 20th which will in essence ban industrial turbines from another community.
Most passionately,
Anne Britton
www.weopposewindfarms.org
North Country Advocates for the Environment
COPY THESE EMAIL ADDRESSES....you can do all of them at once...INSERT THEM INTO THE "TO" SECTION AND GET THEM SENT OUT...
eadams@senate.state.ny.us;alesi@senate.state.ny.us;
bonacic@senate.state.ny.us;breslin@senate.state.ny.us;
bruno@senate.state.ny.us; connor@senate.state.ny.us;
jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us;diaz@senate.state.ny.us;
dilan@senate.state.ny.us;duane@senate.state.ny.us;
farley@senate.state.ny.us;flanagan@senate.state.ny.us;
fuschill@senate.state.ny.us;golden@senate.state.ny.us;
gonzalez@senate.state.ny.us;griffo@senate.state.ny.us;
hannon@senate.state.ny.us;hassellt@senate.state.ny.us;
shuntley@senate.state.ny.us;ojohnson@senate.state.ny.us;
jdklein@senate.state.ny.us;lkrueger@senate.state.ny.us;
kruger@senate.state.ny.us;lanza@senate.state.ny.us;
larkin@senate.state.ny.us;lavalle@senate.state.ny.us;
leibell@senate.state.ny.us;senator@senatorlibous.com;
little@senate.state.ny.us;maltese@senate.state.ny.us;
marcelli@senate.state.ny.us;maziarz@senate.state.ny.us;
montgome@senate.state.ny.us;morahan@senate.state.ny.us;
nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us;onorato@senate.state.ny.us;
oppenhei@senate.state.ny.us;padavan@senate.state.ny.us;
parker@senate.state.ny.us;perkins@senate.state.ny.us;
rath@senate.state.ny.us;robach@senate.state.ny.us;
sabini@senate.state.ny.us;saland@senate.state.ny.us;
sampson@senate.state.ny.us;savino@senate.state.ny.us;
schneide@senate.state.ny.us;serrano@senate.state.ny.us;
seward@senate.state.ny.us;skelos@senate.state.ny.us;
masmith@senate.state.ny.us;stachows@senate.state.ny.us;
stavisky@senate.state.ny.us;scousins@senate.state.ny.us;
athompso@senate.state.ny.us;trunzo@senate.state.ny.us;
valesky@senate.state.ny.us;winner@senate.state.ny.us;
wright@senate.state.ny.us;cyoung@senate.state.ny.us
abbatep@assembly.state.ny.us, alessim@assembly.state.ny.us, arroyoc@assembly.state.ny.us, aubertd@assembly.state.ny.us, bacallj@assembly.state.ny.us, barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us, barrar@assembly.state.ny.us, benedem@assembly.state.ny.us, benjamm@assembly.state.ny.us, bingj@assembly.state.ny.us, boylep@assembly.state.ny.us, brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us, bradlea@assembly.state.ny.us, brennaj@assembly.state.ny.us, brownj@assembly.state.ny.us, cahillk@assembly.state.ny.us, crouchc@assembly.state.ny.us, cymbros@assembly.state.ny.us, diazr@assembly.state.ny.us, diazl@assembly.state.ny.us, dinapot@assembly.state.ny.us, dinowij@assembly.state.ny.us, engles@assembly.state.ny.us, farrelh@assembly.state.ny.us, finchg@assembly.state.ny.us, fitzpam@assembly.state.ny.us, friedms@assembly.state.ny.us, greenr@assembly.state.ny.us, hayesj@assembly.state.ny.us, gianarm@assembly.state.ny.us, giglioj@assembly.state.ny.us, glickd@assembly.state.ny.us, gordond@assembly.state.ny.us, gottfrr@assembly.state.ny.us, hayesj@assembly.state.ny.us, hikindd@assembly.state.ny.us, hoyts@assembly.state.ny.us, igniziv@assembly.state.ny.us, karbenr@assembly.state.ny.us, kirwant@assembly.state.ny.us, kolbb@assembly.state.ny.us, koond@assembly.state.ny.us, lafayei@assembly.state.ny.us, latimeg@assembly.state.ny.us, lavellj@assembly.state.ny.us, lavinec@assembly.state.ny.us, lentolj@assembly.state.ny.us, lopezv@assembly.state.ny.us, mageew@assembly.state.ny.us, magnarw@assembly.state.ny.us, maisela@assembly.state.ny.us, manninp@assembly.state.ny.us, mcdonar@assembly.state.ny.us, McDonoD@assembly.state.ny.us, mcenenj@assembly.state.ny.us, mckevit@assembly.state.ny.us, mclaugb@assembly.state.ny.us, mengj@assembly.state.ny.us, millerj@assembly.state.ny.us, mironem@assembly.state.ny.us, morellj@assembly.state.ny.us, mosiell@assembly.state.ny.us, odonned@assembly.state.ny.us, omarat@assembly.state.ny.us, oaksr@assembly.state.ny.us, ortizf@assembly.state.ny.us, ortlofc@assembly.state.ny.us, parmenw@assembly.state.ny.us, peraltj@assembly.state.ny.us, perryn@assembly.state.ny.us, powella@assembly.state.ny.us, pretloj@assembly.state.ny.us, quinnj@assembly.state.ny.us, raiaa@assembly.state.ny.us, ramosp@assembly.state.ny.us, reilicw@assembly.state.ny.us, reillyr@assembly.state.ny.us, riveraj@assembly.state.ny.us, riverap@assembly.state.ny.us, saladij@assembly.state.ny.us, scarbow@assembly.state.ny.us, schimmr@assembly.state.ny.us, schroem@assembly.state.ny.us, seminea@assembly.state.ny.us, stephew@assembly.state.ny.us, sweeney@assembly.state.ny.us, tediscj@assembly.state.ny.us, thielef@assembly.state.ny.us, tokaszp@assembly.state.ny.us, townsd@assembly.state.ny.us, townsed@assembly.state.ny.us, walkerr2@assembly.state.ny.us, weisenh@assembly.state.ny.us, weprinm@assembly.state.ny.us, wrightk@assembly.state.ny.us, zebrowk@assembly.state.ny.us
Assembly list compiled by Peggy of Save Western NY.
Thank you, Peggy
STATUS:
S4608 ALESI
Public Authorities
TITLE....Establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies
04/19/07 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
01/09/08 REFERRED TO ENERGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SUMMARY:
ALESI, FLANAGAN, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, RATH, SEWARD, YOUNG
Establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; further establishes an 18 month moratorium upon the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; repeals such provisions effective December 31, 2008. BILL TEXT:
STATE OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
4608
2007-2008 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
April 19, 2007
___________
Introduced by Sens. ALESI, FLANAGAN, LEIBELL, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, RATH,
SEWARD -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be
committed to the Committee on Energy and Telecommunications
AN ACT in relation to establishing the New York state task force on wind
generating facilities siting and permitting policies
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, there
2 is hereby established a moratorium upon the siting and permitting of
3 wind energy production facilities for a period of 18 months. During the
4 period this section is in effect, no wind energy production facilities
5 shall be constructed or commence operation in any municipality in this
6 state.
7 § 2. The New York state task force on wind generating facilities
8 siting and permitting policy is hereby established. 1. The role of such
9 task force shall include, but not be limited to:
10 (a) analyzing the variety of current local processes for siting wind
11 energy production facilities;
12 (b) considering establishing a standardized formula for the siting of
13 wind energy generating facilities to use the following factors:
14 (i) proximity to residential areas;
15 (ii) availability of natural resources;
16 (iii) economic impact on the local community;
17 (iv) visual, audible and atmospheric impacts; and
18 (v) impact on adjacent communities;
19 (c) investigating the possibility of a uniform permitting procedure
20 for the siting of wind energy generating facilities;
21 (d) studying the feasibility of establishing a statewide list of prop-
22 erties which are appropriate for wind energy generating facilities and
23 the siting of such a facility would have no impact on residential or
24 neighboring communities; and
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD11155-01-7
S. 4608 2
1 (e) preparing and submitting a report to the governor and the legisla-
2 ture that provides specific recommendations including, but not limited
3 to, the existing local laws on the siting of wind energy generating
4 facilities; the necessity of a statewide policy on wind energy generat-
5 ing facilities and the possible structure of a statewide policy on wind
6 energy generating facilities.
7 2. The task force shall issue such report by December 31, 2008.
8 § 3. (a) The New York state task force on wind generating facilities
9 siting and permitting policy shall study the need for a uniform state-
10 wide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy generat-
11 ing facilities.
12 (b) Such task force shall consist of fifteen members including: the
13 commissioners of agriculture and markets, department of economic devel-
14 opment, department of environmental conservation, department of health,
15 chairperson of the public service commission, chairperson of the New
16 York state energy research and development authority, or a designee of
17 any such officers. The remaining nine at-large members shall be
18 appointed as follows: three members shall be appointed by the governor,
19 one of whom shall be an officer, employee or representative of a utility
20 company, one of whom shall be a member, officer or employee of a state-
21 wide association representing and advocating for the interests of local
22 governments, one of whom shall be a representative of a public interest
23 group; two members shall be appointed by the temporary president of the
24 senate, one of whom shall be a member, officer or employee of a state-
25 wide association representing the interest of farmers; one member shall
26 be appointed by the minority leader of the senate; two members shall be
27 appointed by the speaker of the assembly, one of whom shall be a member,
28 officer or employee of a statewide organization advocating on behalf of
29 the environment; and one member shall be appointed by the minority lead-
30 er of the assembly.
31 § 4. The chairperson of the New York state energy research and devel-
32 opment authority shall be the chairperson of the task force.
33 § 5. The members of the task force shall serve without actual compen-
34 sation, except the at-large members shall be allowed their necessary and
35 actual expenses incurred in the performance of their duties under this
36 act.
37 § 6. The task force shall expire December 31, 2008.
38 § 7. The New York state energy research and development authority
39 shall provide the task force with such facilities, assistance, and data
40 as will enable the task force to carry out its powers and duties. Addi-
41 tionally, all other departments or agencies of the state or subdivisions
42 thereof shall at the request of the chairperson, provide the task force
43 with such facilities, assistance and data as will enable the task force
44 to carry out its powers and duties.
45 § 8. This act shall take effect immediately.
SPONSORS MEMO:
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
INTRODUCER'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
submitted in accordance with Senate Rule VI. Sec 1
Sam Hopkins Wind Debate with CWW Interactive Community
Sam Hopkins initial email to CWW and the responses from the CWW Interactive Community.
Subscribe with your RSS reader to the Forum Posts
Subscribe with your RSS reader to the Forum Posts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)